ABSTRACT
Introduction Let us move towards a conclusion by returning to the verdicts of the Jayapura court martial on the Papuan torture video case (see Chapter 4). The reason to highlight the verdict is because it encapsulates in the most recent example of the nature and logic of torture in Papua. While the six soldiers were found guilty and sentenced to jail for five to ten months, the court did not find them guilty of torture. Rather, they were found guilty of ‘not following orders’ from their relevant superiors. Similarly, the court found the commandant of the group guilty and sentenced him for seven months but not because of torture. Rather, it was because he ‘deliberately provided an opportunity to his subordinates to not follow his orders’. As the verdicts fix on the matter of ‘following orders’, the court martial fails to recognise torture as a form of state-sponsored brutality. Instead of punishing torture to pave the way to build peace in Papua, the court reinforced and perpetuated the spectacle of the sovereign of the Indonesian State. As a result, the issue remains how appropriately sovereignty is asserted rather than whether rights and bodies are respected. This drama helps summarise the intention of this book, namely to provide the first full-length examination of the nature and logic of torture that serves as a basis for strengthening the Papua Land of Peace framework in Papua. The examination has answered the following research questions:
1 What is the raison d’être and structure of the politics of torture in Papua? 2 What is the underlying logic that underpins this politics? 3 What are the differences between the ways in which the politics of torture is
understood by perpetrators, torture survivors and spectators? 4 What kind of peacebuilding will adequately come to grips with these logics
and practices?
