Indonesia’s decision to declare former president Soeharto—a figure long associated with authoritarian rule and human rights violations—as a national hero has drawn intense scrutiny from foreign media.
International outlets highlight the move as a troubling revision of history, sparking debates about political memory, accountability, and the enduring influence of the New Order.
As global commentators react with concern, the controversy places Indonesia under a spotlight, prompting deeper questions about how nations reconcile progress with their most contested pasts.
International Outcry
Foreign news outlets have overwhelmingly framed Indonesia’s decision to grant former president Soeharto the status of national hero as a deeply controversial and disturbing move.
The Guardian described the decision as provoking “widespread outrage” and characterized it as an attempt to whitewash decades of abuses from Soeharto’s authoritarian regime.
Similarly, the Associated Press, as covered by major outlets like the Washington Post, pointed out that rights groups view the honor as an effort to erase or soften the painful parts of Indonesia’s past.
These reports emphasize the weight of Soeharto’s legacy—his 32-year rule saw corruption, censorship, and large-scale human rights violations.
Human Rights Concerns
A central thread in the international media coverage is the criticism from human rights organizations and scholars. Amnesty International and local groups are widely quoted as warning that this decision undermines justice and accountability for past atrocities.
ABC News reflected similar concerns, reporting that opponents of the decision accuse government officials of “twisting the facts” about Soeharto’s regime.
The Straits Times also covered protests by civil-society groups who carried signs like “Stop the whitewashing of the general of butchery,” calling into question how a man with such a bloody record could receive heroic recognition.
A Sign of Persistent Authoritarian Influence
International academic observers have also weighed in, noting that this move reflects broader political dynamics in Indonesia today.
Tom Pepinsky, a professor of government at Cornell University, told media that naming Soeharto a national hero reveals how deeply the legacy of authoritarianism is still embedded in contemporary Indonesian institutions.
According to Pepinsky, the honor sends a signal: despite the reforms of 1998 and beyond, elements of the old New Order — its power structures, its elites — remain influential in shaping national narratives.
The Cornell Chronicle echoed this, saying the decision is not just symbolic but may normalize an embrace of Soeharto-era values.
Warning from Activists
International civic groups have also issued warnings that restoring Soeharto’s reputation in this way risks erasing critical parts of Indonesia’s collective memory.
In coverage by ABC News and other outlets, activists argue that honoring Soeharto could be a betrayal to victims of state violence — particularly those who died or suffered under his crackdown on dissent and political opposition.
The Star reported coverage of a wide coalition of transnational civic organizations who denounced the move as a “brazen insult” to survivors of mass violence.
Some critics fear that awarding a national hero title to Soeharto will cement a version of history that sanitizes or ignores his role in atrocities, including the mass killings of the mid-1960s and other repressive campaigns.
Reflections on Indonesia’s Political Trajectory
Beyond the immediate controversy, international analysts view this decision as a broader signal about the direction of Indonesia’s politics.
As covered by Cornell University media, the award is seen as evidence that the New Order’s shadow still looms large, influencing not only how history is remembered, but how power is wielded today.
For many foreign observers, the move also raises alarm about a possible rollback of past reforms: democratic reforms, media freedoms, and accountability for past wrongs may be at risk if authoritarian legacies are rehabilitated.
In sum, foreign media coverage of Suharto’s elevation to national hero is dominated by alarm over historical whitewashing, human rights, and the enduring influence of authoritarianism.
This decision has not just reopened old wounds — it has sparked global scrutiny over how modern Indonesia chooses to remember, rehabilitate, or reject its past.
