Image building, human rights in an emerging democracy<\/p>\n
Benny YP Siahaan, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The common question addressed to a state undergoing a
\ndemocratic transition is how long the transition is to continue
\nand last. The answer to this of course is not simple.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has undergone a dramatic change after the fall of
\nthe Soeharto regime in 1998. However, some of us, especially
\nhuman rights activists, are impatient to see the transition
\ncompleted, since, perhaps we think it can be done overnight.<\/p>\n
Therefore it is assumed that for those activists talking and
\nblaming are cheap. The recent case of a human rights activist and
\na member the General Elections Commission (KPU) who was allegedly
\ninvolved in a corruption case, if proven to be true, would
\ncorroborate that assumption.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, amid the positive progress, it must be admitted
\nthat there have been some fouls also especially with regard to
\nhuman rights. However, it must be remembered that in human rights
\nmatters no countries in the world are perfect. According to David
\nForsythe (2000), a noted human rights scholar, even countries
\nthat currently are seen as human rights champions have no
\nrelative and historical background given historical facts such as
\nslavery and racial segregation, racist immigration laws, anti-
\nSemitism etc.<\/p>\n
However, in the past decades those countries have been more
\nadvanced and skillful in manipulating international human rights
\npolitics and thus transforming their image from human rights
\nviolators into human rights champions<\/p>\n
But some activists are just blindfolded by this situation or
\nare afraid of criticizing them as this may affect their financial
\nresources.<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, human rights is not an alien concept especially
\nin the earlier stage of the Republic. However, human rights
\nissues became a sensitive issue for Indonesia, especially under
\nthe Soeharto administration (1966-1998). In this period the
\ndiplomacy of Indonesia in human rights terms may be characterized
\nas defensive.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the rise of human rights politics in the past two
\ndecades poses a puzzle both to leaders and scholars of
\ninternational relations. Indonesia so far has joined several
\ninternational human rights conventions either as a party or a
\nsignatory.<\/p>\n
Although these efforts are perceived by some as an initial
\ngenuine effort to protect and promote human rights at the
\nnational level, many have also called the efforts hollow.
\nHowever, this is not a strange thing since in human rights
\npolitics pointing the finger, blaming and shaming has become a
\nritual.<\/p>\n
Reports are usually full of blaming and shaming of other
\ncountries. So far, China is one of the few countries which has
\ndared to challenge this practice by annually publishing a book on
\nthe human rights situation in a particular country.<\/p>\n
Despite the blame-game, Indonesia should address the issues
\nthat have so far become an easy target for human rights
\nviolations accusations. In this regard separatism in Aceh and
\nPapua has been quite a conundrum for Indonesia. However, with the
\nlessons taken from more than two decades of a heavy-handed policy
\nto address separatism in Aceh and Papua and the loss of East
\nTimor, the government has learned the benefits and liabilities of
\noppressing the Papuans and Acehnese.<\/p>\n
On the accusation that the government is hostile to foreign
\nand domestic NGOs critical of Indonesia's human rights record, if
\nwe want to criticize, but we convey it in a proper and
\nconstructive way, I believe the people or authorities we
\ncriticize will listen soon or later. However, if we do it in a
\nhostile way, the result will usually be counter-productive. Sadly
\nthose international human rights NGOs like Tapol, Amnesty
\nInternational or Human Rights Watch prefer to choose the latter
\napproach.<\/p>\n
With regards to Aceh, apart from the government's efforts to
\ndiscourage the separatist sentiment among the Acehnese, for the
\ntime being Indonesia could take a rest for a while. None of the
\nmajor powers would give consent to the independence of Aceh.<\/p>\n
However, the government would be misguided if it is of the
\nopinion that most foreign countries, especially the U.S. and
\nother Western countries, are generally opposed to separatism.
\nEast Timor's breakaway from Indonesia is the best example of how
\nfluid the position of countries toward separatism is.<\/p>\n
Coming back to promotion and protection of human rights issues
\nnationally, the hardest task is to bring awareness to the
\nofficials who in performing their job have high chances of
\nabusing human rights, such as the police and the military. After
\nmore than 30 years of being the security machine of an
\nauthoritarian regime, it will take time to change their mind set
\nto appreciate human rights. Thus, it is our job to educate them
\nnot only the government.<\/p>\n
Image building is important for Indonesia at present. Indeed,
\nas Peter van Ham rightly pointed out in his famous article in
\nForeign Affairs magazine (2001) that the notion of \"brand state\"
\nor image and reputation of a country is very important in
\ndetermining the future of a country. In this regard, Indonesia is
\ngoing in the right direction, if all components of society, both
\ngovernment and civil society support it.<\/p>\n
The writer is an Indonesian diplomat and an alumnus of Tsukuba
\nUniversity in Japan. The views reflected in this article are his
\nown.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/image-building-human-rights-in-an-emerging-democracy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}