JP\/3\/COMMENTARY
\nA place for human rights in RI foreign policy
\nor
\nIs there a place for human rights in RI foreign policy?<\/p>\n
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat
\nThe Jakarta Post\/Jakarta<\/p>\n
As the world marks International Human Rights Day on Saturday,
\nIndonesians have a lot to be proud of. While many facets of
\nrights protection are still wanting, Indonesia has -- since 1998
\n-- begun laying in earnest the foundations of a nation-state with
\ngreater accountability and respect for human rights.<\/p>\n
As a natural extension of domestic politics, there was hope
\nthat, with greater internal stability, Indonesia's foreign policy
\nwould also reflect the rejuvenated values of human rights
\nprotection.<\/p>\n
This though has not been the case. And, in the longer term, it
\nis probably unlikely that foreign policy will truly reflect the
\ndomestic exuberance that Indonesians have toward human rights and
\ndemocratic values.<\/p>\n
There have been "celebrated" developments in the foreign
\naffairs field vis-a-vis rights protection -- the ratification of
\nthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
\nInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
\nand Indonesia's chairing of the UN Commission on Human Rights.<\/p>\n
However these laudable achievements, important though they
\nare, are mostly contextual and structural in nature.<\/p>\n
In a practical sense, Indonesian foreign policy does not fully
\nrepresent the environmental changes and change of mind-set
\nevolving in this society.<\/p>\n
The clearest and most frequently cited example has been
\nJakarta's refusal to take a tougher line on the oppression of
\npolitical rights in Myanmar. Another is its negligence toward
\nraising issues of persecution and terror in a country like North
\nKorea.<\/p>\n
This country should not form the habit of advocating regime
\nchange or altering political systems, but it can show greater
\nconcern toward ensuring basic rights ideals are adhered to.<\/p>\n
Freedom of expression, equitable political representation
\n(elections), due process and protection from torture are concepts
\nthat transcend any system -- communist, capitalist or socialist.<\/p>\n
Just as Indonesian diplomats raised the issue of the shooting
\nof dozens of Muslim detainees in southern Thailand during the
\nASEAN meeting last year, they should show consistency by raising
\nother such issues.<\/p>\n
Only the doctrines of state sovereignty and non-interference
\ncontinue to be the cornerstones of Indonesian foreign policy. We
\nalso hear repeated rationalizations that rights issues are
\ndiscussed using a softer approach.<\/p>\n
Be that as it may, the most conspicuous evidence still points
\nto the fact that Indonesia preserves a harmonious relationship
\nwith regimes that are incontrovertibly the most blatant violators
\nof basic human rights.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the fault lies not in the application of foreign
\npolicy itself, but rather expectations of what it can achieve.<\/p>\n
Indonesian foreign policy, like that of any other country in
\nthe world, will remain pragmatic based on geopolitical concerns
\nand "national interests" rather than idealistic.<\/p>\n
The priorities set by the prevailing government -- investment,
\ntrade, economic aid, defense etc. -- will determine its
\ndirection rather than an immediate sense of virtue.<\/p>\n
It is "our" mistake to rely on the instruments of power as
\nvanguards of principles, which effectively undermine the
\nabsoluteness of power, which all regimes intrinsically covet.<\/p>\n
What should be recognized in this new century is that the
\nstate is no longer the sole actor in foreign policy.<\/p>\n
Non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, think
\ntanks, and parliamentary unions can do much in helping shape the
\nforeign policy agenda.<\/p>\n
Nowhere is this more evident than on the issue of Myanmar.
\nVarious regional interest group meetings and even the views of
\nthe ASEAN Inter-parliamentary Union (AIPO) are divergent from
\nthose of their respective foreign ministries.<\/p>\n
By doing so, it has become increasingly evident that the
\nforeign policies of respective ASEAN foreign ministries no longer
\nconform to the views of the peoples they claim to represent.<\/p>\n
If such activism can be crystallized into domestic pressure,
\nthen degrees of alteration from the present foreign policy
\nstandpoint may occur.<\/p>\n
Even in the United States, for example, specific issues on
\nhuman rights are more often put on the foreign policy agenda
\nafter intensive lobbying from interest groups and congress.<\/p>\n
This, in essence, is democracy at work.<\/p>\n
The business of government is too important to be left to the
\ngovernment alone. The people, through various alternative
\nchannels, should push the government to listen to them. This is
\nparticularly necessary when it comes to the promotion and
\nprotection of human rights.<\/p>\n
Failure to do so will sustain foreign policies that will
\nbecome increasingly alien, even to domestic constituents.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp3commentary-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}