Review on Indonesia's human rights record (1)<\/p>\n
Indonesia has come under heavy international fire lately over its
\nhuman rights record. Columnist Irawan Abidin takes a look at the
\nissue. This is the first of two articles.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia's human rights record has come under
\nheavy fire from Amnesty International in recent weeks. In a report
\nentitled \"Power and Impunity,\" the London-based human rights
\norganization levels some shocking charges at the Indonesian
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Amnesty accuses Indonesia of condoning \"systematic barbarities on
\na staggering scale,\" of being ready to \"murder, torture and jail
\nits people at the slightest provocation\" and of killing \"hundreds
\nof thousands of civilians.\" It also admonishes certain Western
\ngovernments for the cooperative rather than confrontational stance
\nthey have taken towards Indonesia.<\/p>\n
These are serious allegations. And while Indonesia's human rights
\nrecord is far from perfect, anyone familiar with the country can
\ntell you that to stereotype the Indonesian government as
\n\"criminal,\" the sum of the Amnesty report according to one
\njournalist, is more a case of hyperbole and politicking than an
\nobjective appraisal of the actual situation.<\/p>\n
To be sure, there is a tendency, particularly in politics, to
\ncast issues in stark black and white terms. But Amnesty's wholesale
\n\"demonization\" of Indonesia's political system -- indeed any such
\nindictment of a nation's institutions and officials -- should be
\nviewed with a critical eye and skepticism.<\/p>\n
On the Amnesty International report, Australian Foreign Minister
\nGareth Evans recently told parliament that, \"it's not an objective
\nor measured or balanced analysis of the situation, either in
\nIndonesia overall or in East Timor in particular.<\/p>\n
It is also the case that the report wholly obscures the
\nimprovements which have unquestionably taken place in economic and
\nsocial rights -- whatever may be the case and whatever your
\nassessment may have been when you focus solely on civil and
\npolitical rights.\" Evans further stated that Amnesty's report was
\nessentially a campaign document, and that its treatment of the
\nfacts produced very \"misleading results\".<\/p>\n
There are two reasons why it is reasonable to believe that
\nAmnesty is merely waging a political campaign against Indonesia and
\nnot really concerned about promoting human rights in the country.<\/p>\n
The first is the timing of the reports release and the fanfare
\nthat attended it. The releases were timed to coincide with the
\nfinal stages of Indonesia's preparations to host the Asia Pacific
\nEconomic Cooperation (APEC) meetings last November. Like the APEC
\nmeetings that took place in Seattle and on Blake Island the year
\nbefore, the APEC meetings in Indonesia last November were important
\nbuilding blocks for a stronger multilateral trading system in the
\nregion. Approximately 2,500 foreign journalists were on hand to
\ncover the event. At about the same time, Amnesty's chief spokesman
\ntraveled to Bangkok, Wellington, Sydney and Tokyo to launch a
\nmassive publicity campaign against Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The second indication is that the Amnesty report runs counter to
\nthe present approach of many Western countries to human rights
\nissues in Asia. In line with the United Nations Charter, the United
\nStates and others have placed the promotion and protection of human
\nrights within the context of international cooperation.<\/p>\n
Amnesty's defamatory report on Indonesia is clearly out of step
\nwith this thinking. In many cases, such as the APEC meeting in
\nIndonesia, questions of human rights have been separated from
\nissues of economic and development cooperation. And there are good
\nreasons why a policy of cooperation, rather than one of
\nconfrontation, is likely to be successful in improving human rights
\nin Asia.<\/p>\n
Asian countries, too, recognize the universal validity of basic
\nhuman rights and fundamental freedoms. In Indonesia, as is the case
\nin many developing countries, the rights of the individual are
\nbalanced by the rights of the community -- in fact the welfare of
\nthe community often takes precedence over the desires of any single
\nindividual or group.<\/p>\n
We also share a strong belief that the most fundamental of human
\nrights -- the right to be free, includes not only the right to
\npolitical freedom but also the right to be free from want,
\nignorance, social injustice and economic backwardness. There are
\ncultural, historical and practical reasons why the concepts of
\nbasic freedoms have evolved differently in Asia than in the West,
\na fact which, although little appreciated in the past, is today
\ngaining broader recognition.<\/p>\n
In this context, Amnesty's use of high-profile publicity tactics
\nto promote human rights in Indonesia seems all the more anomalous
\nand puzzling. As recent history clearly shows, such efforts
\nactually ill-serve the cause of human rights in Asia.<\/p>\n
The brunt of the Amnesty campaign targets Indonesia's policies
\ntowards East Timor, a former Portuguese colony, now the 27th
\nprovince in Indonesia. In 1975, in the midst of the colony's bloody
\ncivil war, Portugal abandoned East Timor, leaving it in what many
\nexperts have called a pitiful state. A year later, the people of
\nthe East Timor, in their first exercise of democratic rights and
\nself-determination, duly elected a representative assembly and
\nchose integration into Indonesia. Although it has been the subject
\nof some international debate, the province's status as part of
\nIndonesia is today recognized as a matter of fact by many
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
Integration with Indonesia has restored order and stability to
\nthe region and enabled the benefits of development to vastly
\nimprove the quality of life for thousands of East Timorese
\ncitizens. To provide not only for basic human needs but also to lay
\na foundation for future development, Indonesia has invested six
\ntimes as many resources on a per capita basis in East Timor than in
\nany of its other provinces. The result has been increasing social
\nprogress and growth: whereas 10 percent of the population was
\nliterate at the end of Portuguese rule, 70 percent of East Timorese
\ncan read today; since 1990, the province has boasted one of the
\nhighest average regional gross domestic products (GDP) growth rates
\n-- 9.8 percent.<\/p>\n
Despite this large measure of peace and progress, some bitter
\ndivisions remain: a small fraction of East Timor's population
\nremains opposed to Indonesian rule; a dwindling band of guerrillas
\ncontinues to create disturbances in the province; and occasional
\npublic demonstrations staged by small groups advocating separatism
\nhave been carried out in Dili, the capital, and other parts of the
\nregion.<\/p>\n
At times this has led to confrontations with military and police
\nunits. There have been cases where the response has been excessive.
\nCertainly, the killing of demonstrators in Dili in November 1991
\nwas regrettable and tragic. The highest levels of government,
\nincluding President Soeharto, promptly condemned the bloodshed and,
\nafter due process, those responsible for it, including military
\nofficers and enlisted men, were severely punished. The government
\nhas taken strict measures to ensure that such an incident does not
\nhappen again. A case in point is the recent discharge and jailing
\nof two Indonesian soldiers found guilty by a military court of
\nimproper conduct in East Timor. They were sentenced to serve terms
\nof two and two-and-a-half years respectively.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/review-on-indonesias-human-rights-record-1-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}