What about rights?<\/p>\n
Their assuring tone notwithstanding, the public statements in
\nthe defense of human rights that were made this week in Jakarta
\nby visiting U.S. officials from President Bill Clinton down to
\nSecretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary of Commerce
\nRonald Brown must have come as a sore disappointment to those of
\nour human rights activists who hoped to get some concrete support
\nfor their cause from the Clinton administration.<\/p>\n
A few overt statements from Indonesian human rights activists
\nare clear proof that more was hoped for than has been given.<\/p>\n
Perhaps such hopes can be justified. American congressmen,
\nafter all, have been quite vocal in their criticism of labor and
\nhuman rights conditions in Indonesia. On the other hand, the fact
\nthat some Indonesian human rights proponents' outright decline to
\naccept the invitation to meet with senior officials in President
\nClinton's entourage to talk about the human rights issue is just
\nas clear an indication that, from the outset, the expectations of
\na firm American stand on the issue have never been very great.<\/p>\n
We believe this latter stand to be the more tenable one. For
\nthe U.S., as perhaps for any other country in the world,
\npromoting greater prosperity at home by taking advantage of a
\ngrowing market must come before advancing human rights elsewhere.<\/p>\n
The China example has made this perfectly clear. For years,
\nthe United States has been in the forefront of Western countries
\ncondemning China for its human rights record, particularly after
\nwhat has become known as the Tiananmen Square massacre. Yet,
\ndespite much talk of trade sanctions, the prospect of losing such
\na huge market led the U.S. to grant China Most Favored Nation
\nstatus in trade.<\/p>\n
Although we do not doubt the sincerity of President Clinton's
\nconcern for human rights, the China message has been ringing loud
\nand clear in Asia. Thus Secretary of State Warren Christopher's
\nstatement that greater respect for human rights is a fundamental
\npart of American foreign policy on Indonesia must have sounded
\nmore like an apology than an assurance to many of us.<\/p>\n
And, again after the China example, how is one to interpret
\nthe statement that \"the relationship between the United States
\nand Indonesia can never reach its highest level unless people in
\nthe U.S. have the confidence that there is effort here to respect
\nhuman rights\"? It could be that such statements are meant for the
\nconsumption of the American public, more than for Indonesians.<\/p>\n
And yet, we think it would be wrong for us to entirely
\ndisregard those statements and assurances, or to take them too
\nlightly.<\/p>\n
The truth is that the very fact that Clinton, Christopher and
\nall the other American officials in the American president's
\nentourage felt that they had to make them can only be an
\nindication that the sentiments which they embody are still
\nregarded important by the Americans at home.<\/p>\n
It is true that governments and leaders of states often tend
\nto be more pragmatic in their approach to problems than the
\npeople they represent. One should not forget, however, that in
\ndemocratic societies, such as those of the West, powerful
\npressure groups exist and governments are freely elected. Thus,
\nthe sentiments and convictions that are alive in society cannot
\nbe disregarded. It certainly will be interesting to see what all
\nthis will mean to U.S. foreign policy in the near future as far
\nas human rights is concerned.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/what-about-rights-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}