A place for human rights in RI foreign policy
A place for human rights in RI foreign policy
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
As the world marks International Human Rights Day on Saturday,
Indonesians have a lot to be proud of. While many facets of
rights protection are still wanting, Indonesia has -- since 1998
-- begun laying in earnest the foundations of a nation-state with
greater accountability and respect for human rights.
As a natural extension of domestic politics, there was hope
that, with greater internal stability, Indonesia's foreign policy
would also reflect the rejuvenated values of human rights
protection.
This though has not been the case. And, in the longer term, it
is probably unlikely that foreign policy will truly reflect the
domestic exuberance that Indonesians have toward human rights.
and democratic values.
There have been "celebrated" developments in the foreign
affairs field vis-a-vis rights protection -- the ratification of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
and Indonesia's chairing of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
However these laudable achievements, important though they
are, are mostly contextual and structural in nature.
In a practical sense, Indonesian foreign policy does not fully
represent the environmental changes and change of mind-set
evolving in this society.
The clearest and most frequently cited example has been
Jakarta's refusal to take a tougher line on the oppression of
political rights in Myanmar. Another is its negligence toward
raising issues of persecution and terror in a country like North
Korea.
This country should not form the habit of advocating regime
change or altering political systems, but it can show greater
concern toward ensuring basic rights ideals are adhered to.
Freedom of expression, equitable political representation
(elections), due process and protection from torture are concepts
that transcend any system -- communist, capitalist or socialist.
Just as Indonesian diplomats raised the issue of the shooting
of dozens of Muslim detainees in southern Thailand during the
ASEAN meeting last year, they should show consistency by raising
other such issues.
Only the doctrines of state sovereignty and non-interference
continue to be the cornerstones of Indonesian foreign policy. We
also hear repeated rationalizations that rights issues are
discussed using a softer approach.
Be that as it may, the most conspicuous evidence still points
to the fact that Indonesia preserves a harmonious relationship
with regimes that are incontrovertibly the most blatant violators
of basic human rights.
Perhaps the fault lies not in the application of foreign
policy itself, but rather expectations of what it can achieve.
Indonesian foreign policy, like that of any other country in
the world, will remain pragmatic based on geopolitical concerns
and "national interests" rather than idealistic.
The priorities set by the prevailing government -- investment,
trade, economic aid, defense etc. -- will determine its
direction rather than an immediate sense of virtue.
It is "our" mistake to rely on the instruments of power as
vanguards of principles, which effectively undermine the
absoluteness of power, which all regimes intrinsically covet.
What should be recognized in this new century is that the
state is no longer the sole actor in foreign policy.
Non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, think
tanks, and parliamentary unions can do much in helping shape the
foreign policy agenda.
Nowhere is this more evident than on the issue of Myanmar.
Various regional interest group meetings and even the views of
the ASEAN Inter-parliamentary Union (AIPO) are divergent from
those of their respective foreign ministries.
By doing so, it has become increasingly evident that the
foreign policies of respective ASEAN foreign ministries no longer
conform to the views of the peoples they claim to represent.
If such activism can be crystallized into domestic pressure,
then degrees of alteration from the present foreign policy
standpoint may occur.
Even in the United States, for example, specific issues on
human rights are more often put on the foreign policy agenda
after intensive lobbying from interest groups and congress.
This, in essence, is democracy at work.
The business of government is too important to be left to the
government alone. The people, through various alternative
channels, should push the government to listen to them. This is
particularly necessary when it comes to the promotion and
protection of human rights.
Failure to do so will sustain foreign policies that will
become increasingly alien, even to domestic constituents.