Blame Game over Human Rights

Blame Game over Human Rights

Benny YP Siahaan Jakarta

The common question addressed to a state undergoing a democratic transition is how long the transition is to continue and last. The answer to this of course is not simple.

Indonesia has undergone a dramatic change after the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998. However, some of us, especially human rights activists, are impatient to see the transition completed, since, perhaps we think it can be done overnight.

Therefore it is assumed that for those activists talking and blaming are cheap. The recent case of a human rights activist and a member the General Elections Commission (KPU) who was allegedly involved in a corruption case, if proven to be true, would corroborate that assumption.

Nevertheless, amid the positive progress, it must be admitted that there have been some fouls also especially with regard to human rights. However, it must be remembered that in human rights matters no countries in the world are perfect. According to David Forsythe (2000), a noted human rights scholar, even countries that currently are seen as human rights champions have no relative and historical background given historical facts such as slavery and racial segregation, racist immigration laws, anti- Semitism etc.

However, in the past decades those countries have been more advanced and skillful in manipulating international human rights politics and thus transforming their image from human rights violators into human rights champions

But some activists are just blindfolded by this situation or are afraid of criticizing them as this may affect their financial resources.

For Indonesia, human rights is not an alien concept especially in the earlier stage of the Republic. However, human rights issues became a sensitive issue for Indonesia, especially under the Soeharto administration (1966-1998). In this period the diplomacy of Indonesia in human rights terms may be characterized as defensive.

Indeed, the rise of human rights politics in the past two decades poses a puzzle both to leaders and scholars of international relations. Indonesia so far has joined several international human rights conventions either as a party or a signatory.

Although these efforts are perceived by some as an initial genuine effort to protect and promote human rights at the national level, many have also called the efforts hollow. However, this is not a strange thing since in human rights politics pointing the finger, blaming and shaming has become a ritual.

Reports are usually full of blaming and shaming of other countries. So far, China is one of the few countries which has dared to challenge this practice by annually publishing a book on the human rights situation in a particular country.

Despite the blame-game, Indonesia should address the issues that have so far become an easy target for human rights violations accusations. In this regard separatism in Aceh and Papua has been quite a conundrum for Indonesia. However, with the lessons taken from more than two decades of a heavy-handed policy to address separatism in Aceh and Papua and the loss of East Timor, the government has learned the benefits and liabilities of oppressing the Papuans and Acehnese.

On the accusation that the government is hostile to foreign and domestic NGOs critical of Indonesia's human rights record, if we want to criticize, but we convey it in a proper and constructive way, I believe the people or authorities we criticize will listen soon or later. However, if we do it in a hostile way, the result will usually be counter-productive. Sadly those international human rights NGOs like Tapol, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch prefer to choose the latter approach.

With regards to Aceh, apart from the government's efforts to discourage the separatist sentiment among the Acehnese, for the time being Indonesia could take a rest for a while. None of the major powers would give consent to the independence of Aceh.

However, the government would be misguided if it is of the opinion that most foreign countries, especially the U.S. and other Western countries, are generally opposed to separatism. East Timor's breakaway from Indonesia is the best example of how fluid the position of countries toward separatism is.

Coming back to promotion and protection of human rights issues nationally, the hardest task is to bring awareness to the officials who in performing their job have high chances of abusing human rights, such as the police and the military. After more than 30 years of being the security machine of an authoritarian regime, it will take time to change their mind set to appreciate human rights. Thus, it is our job to educate them not only the government.

Image building is important for Indonesia at present. Indeed, as Peter van Ham rightly pointed out in his famous article in Foreign Affairs magazine (2001) that the notion of "brand state" or image and reputation of a country is very important in determining the future of a country. In this regard, Indonesia is going in the right direction, if all components of society, both government and civil society support it.

The writer is an Indonesian diplomat and an alumnus of Tsukuba University in Japan. The views reflected in this article are his own.