JP/3/COMMENTARY A place for human rights in RI foreign policy or Is there 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.