U.S. human rights report misses the mark

By Dino Patti Djalal

JAKARTA (JP): The annual human rights report published recently by the U.S. Department of State has, as usual, drawn a sharp response from many of the 194 foreign governments reviewed in the text. America itself is not included in the report.

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, revised in 1974, obliges the U.S. government to report periodically to Congress on the issue of human rights. American bureaucrats therefore maintain that the report is a purely domestic undertaking intended only for the benefit of Congress.

However, this explanation fails to appease foreign governments cited in the report for two reasons.

The report is a public document and attracts international attention. It is understandable that governments cast in an unfavorable light should view the report as a direct attack by the U.S. government.

Furthermore, the report is prepared by the government apparatus responsible for foreign policy. The report will, in theory, serve as a basis for American foreign policy. Such a publicly critical report prepared by an NGO or Congressional committee would surely be less inflammatory.

The U.S. government is now expected to submit the report to delegations attending the 54th Conference on Human Rights, to be held in Geneva later this year.

China rebuffed the report for its "irresponsible remarks" which "willfully distorted the truth and made unwarranted charges" regarding human rights in China. It was dismissed as "an interference in China's internal affairs on the pretext of caring about China's human rights".

The Indonesian government responded somewhat differently.

Jakarta did not explicitly mention interference, but attacked the style, substance and perspective of the report, calling it an arrogant and patronizing exercise.

It criticized the U.S. state department's simplistic and superficial understanding of human rights cases in Indonesia, and decried it as "imbalanced and self-righteous".

Such a response from Jakarta, coming as the U.S. Congress debated contributions to the IMF rescue package for Asia, is indicative of the degree of displeasure felt toward the report.

There are a number of flaws in the report pertaining to Indonesia, including factual errors in the various human rights cases cited. Enumerating these errors is beyond the scope of this article, suffice to say that even Marzuki Darusman of the National Commission on Human Rights has confirmed the persistent inaccuracies in past U.S. state department reports.

Accuracy cannot even be confirmed by referring to the reports sources, which appear very sketchy. Throughout the document, references to human rights cases were consistently attributed to "reliable sources", "knowledgeable observers", and "credible reports".

On East Timor the report states that "reliable sources reported numerous disappearances, especially in more isolated areas", but fails to substantiate these very serious allegations with specific information.

If the sources include opposition activists and Amnesty International, then the credibility of the report is jeopardized.

The report also discusses cases beyond human rights, such as the government's transmigration policy. The practice of transmigration is essentially a population policy, but is turned into a human rights issue in the report, which discusses its impact on "indigenous people".

It is puzzling that the U.S. Department of State does not view transmigration within the context of freedom of movement. In any case, the American establishment's long history of mistreatment of their country's own indigenous people leaves it ill placed to criticize on this issue.

The report demonstrates ignorance to the difficulties of governing our country when it refers to the banning the Baha'i religion. It fails to consider the almost certainly violent response of the Moslem community to a practice which allows worship of gods from all religions in one single church.

In essence, there is a strong tendency in the report to view human rights in terms of unobstructed civil liberties. This is one area where Indonesian and American opinions will always clash.

For Indonesia to achieve social harmony and cohesion, tolerance, mutual respect and restraint between its many different communities is required, not absolute liberty.

Americans see absolute liberty as a source of national strength. Indonesians see it as a reckless formula for managing society, and a source of national decay and disorder.

A restrictive approach to liberty will remain a fact of life for quite some time in Indonesia, as will western criticisms of this state of affairs.

In criticizing the lack of enforcement powers held by the National Commission on Human Rights, the report demonstrates a lack of understanding of the reasons for which the commission was set up. Like similar institutions in many other countries, the commission was set up to promote, monitor and advise the government on human rights. Enforcement has never been part of its mandate.

Finally, there is a proclivity to measure the overall human rights condition in Indonesia by compiling a list of known human rights violations. Officials in Jakarta believe the report portrays many incidents with some intellectual malice, rather than in an unbiased and balanced fashion. Criticisms are not counterbalanced and the result is a distorted picture of the human rights situation in Indonesia. A full index of alleged violations, without an equally attentive evaluation of the positive efforts and achievements which have been made in the field of human rights.

This methodology is primitive. Similarly, it would be simplistic and misleading to assess the overall human rights situation in the U.S. by focusing on the innumerable cases of police brutality in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and other metropolitan areas.

The state department report is a brief political irritant, which is not likely to damage diplomatic relations between Jakarta and Washington. Ultimately, however, the reports undermine America's leading international role, by weakening the force of American advocacy on human rights, rather than strengthening it.

The U.S. Department of State has been issuing human rights reports since 1977, and will continue to do so. Jakarta, despite occasional responses, has become somewhat immune to the effects. The merits, or otherwise, of the annual human rights report are measured not by the response from the U.S. Congress, but by the way in which foreign governments receive and are willing to act upon its content. Alas, the report generated resentment rather than respect for American diplomacy. So much for America's leadership.

The writer is an executive member of the Indonesian Council on World Affairs (ICWA), and of Pusat Studi Kawasan Asia Tenggara. The views expressed here are purely personal.