U.S. human rights report misses the mark

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.