What about rights?
What about rights?
Their assuring tone notwithstanding, the public statements in
the defense of human rights that were made this week in Jakarta
by visiting U.S. officials from President Bill Clinton down to
Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary of Commerce
Ronald Brown must have come as a sore disappointment to those of
our human rights activists who hoped to get some concrete support
for their cause from the Clinton administration.
A few overt statements from Indonesian human rights activists
are clear proof that more was hoped for than has been given.
Perhaps such hopes can be justified. American congressmen,
after all, have been quite vocal in their criticism of labor and
human rights conditions in Indonesia. On the other hand, the fact
that some Indonesian human rights proponents' outright decline to
accept the invitation to meet with senior officials in President
Clinton's entourage to talk about the human rights issue is just
as clear an indication that, from the outset, the expectations of
a firm American stand on the issue have never been very great.
We believe this latter stand to be the more tenable one. For
the U.S., as perhaps for any other country in the world,
promoting greater prosperity at home by taking advantage of a
growing market must come before advancing human rights elsewhere.
The China example has made this perfectly clear. For years,
the United States has been in the forefront of Western countries
condemning China for its human rights record, particularly after
what has become known as the Tiananmen Square massacre. Yet,
despite much talk of trade sanctions, the prospect of losing such
a huge market led the U.S. to grant China Most Favored Nation
status in trade.
Although we do not doubt the sincerity of President Clinton's
concern for human rights, the China message has been ringing loud
and clear in Asia. Thus Secretary of State Warren Christopher's
statement that greater respect for human rights is a fundamental
part of American foreign policy on Indonesia must have sounded
more like an apology than an assurance to many of us.
And, again after the China example, how is one to interpret
the statement that "the relationship between the United States
and Indonesia can never reach its highest level unless people in
the U.S. have the confidence that there is effort here to respect
human rights"? It could be that such statements are meant for the
consumption of the American public, more than for Indonesians.
And yet, we think it would be wrong for us to entirely
disregard those statements and assurances, or to take them too
lightly.
The truth is that the very fact that Clinton, Christopher and
all the other American officials in the American president's
entourage felt that they had to make them can only be an
indication that the sentiments which they embody are still
regarded important by the Americans at home.
It is true that governments and leaders of states often tend
to be more pragmatic in their approach to problems than the
people they represent. One should not forget, however, that in
democratic societies, such as those of the West, powerful
pressure groups exist and governments are freely elected. Thus,
the sentiments and convictions that are alive in society cannot
be disregarded. It certainly will be interesting to see what all
this will mean to U.S. foreign policy in the near future as far
as human rights is concerned.