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.