What's wrong with conditional aid, Mulya asks
What's wrong with conditional aid, Mulya asks
JAKARTA (JP): The government's policy to reject foreign aid
which is tied to human rights concessions was called into
question yesterday by one of Indonesia's most eminent legal
experts.
"If the concessions are for the betterment of human rights,
then what's wrong with it?," asked Todung Mulya Lubis at an ASEAN
Law Students Conference (ALSC) here yesterday.
The sixth ALSC is being participated by some 70 university law
students from the member states -- Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia,
Singapore, the Philippines, Singapore and Brunei -- along with
observers from Australia and New Zealand.
Mulya stated that human rights has a universality that should
extend across borders and lie above the subjugation of local
governments.
He noted that, throughout Southeast Asia, human rights issues
are considered to be part of national affairs are subordinate to
the laws of the local nationalities.
"The universality of human rights is undermined when they are
placed into the context of national affairs, placed under
domestic jurisdiction," he said.
Indonesia has consistently been an objector to the linkage
between foreign aid and human rights concessions, arguing that
such a principle would be a direct violation of its national
sovereignty.
Marzuki Darusman, the vice-chairman of the National Commission
on Human Rights, agreed that human rights were not a regional,
but a universal issue. He added that, in today's era, the
absolute sovereignty of a state was no longer sacred.
However, he disagreed with the notion that a rejection of
concessions meant the subjugation and violation of rights.
"It is simply a warding-off of unacceptable policies perceived
as overly intrusive," he explained.
Marzuki said the defense of human rights must be sought from
within the nation-state itself. He asserted that if certain
safeguards were in place to safeguard human rights, then that
country should be respected in how they deal with their internal
affairs.
"To cherish and protect a people's own way of life should not
mean that a nation has to have an inherently different concept of
human rights," Marzuki said.
ASEAN
When asked to comment on how the Association of South East
Asian Nations (ASEAN) views human rights, Mulya said that there
is no consistency in the way the nation-members approach this
issue.
ASEAN might be a solid, cooperative organization but it is not
united when it comes to human rights, said Mulya.
He said the Philippines is probably the only country to truly
fully respect and protect human rights.
However he added that, among the member states, there was no
agreement on the issue.
Mulya pointed to the statements made by ASEAN heads of state
and foreign ministers which ruled that human rights fell under
each state's national jurisdiction. From this, he surmised that
there was no strong or consistent approach to human rights within
ASEAN.
Marzuki contended that, even if there was no human rights
regional system, it did not mean that there was a lack concern
for human right.
He identified the release of the 1993 ASEAN inter-
parliamentary declaration on human rights in Kuala Lumpur of the
importance and recognition of human rights in southeast Asia.
During a question period, a student asked Mulya if he would
forsake human rights for the sake of development.
Mulya answered that despite being relatively prosperous here
in Indonesia, he would still rather live in the Philippines where
political freedom was more respected.(07)