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)