Will Amnesty's campaign on RI be useful?

Will Amnesty's campaign on RI be useful?

By Dino Patti Djalal

LONDON (JP): Amnesty International's campaign on Indonesia dates a long way back, but what sets its apart at present is its ferocity. So fierce, in fact, that it has raised some eyebrows among those who see nothing dramatically new occurring in Indonesia these days.

To this, Amnesty officials would typically cite the cases of the recent closure of three magazines or that of labor activist Mochtar Pakpahan. Although it is clear that labor relations and the relationship between the government and the media remain problematic, it is indeed difficult to believe that these issues should warrant Amnesty's allocation of such lavish resources on its Indonesia concern.

There are dozens of other countries, including the developed world, that face the same issues. Moreover, although Indonesia's human rights condition remains imperfect, it is certainly a far cry from the bleak, venomous Orwellian image portrayed in Amnesty's reports.

In a recent television interview during a campaign stop in New Zealand, Amnesty International Secretary-General Pierre Sane defended his organization's report by saying: "The information is not denied by the Indonesian government."

Sane was mistaken, for the Indonesian government has explicitly called Amnesty's reports "replete with falsehoods and malicious representations and so obviously a contradiction of the facts".

Similar disapproval was also voiced by Australia's Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who stated that in regards to Indonesia overall and East Timor in particular, Amnesty's reports were "not objective or measured or balanced". He accused them of "gathering every bit of conceivable ammunition, dressing them up and articulating them in the strongest possible way...producing misleading results".

When asked about the doubts cast upon Amnesty's work, Sane's defense was to accuse these other governments of a "cover-up". He added: "silent so-called diplomacy is really condoning what is going on in Indonesia, ...they are praising the government (of Indonesia) and distorting the facts."

The implication of his statement was clear: anybody who disagrees with Amnesty is wrong and must have something up his or her sleeve. There was an unmistakable rage of self-righteousness, a holier-than-thou attitude driven by an impression that Amnesty alone monopolizes concern for human rights as well as accurate information on Indonesia.

This month, Amnesty International was forced to issue a formal apology to the Indian government after having published fabricated photographs of what was alleged to have been human rights abuse in Kashmir. (An independent commission in India, set up to investigate the photos, determined that the pictures had nothing to do whatsoever either with Kashmir or human rights violations).

Though Amnesty officials insisted they were cheated and that the photographs were printed 'in good faith', it does show that the organization's work, in what is an exceedingly emotive business, can be quite vulnerable to propaganda and politically opportunistic materials.

Already the Indonesians are flabbergasted by Amnesty's objection to the country's political structure. This was received in Jakarta as a sign that Amnesty is now, as the Foreign Ministry's Director for Information Irawan Abidin formally wrote to Pierre Sane, "waging a political campaign under the banner of human rights" and that "by waging this political campaign, (Amnesty has) in fact abandoned the objective of promoting human rights and adopted a political agenda as well as a political objective".

The Indonesians are also outraged by Amnesty's assertion that the New Order is the product of a "military coup" (as opposed to an aborted communist coup). They ask, how can Amnesty get the details right when even on the basics they are wrong?

By rewriting the most poignant chapter of Indonesian history, questions are raised as to whether there is any point listening to an organization which is permanently negative on Indonesia and incapable of appreciating Indonesia's efforts and progress.

The Indonesian government is now in the midst of internalizing a culture of human rights, a process which involves raising human rights awareness and its implementation in the day- to-day business of governing. This, surprisingly, is a trend that Amnesty has failed to capture in its reports.

One example was the convening of the UN Second Asia Pacific Workshop on Human Rights early in 1993. The workshop focused on allowing the multi-national delegates to share their experiences in human rights work and discussing the technicalities of problem-solving. This was to be done in a cooperative way, without engaging in condemnatory attacks on each other.

The non-confrontational approach was effective because it neutralized the defense mechanisms of all delegates and set the right mood for no-nonsense discussions on how to best promote human rights.

In any case, it was quite apparent during the workshop that Indonesian officials were extremely keen to learn from the experience of other countries, and the varying input from these foreign experts proved constructive for the subsequent establishment of the National Commission for Human Rights in June 1993.

In October 1994, a second National Workshop on Human Rights was convened, where frank, grueling discussions took place in a stretch of three days on how to best advance human rights in Indonesia. On Oct. 26, 1994, a memorandum of intent was signed by the government and the UN Human Rights Commissioner on the mutual agreement to cooperate in the development and implementation of a coherent and comprehensive national program for the promotion and protection of human rights in Indonesia.

The two agreed to "cooperate fully ...towards the development and furtherance of an effective national plan of action for human rights in Indonesia, consistent with the recommendations of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993".

The government is also working closely with the International Commission of the Red Cross (ICRC). Because the ICRC conducts its humanitarian work on a non-publicity and non-political basis, it has won the confidence of the central government and local authority. As a result, it has unrestricted access to areas of interest, including access to prisoners and detainees. The ICRC is therefore in a communicative relationship to notify the relevant authorities of discrepancies and of what corrective measures can be taken.

When I visited East Timor in November 1994, Symeon Antoulas, the ICRC man in that province, told me that he had developed "excellent cooperation" with the local authorities, and that it was a cooperation marked by mutual trust and confidence. Reminded of a past problem, I asked him if I could quote him on that; he said, "by all means".

Genuine and honest efforts are being undertaken by the government to improve human rights in Indonesia. In a country with such complexities and sensitivities as Indonesia, this is a long-term enterprise. Human rights problems, like the disease of corruption, do not go away overnight nor with high and mighty rhetoric.

Amnesty International, at a crucial time, is losing a valuable chance to help contribute to Indonesia's human rights efforts. Amnesty's high-profile campaign may well be successful in rallying millions of its own members around the world and in exciting scores of politicians. This, however, is a sideshow and not a yardstick.

Essentially, Amnesty's campaign is regarded as a big turn-off for the Indonesian government who, according to Amnesty's own account, was beginning to warm up to the organization.

This is not the first criticism of its kind towards Amnesty. Amnesty's recent campaign on Colombia, furnished with eye- catching advertisements, was stung last year by British Parliamentarian Tristan Garel-Jones, who has done human rights work on that country. Garel-Jones criticized Amnesty's work for too much fanfare "rather than a serious attempt to work in partnership with friendly democratic states whose aims and objectives are ours but whose resources are less."

Amnesty's current campaign on Indonesia will inevitably die down and foreign governments will not be easily influenced. This is not because Indonesia is strategically and economically important to them, but because they can rely on their resident diplomats who keep their ears to the ground.

When Amnesty does decide to ease up on Indonesia, its officials will pat each other on the back for the damage they've inflicted on Indonesia's international image. But they should have no illusion about the real picture: While they were busy trumpeting on the international circuit, others were doing all the real work in Indonesia to improve human rights -- and Amnesty did not make a difference.

That, in the end, is a very sad story.

The writer is a regular contributor to The Jakarta Post.