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.