Opinion and Editorial – January 15, 2007
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Indonesia’s decision not to support a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution against Myanmar came as a disappointment to those hoping to see the promotion of democracy as a feature of Indonesian diplomacy. Indonesia took the “soft option” of remaining technically neutral by abstaining, but effectively has undermined an initiative which would have placed further diplomatic pressure on a regime that suppresses the most basic rights of its people.
It was proof that pragmatism and competition remain the overarching considerations of Jakarta’s diplomatic activism. Furthermore it is evidence that Indonesian diplomats have not embraced the evolving values of its own, and international, civil society toward concepts of human security — which has human rights at its core — beyond the realms of state-centric sovereignty.
Despite being a major issue among civil society groups, the human rights situation in Myanmar has been noticeably absent from the UNSC’s agenda for a long time.
The U.S. has been pushing for the issue to be placed on the council’s agenda since 2005. After two previous failures, its diplomatic lobby succeeded last year when 10 of the 15 UNSC members supported the inclusion of human rights in Myanmar into the permanent agenda (nine votes are needed for an item to be on the agenda). Permanent members Russia and China, along with Congo and Qatar opposed the proposal, while Tanzania abstained.
It was the same two permanent members who vetoed Friday’s resolution, while Indonesia (who become a non-permanent UNSC member this year) joined Congo and Qatar in abstaining. UNSC members Belgium, Britain, France, Peru, Ghana, Panama, Italy and Slovakia supported the U.S.-sponsored resolution.
China and Russia argued that the human rights situation in Myanmar did not constitute an international security threat, but in reality both countries had their strategic interests in mind.
Russia is plagued by criticism over its war in Chechnya, hence, it did not want a precedent set where it could itself be subject to such censure from the UNSC.
China has similar concerns given its own human rights record and is suspicious of Washington’s moves in the context of the region’s dynamics. As University of Indonesia international relations observer Makmur Keliat pointed out, Myanmar is the untapped energy frontier of Southeast Asia. Myanmar also provides China with strategic access to the Indian Ocean.
Indonesian officials repeated the argument that Myanmar did not pose a threat to security, adding that the recently formed UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), not the UNSC, would be a more appropriate forum in which to raise such issues.
But such a proposition is more likely to be based on competition rather than propriety. It is no secret that a majority of “Western” states, especially the U.S., have shunned the 47-seat UNHRC whose watered-down conventions leave it open to manipulation by countries often cited as human rights abusers.
Indonesia is a member and strong supporter of the UNHRC. The issuance of a Myanmar human rights resolution at the UNSC could be seen as a move to undermine the scope of this new body.
However, advocates of a stronger line against Myanmar believe such an issue would most likely get bogged down in the protocols of the untenable body, whose charter does not even categorically acknowledge freedom of speech.
But Washington may also have made a tactical diplomatic error in the wording of the draft resolution, which could have swayed Indonesia toward a more favorable reception of its agenda.
The draft did not fully recognize the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its “constructive engagement” in instigating political evolution in Myanmar. If the resolution had, for example, placed ASEAN’s initiatives as primary conditions to which Yangon had to cede, perhaps Jakarta would have been swayed to support the resolution.
But it is also understandable why so many are skeptical of ASEAN, which for over a decade has tended to condone, rather than censure, a regime that blatantly denies its people the right to elect their own political leaders.
The most tragic aspect of Indonesia’s argument that Myanmar does not represent a security threat, is that Jakarta is trapped in an obsolete mindset regarding the definition of state-monopolized security. It is true that Myanmar is not about to cause an inter-state conflict, but security has a wider definition that includes non-traditional, non-conventional and transnational threats.
In other words, human security.
Canadian politician Lloyd Axworthy, known for his advancement of the concept of human security, surmised his hope for the world by saying “we should aim to construct a global society where the safety of the individual is at the center of international priorities and is a motivating force for international action; where international human rights standards and the rule of law are advanced and woven into a coherent web protecting the individual; where those who violate these standards are held fully accountable; and where our global, regional and bilateral institutions — present and future — are built and equipped to enhance and enforce these standards”.
Though it has only become popular in international parlance over the last 15 years, in practice even the UNSC’s actions have been instinctively guided by such standards. This was evidenced in 1977 when the council issued an arms embargo on South Africa after the 1976 Soweto killings.
Hence, Jakarta’s claim that human rights issues in Myanmar do not represent a direct security threat is completely erroneous, and an indecent act toward those under repression.
Even ASEAN’s own Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus had a broader comprehension of the term “security” when it concluded, “the deteriorating situation in Myanmar is affecting not only those within the country but people outside its borders as well…ethnic conflicts and refugee outflows to drugs and the unchecked spread of HIV and AIDS have become a serious cause for concern for ASEAN and the international community”.
The passing of the UNSC resolution may not have prompted immediate change in Myanmar, but it would have placed pressure on ASEAN to move from a non-interventionist position to one of intolerance toward the ruling junta. Jakarta’s belligerent, fence-sitting mindset does not bode well for the future, or for its reputation during a time in which the nation’s people are thinking more progressively.
We must always take sides!
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim,” Nobel Laureate E. Wiesel once remarked. “Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented.”
