The President refuses to meet with the UN Special Representative to the Secretary General On Human Rights Defenders.
The refusal by president of Indonesia, Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to meet with the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Hina Jilani is very much to be regretted. This incident coming in the wake of the pledges made by the Indonesian government to the international community on 12th March this year at the 4th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is quoted here,
“in another aspect of this philosophy, we have invited a number of Special Rapporteurs to visit Indonesia as we believe their input is valuable in strengthening our human rights institutions and domestic promotion and protection mechanism. This willingness, I hope, demonstrates our full support for the human rights mechanisms, as well as our desire to fulfill the pledges and the commitment we have undertaken in this regard.”
can lend support to a number of assumptions, not only regarding the pledge but also about the reaction of the President. If the invitation has been sent out by the Indonesian government, why is the head of the state refusing to meet with the Special Rapporteur? Is it related to the visit itself, or the manner in which it has been conducted or the persons and the organizations met, the issues raised or simply due to the unwillingness to discuss the subjects that the Rapporteur would embark on. Are there too many skeletons in the cupboard to be hidden?
Take the case of the prominent human rights defender Munir who was poisoned in one of the state owned planes on his way to Amsterdam. The responsibility to conduct investigations rests entirely with the state as it occurred in a state owned aircraft. Soon after the incident the President appointed a fact finding team whose findings were submitted to him nearly two years ago. So far he has adamantly refused to release the findings or recommend further investigations into this murder. Why this reluctance?
Similarly, the members of the families or relatives of the people murdered at Trisakti, Semangi, Talangsari, the abductions and disappearances of 98 democracy activists, and the victims of the May riots of 98 have all been clamoring for justice since his election as the President of the state. All such demands have been simply ignored without any sensitivity to the feelings of the members of the families or a concern for justice. Such reluctance is overtly contributing to the prevailing culture of impunity that has haunted the country for decades.
The refusal by the President also points to another serious problem that has gripped the country, which is also a legacy left behind by the Soeharto era. It is related to the defects in the three institutions, the police, the attorney general and the judiciary, which ultimately represents the system of justice. All these three institutions continue to abrogate their responsibilities. Even in instances where the Komnas HAM, National Human Rights Commission tried to play a contributory role, they were unceremoniously dismissed. This situation has been brought to the notice of the President as well as the members of the House of Representatives. Thus, they cannot be excused on grounds of ignorance. Even the recent attempts by the families of the victims of Trisakti and Semangi to have them declared as gross human rights violations by the Parliamentary committee, were turned down, only adding insult to injury. All these developments lend support to the assumption that the state is unwilling and incapable of introducing reform to the much wanted justice institutions. Given the tragic state of these institutions, the President realized that giving promises that cannot be fulfilled to the Special Rapporteur, would increase Indonesias discredit in the international community. Therefore, he took the short-cut by avoiding the meeting altogether. Are we to assume that all the recommendations made by Ms. Hina Jilani will suffer the same fate she herself witnessed, namely being ignored?
One may even venture to ask simply out of curiosity, whether this game of hide and seek is going to be played with regard to all other international obligations. When Indonesia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, it was understood that all the existing laws in the country would be brought in line with the requirements of the Covenant. No attempt so far has been made to make domestic laws consistent with the ICCPR. The chances are that the same fate awaits the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur unless the members of the civil society make an enormous effort both to educate the public and to advocate for their consistent implementation. The government tends to refrain from applying reforms, however good or correct they may be, unless there is a strong pressure coming from the people. The Asian Human Rights Commission joins the number of concerned persons regarding this state of affairs in Indonesia and calls for a genuine dialogue with the UN human rights institutions in bringing about the reform of the justice institutions so that everyone will feel assured of their rights and dignity.
