|
Unsurprisingly, many fingers have pointed to separatist
rebels following the shootings that killed eight Indonesian soldiers and
four civilians in remote areas of Papua last week.
To my understanding, such an allegation appears inescapable. This so-called
“self-determination” movement has long been instigating hostile activity in
the area with one unswerving aim: to secede from Indonesia.
Separatism has been an issue since the birth of the nation-state system and
persists in both developed and developing countries, in democracies and
non-democratic states. One thing that should be highlighted at this point
is the changing nature of secessionism, particularly on how to achieve
independence.
Human rights norms have proliferated through various instruments, creating
a kind of “humanization approach” in international relations. Arguably,
since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, states have striven
for legitimacy from a legal point of view.
Apart from the many bloody secessionist conflicts around the world, the
issue of secession seems to come within the United Nations’ framework, that
is to say the issue becomes one of peace and security, of respect for human
rights.
Human rights instruments clearly prohibit war of any kind. The mere use of
force in pursuing independence is contrary to the human rights principle.
The act of raising arms by secessionists legitimizes the mother state to
suppress the movement for the sake of territorial integrity and national
security.
Nevertheless, from a standpoint of the extant state, using territorial
integrity as the basis for oppression and to suppress separatist movements
also violates human rights norms.
In the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo in 2010,
Judge Cançado Trindade opines that, “No state can invoke territorial
integrity in order to either commit atrocities [...] or perpetrate them on
the assumption of State sovereignty, or commit atrocities and then rely on
a claim of territorial integrity notwithstanding the sentiments and
ineluctable resentments of the ‘people’ or ‘population’ victimized.”
While human rights impede a state’s exclusive authority in its territory,
human rights protection should breed legitimacy for a state’s handling of
separatist movements.
John Rawls, a leading figure in moral and political philosophy, defined
three roles of human rights.
First, human rights lend legitimacy to any regime and decency to its legal
order.
Second, an excellent human rights record is sufficient to prevent forceful
intervention by other peoples in a state’s internal affairs, say by
economic sanctions or, in grave cases, by military force.
Third, they set a moral baseline for pluralism, ethnic and religious
tolerance.
The bottom line is interdependence rather than independence in resolving
issues of secession. Interdependence requires interchange between
fundamental freedoms, democracy, development and the protection of human
rights.
In my view, this kind of approach in Papua would considerably reduce armed conflict
between separatist groups and security forces.
As for the latest killing of civilians and soldiers, military measures
could be necessary but ought to be proportionate.
Military advantages gained must be balanced against any collateral damage
that might occur. Military measures would demonstrate Indonesia’s
prerogative for a monopoly on the internal use of force.
Forceful demonstration of this prerogative should be followed by a firm
commitment to preserve human rights and a clear manifestation of this
commitment by bringing to court previous human rights violators.
Jean Bodin, a 16th century French jurist and political philosopher, and
professor of law in Toulouse, once stated that, “the best way of preserving
a state, and guaranteeing it against sedition, rebellion, and civil war, is
to keep the subjects in amity with one another, and to this end, to find an
enemy against whom they can make common cause”.
Men are susceptible to “barbarous acts” and “tyranny and oppression”.
It is not subversive acts or movements that should become our common enemy.
The real enemy is those who seek to deny meaningful, universal access to
fundamental rights and freedom. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar