The US recently released a human rights report for more than 200 countries, including Indonesia. Numerous controversial cases are spotlighted in Indonesia’s US human rights report, such as human rights violations in Papua, data protection in Peduli Lindungi apps, ethical violence, etc. Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics, and Legal Affairs (Menko Polhukam) Mahfud MD responded to the report claiming that Indonesia is better than the US in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
The argument is based on the Lowy Institute report on Covid Performance Index compares countries’ performance in managing the Covid-19 pandemic in the first 43 weeks; Indonesia ranks at 89 while the US is 96. Like many other countries, Indonesia disagrees with the US’ report and calls it a “double standard.” The sensitive accusation of human rights violation reports may hurt US relations with its counterparts. Then, why is the US publishing the human rights report? Is there any double standard?
The US exceptionalism in the human rights report
US Secretary Anthony Blinken asserted that the human rights report reflects the US foreign policy on the international agenda to uphold the human rights values. Take into a note that when it comes to human rights, Freeman (2017) believes that human rights require a legal concept and political, cultural, and societal conditions. There are different legal concepts and domestic needs on human rights issues worldwide. Despite this, the US claimed that the human rights report provides an objective record of the status of human rights in most countries worldwide but themselves.
As the country that created and spread human rights values, it is indeed in the US interest to sustain these values implemented. The human rights report is also the US tool to engage with the international community to exercise the protection of fundamental human rights. However, the US did not include themselves in the report, though they claimed the report would be objective. Michael Ignatieff (2005) argues that there are three types of exceptionalism. The first one is exceptionalism (the exemption of the US and Americans in treaties that the US ratifies), and the second is double standards (criticizing “others for not heeding the findings of international human rights bodies, but ignoring what these bodies say of the US). The third is legal isolationism (the tendency of American judges to ignore other jurisdictions). The exclusion of the US human rights condition in the report reflects an exemption of the US in the human rights violation report to the world. The exemption from the US is undoubtedly not the first time. One of those is that the US failed to give access to the UN human rights rapporteurs seeking to visit the US facilities.
In addition, what the US wrote in the human rights report is not just a piece of mere information but also a political act and diplomatic strategy for the US. A political tool to condemn violence sets human rights protection standards and even puts sanctions on others. As the most powerful country, the US and the West never lose sight of defending these liberal democratic values and norms. When there is a unilateral arrogance of the US to exempt itself from any human rights issue, the US might need more political and economic effort to engage with its counterparts.
A Double Standard?
It can not be denied that there is the rule of law and universal norm in the world; therefore, it is also in Indonesia’s interest to support the human rights implementation. Unfortunately, there are violations in all countries regarding human rights protection, and yet not every country is ready to admit a human rights violation. As in every offense, there must be consequences; the US as the human rights defender has the power and interest to pressure other nations. Admittedly, somehow the standard itself is vague and biased as it divides countries, especially the authoritarian states. For example, the US selectively chooses to be assertive towards some countries such as China and India.
The US has included China in the “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for Uighurs violations. CPC is a list by the Secretary of State in the US concerning the severe violations of religious freedom. The US now planned to put India on the list as it failed to deal with religious and minority violence. Though the lists do not necessarily turn into sanctions, they may limit the state’s relations with other countries since they are labeled CPC. When it comes to its rival or enemies, the US becomes more forceful in promoting human rights values while turning a blind eye or soft approach to its allies. The US needs to decide a decent judgment on its human rights action and report.