Statement by
The Indonesian Delegation
at the
Informal Thematic Consultations of the General Assembly
on Cluster III of the Secretary-General’s Report
(Freedom to live in dignity)

New York, 20 April 2005

Mr. Facilitator,

My delegation attaches great importance to the work of the United Nations in the fields of the rule of law, human rights and democracy. In the consideration of these issues under Cluster III, “Freedom to live in dignity,” we associate with the statement made earlier by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

Mr. Facilitator,

Indonesia has always attached great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights. We take every opportunity to underline our national commitment to this subject. In recent years, Indonesia has updated its national legislation and national plans to provide for increased public awareness, as well as enhance our ability to protect and promote these rights. Similarly, in this regard, we have continued to express our commitment to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, international law, and other human rights instruments. It is our belief that no security agenda and no drive for development will be successful unless they are based on a firm foundation of respect for human dignity. In our view, all human rights are universal, indivisible, inalienable, interdependent and interrelated. Not surprisingly, this applies, in particular, to the Right to Development.

Unfortunately, although we acknowledge that the concept of mainstreaming human rights has gained greater attention in recent years, it is noteworthy that in his report, the Secretary General laments that these rights are not being reflected adequately in key policy and resource decisions. My delegation wonders why efforts to strengthen the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are not focusing on enhancing its capacity to fully mainstream human rights at the policy-making level within the system.

Mr. Facilitator,

We note that the Secretary-General, in this regard, has proposed a Human Rights Council, which would be characterized by a limited, selective membership, to replace the Commission of Human Rights. We are uncertain that this proposal addresses the various controversial issues concerning human rights in this Organization. There is general agreement that the Commission suffers from an erosion of credibility that has greatly impacted its effectiveness, and needs to be adapted to the changing needs and challenges of the present and the future. The Commission’s problems stem from the current over-politicization of its work, double standards, a selective approach, and the confrontational way in which some issues are addressed in the Commission.

Towards overcoming these problems, a number of proposals have been made. One of them, by the High-Level Panel, is to universalize the Commission’s membership. On the surface, this inclusive membership would enhance the legitimacy of the Commission, and address the current anachronistic regional groupings on the basis of which its members are elected. It is unlikely, however, that universalizing its membership would address the problems relating to over-politicization.

Similarly, given the current 53 members of the Commission, decision-making is known to be slow and difficult. Opening up its membership to all Member States would only make the process even slower and more complicated. This would disappoint all those who are eager for quick progress in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Turning to the proposed Human Rights Council then, would a smaller body be a better option? A smaller council might not reduce the politicization in the consideration of human rights issues. On the contrary, it might, in fact, result in the exclusion of more countries in the decision-making process, and would not be more credible and effective than the current Commission on Human Rights. To that extent, therefore, my delegation looks forward to receiving more information on the proposal in order to enable Member States assess it more thoroughly and objectively.

Another open option, of course, is the retention of the current Commission on Human Rights. Although the Commission does have shortcomings towards achieving the full realization of its mandate, these can be addressed through appropriate reform and revitalization, including relocating it within the context of the organizational structure of the United Nations. It is better to reform the Commission so as to realign and re-energize it than to abandon it completely for a new body that might be wrong from the beginning. In our view, what most nations really require to enable them better protect and promote human rights is assistance in capacity-building.

Mr. Facilitator,

My delegation acknowledges that the rule of law is a fundamental United Nations principle. Its implementation is important at both national and international levels. To this end, it is crucial to strengthen existing international norms and rules, and the implementation of treaties and conventions.

Given this context, we have reservations concerning the concept of “responsibility to protect.” Indeed, we share the view that it is uncomfortably similar to the so-called concept of “humanitarian intervention,” which lacks basis in The Charter and in international law. While there are some moral justifications for the recommendation of the Secretary-General on this subject, some questions remain to be addressed, and we look forward to further information on the concept.

Mr. Facilitator,

The promotion of democracy is a core component of the work of the United Nations. The Organization assists Member States by supporting emerging democracies with legal, technical and financial assistance, and in this regard, my delegation notes with interest the proposal to establish a Democracy Fund. In order to enable us evaluate the proposal thoroughly, we look forward to further clarification of various aspects of it, including its proposed implementation and funding. In the interim, we wish to reiterate that there is no single model of democracy. Bearing this in mind, the Organization should seek to assist in strengthening and consolidating home-grown democratic institutions and mechanisms, rather than the imposition of unsuitable foreign models of democracy on certain national and cultural contexts.

The freedom to live in dignity must be appreciated as a comprehensive concept that must be based on the time-honoured principles of equity and justice, and the commitments of The Charter of our Organization, as well as the Millennium Declaration. We must keep in mind in these discussions at all times the holistic and inter-connected nature of the issues, and make certain that we pay equal attention to them.

I thank you, Mr. Facilitator.