TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results‘No’ to R2P procedural resolution: Principled stance against all odds
Historically, such coercive action conducted under the R2P largely depended on the resources and capacities of superpowers and their coalitions.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
T
his article is a response to Lina Alexander’s opinion piece “Indonesia and R2P: Why so paranoid?”, which was published in The Jakarta Post on May 22. We need to address the false logic that translates a vote against a procedural resolution on the responsibility to protect into doubt over Indonesia’s full commitment to abolishing genocide and crimes against humanity.
Lina’s central criticism seems to rest on the notion that “Indonesia cannot be in the same club with countries that have rejected R2P substantively due to their human rights record”. This assertion, and the mischaracterization of Indonesia’s vote, fail on many grounds, factual as much as substantial, and contains logical fallacies.
Why is this a false logic?
First, our “no” vote on a R2P procedural resolution is by no means equal to our steadfast support for the just implementation of R2P elements.
The resolution, presented by Croatia on May 18, was a “short and procedural draft” to just include R2P in the annual permanent agenda of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Unfortunately, certain quarters deemed Indonesia’s voting position a refusal to engage in the discussion, even though, during the consultation of Croatia’s draft, Indonesia was actively engaged in the negotiations.
The discussion of R2P procedures on May 18 was neither the first nor a towering event in the history of the R2P’s development. Since 2009, the discussion on the R2P has become less attractive among states, with participation shrinking from 92 states (representing 180 states) to only 70 (representing 104 states) in 2019. Despite the decline, Indonesia actively and constructively contributed to the informal meeting annually.
In fact, Indonesia was among the parties voicing support for the R2P concept to be stipulated in the 2005 World Summit’s Outcome Document. We could have voted against it during the summit.
