Can Beitz and Nagel Justify Indonesia? Between Palestine and Papua
“Indonesia will always stand with Palestine” an article titled[1]. Written by former Ambassador to Jordan and Palestine, the article continued: “Indonesia’s staunch support for Palestine is mandated by its 1945 Constitution. Its preamble, interalia, says that “independence is the inalienable right of every nation, therefore, colonisation on earth must be abolished”. Indonesia’s public support towards Palestine has been consistent and officially solidified as foreign policy agenda for many years through this common narrative. The advocacy carried a Beitzian spirit; an easily understood ‘original position’ considering their shared experience of colonisation that liberated Indonesia from the veil of ignorance. It thus calls for global cooperation beyond humanitarian assistance and towards redistributive obligation for global justice for Palestine. However, Indonesia’s vote against R2P (Responsibility to Protect) at the UN Resolution on Genocide 2021[2] does not seem to reflect this spirit at all. It is true that amidst the escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in between numerous official statements of solidarity, the response came as a shock. Yet, in the light of the Indonesian State-Papua domestic affair, this refusal of foreign intervention seemed somewhat expected[3].
Through Nagel’s view of Global Justice, Indonesia’s response towards foreign intervention is a defence for state’s sovereignty. Global injustice is not an inherent concern; it requires political association that would then produces special obligation or duty. Thus at a glance, the injustice faced by Palestinians is easily overruled relative to domestic affairs that conventionally involves stronger political relations.
However, upon closer inspection, this may not be the case at all. Justifying Indonesia’s R2P decision through the idea of the sovereign pursuit of justice is adversarial, given that Indonesia’s avoidance of foreign intervention protects the opportunity for continued persecution, exploitation and criminalisation of Papuans. When comparing this fact to the rage towards Israel’s violence to Palestinians, Nagel’s link between citizens’ associative obligation to justice and strong political relation becomes questionable. What defines a political relation? What explains the stronger sense of duty towards citizens elsewhere than to Papuans who are legally Indonesians? After all, it seems easier to point out the associative obligation when Indonesians (whose majority are Muslims) view Palestinians as defenders of their holy mosque and honourably remember Palestine as the first nation ever to recognise Indonesia’s Independence[4]. Is it possible to transcend Nagel’s idea of associative obligation from a mere physical border of a nation? The raging fundraising, campaigning, and protests for Palestine may be seen as a manifestation of a strong ‘political relation’, yet what would explain the lack thereof for Papuans who, if anything, should have a stronger relation as the citizen of the nation? To simply justify Indonesia’s attitude in a Nagelian reduction of state sovereignty is thus seem inconclusive.
For Indonesia to be suggestive of international ‘cooperation’ for justice and foreign intervention yet refusing the consequential subjection of it is morally inconsistent both in Beitziain and Nagelian sense. Is Indonesia’s solidarity for Palestine a mere facade? Because at worse, Indonesia’s cherry-picking attitude towards foreign intervention in R2P demonstrates how Indonesia chose to re-veil itself in ignorance, both globally and/for domestically. A question thus remains unanswered; between Palestine and Papua, is there really a way to justify Indonesia’s hypocrisy beyond national selfishness?
London, 11 February 2022
Citation:
[1] https://kemlu.go.id/amman/en/news/1359/indonesia-will-always-stand-with-palestine
[3] https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/07/15/whats-behind-indonesias-opposition-to-r2p/
[4] https://observerid.com/palestine-the-first-to-recognize-indonesian-independence/
Beitz, Charles R. “Justice and International Relations.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4.4 (1975): 360–89. Web.
Nagel, Thomas. “The Problem of Global Justice.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 33.2 (2005): 113–47. Web.
