Indonesian Civil Society and Human

Rights Advocacy in ASEAN: Power and

Normative Struggles 1st Edition Randy
W. Nandyatama
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/indonesian-civil-society-and-human-rights-advocacy-i
n-asean-power-and-normative-struggles-1st-edition-randy-w-nandyatama/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Civil Liberties and Human Rights In Twentieth Century

Britain 1st Edition Chris Moores

https://ebookmeta.com/product/civil-liberties-and-human-rights-
in-twentieth-century-britain-1st-edition-chris-moores/

Transnational Social Mobilisation and Minority Rights

Identity Advocacy and Norms Routledge Studies in
Development and Society 1st Edition Corinne Lennox

https://ebookmeta.com/product/transnational-social-mobilisation-
and-minority-rights-identity-advocacy-and-norms-routledge-
studies-in-development-and-society-1st-edition-corinne-lennox/

Civil Society Organizations in Latin American

Education: Case Studies and Perspectives on Advocacy
1st Edition Regina Cortina (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/civil-society-organizations-in-
latin-american-education-case-studies-and-perspectives-on-
advocacy-1st-edition-regina-cortina-editor/

Human Rights and Power in Times of Globalisation 1st

Edition Ekaterina Yahyaoui

https://ebookmeta.com/product/human-rights-and-power-in-times-of-
globalisation-1st-edition-ekaterina-yahyaoui/
American Oracle The Civil War in the Civil Rights Era
1st Edition David W Blight

https://ebookmeta.com/product/american-oracle-the-civil-war-in-
the-civil-rights-era-1st-edition-david-w-blight/

The Politics of Civil Society Big Society and Small

Government 2nd Edition Frederick W Powell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-politics-of-civil-society-big-
society-and-small-government-2nd-edition-frederick-w-powell/

Transnational Advocacy Networks and Human Rights Law

Emergence and Framing of Gender Identity and Sexual
Orientation 1st Edition Giulia Dondoli

https://ebookmeta.com/product/transnational-advocacy-networks-
and-human-rights-law-emergence-and-framing-of-gender-identity-
and-sexual-orientation-1st-edition-giulia-dondoli/

Vicente Ximenes LBJ s Great Society and Mexican

American Civil Rights Rhetoric 1st Edition Michelle
Hall Kells

https://ebookmeta.com/product/vicente-ximenes-lbj-s-great-
society-and-mexican-american-civil-rights-rhetoric-1st-edition-
michelle-hall-kells/

The Chicago Freedom Movement Martin Luther King Jr and

Civil Rights Activism in the North Civil Rights and
Struggle Mary Lou Finley

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-chicago-freedom-movement-
martin-luther-king-jr-and-civil-rights-activism-in-the-north-
civil-rights-and-struggle-mary-lou-finley/
CONTESTATIONS IN
CONTEMPORARY SOUTHEAST ASIA

Indonesian Civil Society

and Human Rights
Advocacy in ASEAN
Power and Normative Struggles

Randy W. Nandyatama
 Contestations in Contemporary Southeast Asia

Series Editors
Vedi Hadiz, Asia Institute, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC,
Australia
Jamie S. Davidson, Department of Political Science, National University
of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Caroline Hughes, Kroc Institute for Int’l Peace Studies, University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
This Palgrave Macmillan book series publishes research that displays
strong interdisciplinary concerns to examine links between political
conflict and broader socio-economic development and change. While
the emphasis is on contemporary Southeast Asia, works included within
the Series demonstrate an appreciation of how historical contexts help
to shape present-day contested issues in political, economic, social and
cultural spheres. The Series will be of interest to authors undertaking
single country studies, multi-country comparisons in Southeast Asia or
tackling political and socio-economic contestations that pertain to the
region as a whole. Rather uniquely, the series welcomes works that seek to
illuminate prominent issues in contemporary Southeast Asia by comparing
experiences in the region to those in other parts of the world as well.
Volumes in the series engage closely with the relevant academic litera-
ture on specific debates, and include a comparative dimension within even
single country studies such that the work contributes insights to a broader
literature. Researchers based in Southeast Asian focused institutions are
encouraged to submit their work for consideration.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/16279
 Randy W. Nandyatama

Indonesian Civil
Society and Human
Rights Advocacy
in ASEAN
Power and Normative Struggles
Randy W. Nandyatama
Department of International Relations
Gadjah Mada University
Sleman, Indonesia

ISSN 2661-8354 ISSN 2661-8362 (electronic)

Contestations in Contemporary Southeast Asia
ISBN 978-981-16-3092-7 ISBN 978-981-16-3093-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3093-4

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Planet Observer/Getty Images

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
 Acknowledgements

This book is the result of my doctoral research project at the School of

Social and Political Science, Faculty of Arts, the University of Melbourne,
Australia. My greatest debt of gratitude is to my three supervisors Prof.
John Murphy, Dr. Avery Poole, and Dr. Daniel McCarthy. My doctoral
studies would not have been possible without their support and mentor-
ship. John was not my supervisor, guiding the logic of my research, but
also a compassionate supporter of my family’s well-being in Melbourne.
Avery too was a great mentor, particularly in giving constructive sugges-
tions on analysing ASEAN. Despite Daniel only supervising my final year,
his insights on the practice theory and empirical analysis significantly
shaped and enhanced my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Kate
McDonald for her support as the chair of my doctoral research committee.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to the two generous
institutions that supported my research. The University of Melbourne,
which awarded me a postgraduate research scholarship, and Gadjah Mada
University, which provided me with additional financial assistance. I would
like to acknowledge the support of Prof. Mark Considine and Prof. John
Murphy from the University of Melbourne, as well as Prof. Erwan Agus
Purwanto from Gadjah Mada University. I also thank the Department of
International Relations, Gadjah Mada University for providing me with a
grant to support the editing process of this book, and my colleagues there
for lending me their spirit and inspiration.

v
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Prof. Vedi Hadiz, not only

for providing generous guidance on conducting my research but also for
encouraging me to turn my doctoral thesis into this book. I also humbly
acknowledge the contributions of scholars who have helped me clarify my
thinking, particularly Prof. Adrian Little, Dr. Dave McRae, and Dr. Ken
Setiawan. Fellow postgraduates have provided me not only with valuable
encouragement but also great friendship: Bahruddin, Primatia Romana,
Lukman-nul Hakim, Hellena Souisa, and Karin Qiao. Moreover, I also
appreciate the support of Ayu Rahmawati, Raras Cahyafitri, and Ahmad
Umar in providing valuable reflections about my doctoral project, as well
as the assistance of Raditya Darningtyas and Ben Morgan in transforming
my doctoral thesis into this book. I also humbly thank Vishal Daryanomel
for helping me during the publishing process.
During my fieldwork in Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Singapore, I enjoyed
the support of a number of generous souls. Thanks go to Yuyun Wahyun-
ingrum at the Human Rights Working Group, Indonesia; Abie Zaidannas
and Ezka Amalia at ASEAN Studies Centre, UGM; Shiela Rizkia and
Jhendra Samodra at the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am
also thankful to all of my research respondents for accepting my inter-
view request, taking the time to share their information and reflection,
and allowing me to observe their activities.
I am also extremely grateful to my family: my father, Bambang
Hariyanto, and my mother, Betty Pramindari, for their love and support,
to my brother, Hardy Prayogo, for his encouragement, and to my parents-
in-law, Sutejo and Mariyani. I also humbly thank my wife, Shinta Inda-
hayati, and my daughter, Arete Aryashamita Nandyatama, without whose
love and care this book could never have been completed.
While I acknowledge the valuable help of many individuals, I must
emphasise that I am solely responsible for any errors that this book
might contain. Some parts of Chapter “Indonesia and Human Rights
in ASEAN” have been published as a chapter (“Institutionalising Human
Rights in ASEAN: The Peril of Doxic Subordination”) in 50 Years of
Amity and Enmity: The Politics of ASEAN Cooperation, edited by Poppy
Winanti and Muhammad Rum, Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University
Press, 2018. Lastly, I dedicate this book to the three ‘angels’ in my
life—my mother, my wife, and my daughter.

Yogyakarta, March 2021 Randy W. Nandyatama

 Inhalt

Searching for the ‘Unsung Hero’: Civil Society

Organisations in ASEAN? 1
Defining Key Concepts and Scopes: ASEAN Regionalism
and CSOs 9
Researching Three In-Case Variations of Indonesian CSOs 15
Book Structure 19
Bibliography 22
The Practice of Human Rights Norm Dynamics in ASEAN 31
Taking Stock of Indonesian CSOs’ Advocacy and Human Rights
in ASEAN 32
Institutionalisation of Human Rights in ASEAN 32
Indonesian CSOs’ Advocacy in ASEAN 36
Constructivists’ Understanding of Human Rights
Institutionalisation in ASEAN 41
Bringing Bourdieu-Inspired Constructivist IR to ASEAN 50
Operationalising Field Theory in Understanding Human
Rights in ASEAN 51
Enhancing Sensitivity to Power Relations in ASEAN 54
Conclusion 58
Bibliography 58
Indonesia and Human Rights in ASEAN 71
Reference to Human Rights in ASEAN 72

vii
viii CONTENTS

ASEAN in Human Rights Issues: Exploring Doxa 82

The ASEAN Doxa in Theory 83
The ASEAN Doxa in Practice 88
Indonesia’s Role in Human Rights Issues 92
Conclusion 102
Bibliography 103
Exploring Indonesian CSOs’ Normative Positions
on Human Rights in ASEAN 111
Understanding the ASEAN Political Space for Indonesian CSOs 113
Identifying Indonesian CSOs’ Involvement in the ASEAN
Political Space 118
Indonesian CSOs Influencing ASEAN Issues Pre-2003: The
‘Boys’ Club’ 119
Indonesian CSOs in ASEAN Issues Post-2003: More Complex
Actors 127
Reflections on Indonesian CSOs’ Positions in the ASEAN
Political Space 133
Supportive Indonesian CSOs 134
Critical Indonesian CSOs 137
Conclusion 141
Bibliography 142
Indonesian CSOs’ Political Strategies for ASEAN Human
Rights Advocacy 149
Pattern of Supportive Engagement 150
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 151
Pattern of Critical Engagement 163
The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence
(KontraS) 163
Pattern of Adaptive Engagement 176
Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) 177
Conclusion 187
Bibliography 188
Indonesian CSOs’ Power Relations in the Field of ASEAN 195
The Power of a Supportive Narrative: CSIS 197
CSIS Power Relations in ASEAN 198
From Intellectual Expert to Acquiescence to ASEAN’s Doxa 205
Power of Popular Resistance: KontraS 210
 CONTENTS ix

KontraS’ Power Relations in ASEAN 211

Resisting the ASEAN Doxa 217
Power of Adaptive Advocacy Strategy: HRWG 221
HRWG Power Relations in ASEAN 223
Sleeping with the Enemy 227
Conclusion 231
Bibliography 233
Conclusion: Competing CSOs’ Advocacy and the ASEAN
Human Rights Agenda 237
The Dynamism of ASEAN’s Human Rights Institutionalisation
Process 238
The ASEAN Doxa 241
Political Map of Indonesian CSOs in the Field of ASEAN 243
The Link Between Power Relations and Norm Dynamics
in ASEAN 246
Concluding Remarks 249
Bibliography 257

Appendix: Comparison Between the CSIS Proposal

and the Bali Concord II 263
Index 269
 Abbreviations

ACSC ASEAN Civil Society Conference

ACWC ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
the rights of Women and Children
AFAD Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances
AHRD ASEAN Human Rights Declaration
AICHR ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights
AICOHR ASEAN-ISIS Colloquia on Human Rights
AJI Aliansi Jurnalis Independen [Independent Journalist
Alliance]
AMM ASEAN Ministerial Meeting
APA ASEAN Peoples’ Assembly
APCET Asia-Pacific Coalition for East Timor
APF ASEAN Peoples’ Forum
APSC ASEAN Political-Security Community
ASC ASEAN Security Community
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASEAN SOM ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting
ASEAN-ISIS ASEAN Institutes of Strategic and International Studies
AsiaDHRRA Asian Partnership for the Development of Human Resources
in Rural Asia
CAT Convention Against Torture
CED International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimina-
tion Against Women
CPR Committee of Permanent Representatives

xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS

CROC Convention on the Rights of the Child

CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
CSIS Centre for Strategic and International Studies (Jakarta)
CSO Civil Society Organisation
ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council
ELSAM Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat [Institute for
Policy Research and Advocacy (Indonesia)]
EPG Eminent Persons Group
EU European Union
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
[German Corporation for International Cooperation]
HLP High Level Panel (on an ASEAN Human Rights Body)
HRWG Human Rights Working Group (Indonesia)
HTLF High Level Task Force
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Racial Discrimination
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
IKOHI Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia [The Indonesian
Association of Families of the Disappeared]
INFID International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development
IR International Relations
ISDS Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (The Philip-
pines)
ISEAS Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore)
ISIS Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Malaysia,
Thailand)
KOMNAS HAM Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia [National Commission
on Human Rights (Indonesia)]
KontraS Komisi Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak
Kekerasan [Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of
Violence (Indonesia)]
LBH Lembaga Bantuan Hukum [Legal Aid Institute (Indonesia)]
MAPHILINDO Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia group
MOFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NGO Nongovernment Organisation
PHBI Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum Indonesia [Indonesian Legal
Aid and Human Rights Association
PIRD Publicity International Relations Department
SAMIN Yayasan Sekretariat Anak Merdeka Indonesia [Secretariat for
Independent Indonesian Children]
SAPA Solidarity for Asian People’s Advocacy
 ABBREVIATIONS xiii

SAPA-TFAHR Solidarity for Asian People’s Advocacy Task Force on ASEAN

and Human Rights
SEACA South East Asian Committee for Advocacy
SEANWFZ Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone
SIAP Solidaritas Indonesia for ASEAN People
SIIA Singapore Institute of International Affairs
SOMSWD Senior Officials Meeting on Social Welfare and Development
TAC Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
TFAHR Task Force on ASEAN and Human Rights
ToR Terms of Reference
UK The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
UN The United Nations
US The United States of America
VAP Vientiane Action Programme
YLBHI Yayasan LBH Indonesia [Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation]
ZOPFAN The Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality
 List of Tables

Indonesia and Human Rights in ASEAN

Table 1 International human rights treaties: Ratification
and/or accession status (ASEAN member countries
as of June 2020) 79
Table 2 The ASEAN doxa and its practices in human rights issues 91

xv
Searching for the ‘Unsung Hero’: Civil Society
Organisations in ASEAN?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is the primary inter-

governmental regional institution in Southeast Asia. The Association was
created by five original member states, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singa-
pore, Thailand, and the Philippines, through the signing of the Bangkok
Declaration in August 1967. It later expanded to include Brunei Darus-
salam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia, resulting in a total
membership of ten member states. In 2007, the Association adopted
the ASEAN Charter, marking one of the most significant changes in the
region. Generally deemed to be ‘weakly institutionalised’ during the Cold
War period, ASEAN has been characterised by new aspirations in building
a sense of community and establishing a more structured, institution-
alised, and rules-based system (Acharya 2009, 493; see also Narine 2002;
Weatherbee 2013).
Institutionalisation, as the process of building shared norms and collec-
tive practices binding ASEAN member states, represents an important
development in the region. This process is particularly evident with regard
to the issue of human rights. Long seen as a sensitive or even taboo
matter in the region human rights were elevated by the Charter to
become one of the core principles of ASEAN. After adopting the Charter,
ASEAN leaders established the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission
on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009 and adopted the ASEAN Human

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
R. W. Nandyatama, Indonesian Civil Society and Human Rights
Advocacy in ASEAN, Contestations in Contemporary Southeast Asia,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3093-4_1
2 R. W. NANDYATAMA

Rights Declaration (AHRD) in 2012, demonstrating the increasingly

formal institutionalisation of human rights in the region (ASEAN 2007;
see also Chalermpalanupap 2009; Ciorciari 2012; Collins 2013, 81–83;
Frost 2008; Tan 2011).
ASEAN’s progress in institutionalising human rights has been
described as an ambitious plan for reform to ‘pursue liberal agendas’ in
facing post-Cold War challenges (Katsumata 2007, 34). However, while
the development of the ASEAN Charter and AHRD signals a dramatic
shift in regional institutionalisation of human rights, we need to also
acknowledge the apparent inability of ASEAN to provide real, proac-
tive human rights protection at the grassroots level. ASEAN, including
AICHR, does not have a mandate to independently ‘investigate cases
brought by private citizens’ or ‘issue judgments against states’ that
commit human rights violations in the region (Ciorciari 2012, 714–715;
see also Kelsall 2009). Even in responding to serious human rights atroci-
ties like the presecution of the Rohingya in 2016 and 2017, ASEAN only
issued statement urging ‘expeditious commencement of the voluntary
return of displaced persons to Myanmar’ and the collaboration between
ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster
management and the Myanmar government in providing ‘humanitarian
assistance’ without condemning the perpetrator and developing a strict
compliance mechanism (ASEAN 2018). Likewise, despite clear commit-
ment to adhering to ‘the principles of democracy … and protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms’ in its Charter, ASEAN did
not condemn the 2014 military coup in Thailand and the 2021 military
coup in Myanmar (ASEAN 2007). These abovementioned ambivalent
responses signal, to a certain extent, a crucial limitation of ASEAN. Davies
(2014, 122) notes, the current ‘rhetoric-action gap’ in human rights
issues demonstrates the diversity of beliefs around human rights within
ASEAN, a potential stumbling block to wider regional integration (see
also Davies 2013, 209; Narine 2002). Jetschke and Rüland (2009, 182–
183) even argue that ASEAN’s reform agenda merely signals institutional
isomorphism.
Against the backdrop of this empirical puzzle, we can see a growing
body of scholarly work trying to disentangle it. Jetschke (2009, 407),
for instance, argues that ASEAN’s institutional development ‘reflects
a concern for international legitimacy and less an objective functional
demand’ arising from within the member states, and that the process
of ‘mimicking the European integration process’ was only targeted at
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 3

creating rhetorical goals of cooperation, but carried no real commit-

ment to actual achievements. In a similar tone, Katsumata (2011, 558)
stresses that ‘ASEAN members have mimetically adopted norms practised
by advanced industrial democracies in Europe and North America, with
the aim of securing the identity of ASEAN as a modern and legitimate
organisation in today’s global society’ (see also Allison 2015). The process
of human rights institutionalisation in ASEAN, thus, can be understood
as the outcome of how the member states react to Western countries’
human rights norm projection, and then modify these external norms
into something that can pragmatically bring benefit for the Association,
resulting in the adoption of a cosmetically similar human rights norm with
no real commitment. This certainly elucidates the links between interna-
tional community’s push and the institutionalisation of human rights in
ASEAN.
Nevertheless, focusing exclusively on how ASEAN member states
adapt foreign norms into regional norms discounts the importance of
the complex socio-political context within Southeast Asia itself. It risks
skewing the ASEAN political map as only consisting of member states
and oversimplifying ASEAN’s institutional development as having a linear
path and existing in a normative vacuum. In order to develop a holistic
picture of the norm dynamics in ASEAN, it is important to dissect the
myths associated with the process (see Guzzini 2000; Price and Reus-Smit
1998; Wiener and Puetter 2010). In other words, it is essential to care-
fully map the wide array of political actors in the region and scrupulously
investigate the ways in which those actors engage and advocate human
rights norms to ASEAN. The two major concerns in here are the overly
state-centric framework of much analysis of ASEAN and the need for
recognising the often-underappreciated broader range of the engagement
of political actors in the region, particularly civil society organisations
(CSOs).
Some scholars point to the possibility of ‘participatory regionalism’
in Southeast Asia, where democratisation in Southeast Asia is reshaping
ASEAN by opening space for CSOs (see Acharya 2003, 388). However,
others are sceptical about this prospect, given the strong state-centrism of
ASEAN’s institutional design, the historical remnants of mistrust among
its member states, and the apparently quite limited space for involvement
of CSOs in ASEAN (Asplund 2014; Beeson 2009; Gerard 2014a, 2015;
Jayasuria and Rodan 2007; Roberts 2012). Gerard (2015), for instance,
notes that the strict process for accrediting regional CSOs’ networks
4 R. W. NANDYATAMA

and insubstantial interface meetings between CSOs and government offi-

cials signal the limits of CSOs’ role in ASEAN. In contrast, this book
explores the ways in which some CSOs in ASEAN member states, specif-
ically Indonesia, have been increasingly engaging with ASEAN to shape
the regional institutionalisation process. In fact, the forms of advocacy
employed by CSOs are an increasingly significant feature of interna-
tional politics in Southeast Asia, increasing the complexity of normative
dynamics within ASEAN, which form a crucial point of analysis in this
book.
Indeed, this book recognises the historical specificity of ASEAN, such
as the Association’s raison d’être during the Cold War, and its impact
on intramural relations among political actors in the region. Accordingly,
it seeks neither to disregard the prevailing position of member states in
the regional institutionalisation process nor to suggest the demise of their
power within ASEAN. Rather, this book underscores the need to take a
wider view of the political landscape to understand the dynamics of the
ASEAN institutionalisation process (see Chandra 2006; Igarashi 2011;
see also Bøås et al. 2003, 201; Söderbaum 2013). Within the increas-
ingly open political space in ASEAN, CSOs can take advantage of the
greater opportunity for engagement with other political actors and create
networks of collaborative or competitive action in advocating human
rights norms and practices in the region.
Nevertheless, CSO engagement in ASEAN is not well explained by
the existing scholarly literature on ASEAN. The dominant narratives on
ASEAN all too often focus on power politics as the driving force of
the regional institutionalisation process (Beeson 2009; Emmers 2012;
Goh 2012; Khong 2004; Leifer 1989, 1999; Tarling 2010). While these
scholars do take the institutionalisation of ASEAN into consideration,
they primarily link it with the states’ interests in maintaining the balance
of power in the region. This overlooks a deeper process of institutionali-
sation, which reflects the sociological aspect of norm dynamics and the
more complex picture of various non-state actors’ engagement in the
region. Moreover, whereas we can also see growing scholarly interest
in understanding non-state actors’ engagement with ASEAN and their
role in ASEAN, such as from Chandra (2006, 2009), Collins (2008),
Gerard (2014a, 2014b, 2015), and Nesadurai (2009, 2012), this work
often focuses on particular forms of CSOs’ advocacy patterns and fail
to locate the myriad different CSOs in the bigger picture of norma-
tive development of ASEAN. Nesadurai (2012), for instance, argues that
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 5

CSOs’ activities, especially within the ASEAN Peoples’ Forum, signal an

unorthodox approach towards the existing state-led ASEAN regionalism,
challenging the dominant regional framework. However, while this narra-
tive is becoming increasingly popular among a wider group of scholars,
we should be wary of overgeneralising the relationship between CSOs and
other actors in ASEAN as always adversarial, so missing the nuances of the
myriad CSOs’ involvement in the institutionalisation of human rights in
the region.
This book attempts to provide a better understanding of the institu-
tionalisation of human rights in ASEAN, particularly in carefully analysing
how CSOs engage with other relevant political actors and ASEAN in
shaping the normative dynamics of human rights in the region. In
unpacking this question, this book focuses on Indonesia. As the biggest
country Southeast Asia, Indonesia is well regarded as the primus inter
pares or ‘first among equals’ in ASEAN. The Indonesian government, in
fact, has often been seen as trying to show its role as a significant player in
regional and international arena, such as in being an intellectual leader and
avid supporter for ASEAN reform (see Alexandra 2011). In the words of
Natalegawa (2010, [translated]) ‘for Indonesia, the evolution of ASEAN
into a more open community … is crucial for ensuring the connectivity
between Indonesian and global transformation’.
The focus on the role of Indonesia is particularly relevant in the
development of ASEAN reform, especially in human rights. Along with
the onset of Reformasi era, Indonesia has demonstrated its growing
interest and commitment for pushing ASEAN’s global role through
supporting the institutionalisation of democratic norms (Acharya 2001;
Emmers 2014; Smith 2000; Weatherbee 2013). The Indonesian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), for instance, actively engaged with civil society
organisations in defining the Indonesian needs and strongly pushed for
the creation of ASEAN human rights body in the ASEAN Charter (Djani
2009). Coupled with the record of increasingly vibrant CSOs, the closer
linkage between non-state actors and the Indonesian government can
provide crucial insight into wider norm dynamics in Southeast Asia,
particularly the involvement of Indonesian CSOs in influencing Indone-
sian government’s regional policy and ASEAN itself (see Acharya 2003;
Rüland 2018a).
Indeed, we cannot assume that the Indonesian government and
ASEAN take all CSOs’ voices into account during the process of building
shared norms and forming regional human rights mechanisms. A careful
6 R. W. NANDYATAMA

examination of various Indonesian CSOs’ modes of engagement in the

region and their link to human rights norm dynamics in ASEAN is
needed. This book draws from constructivist International Relations (IR)
approaches in understanding the nature of institutionalisation processes
in ASEAN and understanding how political actors interact with existing
mechanisms in socialising new norms in the region. As Onuf (1998, 59)
argues, ‘social relations make or construct people—us—into the kinds
of beings we are’. Political actors, thus, will never internalise certain
collective norms without socialisation, which is to say the active intersub-
jective process of agreeing to a mutual interpretation of social reality and
expected ways of acting against such reality. However, socialisation is often
narrowly seen as a linear political process where institutions or domi-
nant actors within institutions try to transmit norms to new members
(see Johnston 2001, 494–495; Stryker and Statham 1985, 325). Rather
underplayed in the existing literature is the possibility of a socialisation
process where new political actors can successfully wield their power to
create intimate interactions with others and create a conducive environ-
ment for having some projected norms be shared and taken for granted
among broader actors within the institution. This book specifically under-
lines this wider understanding of the socialisation process, particularly in
sensing norm dynamics within ASEAN in a much more comprehensive
way.
Several prominent scholars have contributed to constructivist IR anal-
ysis of ASEAN. Acharya, for instance, proposes the logic of norm
localisation in ASEAN. He argues that the Association’s institutional
progress is the result of member states’ engagement in a ‘long-term and
evolutionary assimilation of foreign [norms]’ with regional norms which
‘does not extinguish the cognitive prior of the norm-takers but leads
to its mutual inflection with external norms’ (Acharya 2004, 250–251).
This logic is notably adopted and expanded upon by other scholars in
understanding ASEAN, such as Allison (2015), Bellamy and Drummond
(2011), Capie (2008), and Eaton and Stubbs (2006). However, while
these constructivist scholars have laid a useful foundation for compre-
hending the reality of international politics as a product of intersubjective
social construction, they often focus primarily on the primacy of member
states in ASEAN norm dynamics.
In advancing the aforementioned constructivist IR research, this book
is concerned with moving beyond state-centric analysis of ASEAN. To
achieve this, the book focuses on the case of Indonesia and adopts a
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 7

Bourdieu-inspired constructivist IR perspective in making sense of the

nature of the ASEAN human rights institutionalisation process and inves-
tigating the detailed engagement practices among Indonesian CSOs,
Indonesian government officials, and ASEAN. Through carefully sensing
the engagement of CSOs with the dynamics of regional norms, we get
a clear picture of the constructions of dominant knowledge and prac-
tices on human rights issues within ASEAN—or the so-called field of
ASEAN—and social struggles among related actors in this field (see
Pouliot 2012; Pouliot and Mérand 2013). While existing scholarly works
emphasis the normative interactions between ASEAN member states and
the international community (especially Western countries) on the insti-
tutionalisation of human rights in the region (see Engle 2000; Jetschke
and Rüland 2009; Katsumata 2009), this book underlines the connection
between the existing dominant regional norms within ASEAN and how
different political actors, particularly CSOs, enact their power and engage
in political contestations for advocating human rights in such a distinct
normative context (see Adler-Nissen and Pouliot 2014; see also Guzzini
2005; Pouliot 2008). With this focus, we can not only see the different
CSOs’ advocacy approaches to promoting human rights in ASEAN, but
also how CSO might shift their approach and signal a distinct advocacy
pattern.
Specifically, this book argues that we need to understand three essential
elements. First, utilising Bourdieu’s field theory, this book demonstrates
that the institutionalisation of human rights in ASEAN is not a linear
process of formalising member states’ interests. Rather, the institution-
alisation process is the manifestation of a sociological sense of norm
dynamics in the region and the nature of this process in ASEAN is closely
linked with the existing doxa, the set of pre-reflexive norms which domi-
nate the field of interaction in the region (see further details of this
concept in chapter “The Practice of Human Rights Norm Dynamics in
ASEAN”). In the field of ASEAN, the central doxa are the principles
of non-interference, consensus-based decision making, pacifistic approach
to regional problems, and incrementalism, and these doxa are maintained
through the regular diplomatic practices of member states in the region.
In fact, these doxa have been shaping the way in which new norms and
ideas, including human rights, are socialised in the region.
Second, in analysing CSOs’ reaction to such doxa, this book demon-
strates the variety of their normative positions and advocacy strategies in
pushing for the institutionalisation of human rights norms in ASEAN.
8 R. W. NANDYATAMA

Within the case of Indonesia, we can see three in-case variations of

domestic CSOs involved in ASEAN human rights issues, namely the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Komisi untuk
Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan [the Commission for the
Disappeared and Victims of Violence] (KontraS), and the Human Rights
Working Group (HRWG). This book specifically identifies three patterns
of Indonesian CSOs’ engagement with the Indonesian government and
ASEAN in influencing the human rights institutionalisation process in
the region, namely supportive (exemplified by CSIS), critical (exempli-
fied by KontraS) and adaptive (exemplified by HRWG). That said, it
is difficult to strictly define and categorise the wide array of Indonesian
CSOs’ engagement. Whereas CSIS’ engagement is characterised here as
supportive, this does not mean that CSIS never criticises the government.
Nevertheless, within the spectrum of Indonesian CSOs’ engagement with
ASEAN, CSIS represents one of the most supportive efforts to give assis-
tance to the Indonesian government and ASEAN in institutionalising
human rights norms according to the existing mechanisms. Similarly, this
book characterises KontraS’ engagement pattern as critical, signifying
its active emphasis on public protests against the Indonesian govern-
ment and ASEAN in pushing the adoption of universal human rights
standards. In contrast to CSIS and KontraS, HRWG signals a pattern
of adaptive engagement. HRWG is basically a critical Indonesian CSO
yet at the same time it has been gradually demonstrating an adaptive
approach to ASEAN-dominant mechanisms in its regional human rights
advocacy efforts, moving across the spectrum from critical to slightly
more supportive to ASEAN.
Third, there is a distinct implication of various CSOs’ patterns of
engagement in the region. CSOs’ differing advocacy strategies and
normative contentions generate a more complex picture of norm
dynamics and less coherence among Indonesian CSOs’ efforts in insti-
tutionalising human rights in ASEAN. This eventually provides a greater
space for member states maintaining the practice of the dominant doxa
in the region and continuing the gap between ASEAN’s rhetoric and its
action on human rights issues.
Ultimately, though it examines Indonesian CSOs’ engagement with
Indonesian government officials and ASEAN, this book does not claim
to generalise all CSOs’ engagement patterns in Southeast Asia or to make
a claim about the preponderant role of CSOs over all other actors in
ASEAN. Moreover, this book should be understood as a companion piece
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 9

or alternative view to scholarly works which elaborate on the role of

international actors and organisations such as the European Union (EU)
and the United Nations (UN) in socialising human rights to the region
(cf. Jetschke 2009, 2013; Jetschke and Murray 2012; Rüland 2000,
2018b). As ASEAN has its distinct doxa, external norms are not adopted
spontaneously by member states. Instead, it is essential to examine inter-
mediary actors in the region, particularly through their power relations
with member states during the norms socialisation process. In exam-
ining this issue, this book provides an analytical basis for understanding
the practices of wider internal actors within the region in engaging with
human rights issues in ASEAN, and understanding the region’s norma-
tive and power relationships, which have proved to be more complex
than ASEAN scholars previously thought. To do this, the book under-
takes detailed analysis of various Indonesian CSOs’ normative positions
and power relations in the region, as well as their role in shaping the
dynamics of ASEAN regionalism, particularly on human rights issues.

Defining Key Concepts and Scopes:

ASEAN Regionalism and CSOs
Central to this book is the understanding of how CSOs engage with
ASEAN in shaping the institutionalisation of human rights norms in
the region. The book focuses on a case study analysis of Indonesia and
considers three aspects, namely: understanding the nature of the human
rights institutionalisation process within ASEAN, analysing how Indone-
sian CSOs engage with other actors in socialising human rights norms
within the field of ASEAN, and drawing out the implication of various
Indonesian CSOs’ engagement on the normative power dynamics in the
region. Each of these aspects will be addressed in the subsequent chapters.
In elaborating the abovementioned focus, it is important to define the
key concepts of this book, particularly the scope of ASEAN regionalism
and CSOs that are featured in this book. Along with the rapid emergence
of regional projects worldwide, we can see the rise of scholarly interest in
regionalism as an important feature in contemporary international politics
(see Buzan and Wæver 2003; Hettne and Inotai 1994; Hurrell 1995;
MacLeod 2001; Katzenstein 2007).
There are various ways of understanding regional institutions. While
early studies, such as Nye (1968), simply define regionalism as the political
project of forming inter-state groupings based on geographical relations
10 R. W. NANDYATAMA

and mutual interdependence, contemporary studies on regionalism focus

on making sense of ‘region-ness’ in the regionalism process. According
to Hurrell (1995, 38–39), the essential point in comprehending region-
alism lies not in reaching agreement among member states, but in how
those states perceive and interpret ‘region’, emphasising its characteristics
as socially constructed and politically contested. This conceptualisation is
clearly transformative. Within this paradigm lies the understanding that
a regional project will depend on the existence of active interactions in
building a sense of shared commonalities, including norms and beliefs
(Evans 1996, 11; Tarling 2006, 8–9). As a result, ASEAN regionalism
can be understood as a reflection of a set of collective understandings
and shared norms, its formation signalling the ability of member states to
reconstruct collective norms from the adaptation of external norms to the
existing prior local norms (Acharya 2004).
Specifically, this book strives to provide a comprehensive account of the
actors involved in ASEAN regionalism processes, moving beyond the focus
on the member states. This perspective sits within the broader context of
how ASEAN exemplifies the existence of the ‘new regionalism’, which
emphasises the development of a regional institution that is more elusive
and shaped by a wider range of concerns and initiatives from complex
networks of state and non-state actors in the globalised world (Hettne
2003; see also Chandra 2004, 2006; Nair 2008; Nesadurai 2009; Palmu-
joki 2001). As Hettne (2003, 23) argues, it is important to be critical
in sensing new features of the regionalism process and differentiating
between ‘old regionalism’, which is dominated by state-led mechanisms
and the economic aspect of cooperation, and ‘new regionalism’, which
reflects a more complex political process beyond the Westphalian state
system, with more consideration of the role of non-state actors (see also
Hettne 2005; Nair 2008).
The new regionalism paradigm clearly highlights the scope of region-
alism as a political project self-consciously pursued among wider political
actors in the region in increasing interactions and closer transnational ties,
emphasising the sense of active relationships among these actors. This
focus is certainly relevant for examining the dynamic of ASEAN region-
alism in the post-Cold War period, particularly in interpreting a more
elusive pattern of wider society engagement in creating and transforming
the collective norms in the region. The ‘democratisation process [in the
region] during the late 1980s and 1990s’ has undoubtedly provided an
initial context for paving the way for increasing demands to analytically
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 11

probe the actual possibility of ‘participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia’

(Acharya 2003, 376).
At this point, it becomes necessary to define the notion of ‘civil soci-
ety’. Lee (2004, 1) argues, for example, that civil society is an ‘essentially
contested concept’, and its application is often subject to intense and
endless debate (see also Purdue 2007; Seligman 1992). Scholars tend
to regard CSOs as an amorphous concept that can fit under several
headings, ranging from an organisation that associates exclusively with
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to any entity that engages in
voluntary activism with (often liberal) ‘civility’ characteristics, such as
tolerance and openness (Scholte 2014; see also Edwards 2004; Gellner
1996; Kaviraj and Khilnani 2001; Willetts 2011).
The context above is clearly apparent in the case of ASEAN. Scholars
in ASEAN studies usually focus on a certain CSO (or network of CSOs)
in order to frame a distinct narrative, aiming to promote certain interests
deemed to be ‘intellectually interesting and politically helpful’ for some
groups (Scholte 2014, 10). We need to be cognisant and cautious as this
practice itself generates a distinct political implication for ASEAN (see
context in chapter “Indonesian CSOs’ Power Relations in the Field of
ASEAN”). For example, we see little attention given by ASEAN scholars
to CSOs’ role in ASEAN, despite Lee’s (2004, 12) claim that ‘from the
1970s onwards countries like Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia … began
to undergo major social, cultural, and economic transformation’ which
marked how a ‘new social movement began to emerge in civil societies in
Southeast Asia’. Early research on the role of CSOs in ASEAN exclusively
focused on the role of think tanks, such as CSIS and the ASEAN Insti-
tutes of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS)—a regional
network of which CSIS is a founding member (see Caballero-Anthony
2006; Hernandez 1999, 2006; Kraft 2000). While illuminating how CSIS
and ASEAN-ISIS perform as crucial actors in advocating ideas to ASEAN,
these scholars often generate a skewed picture of the map of CSOs in the
region, neglecting the wider array of CSOs which also engage with the
Association.
Realising the limitation of the application of the notion of ‘civil soci-
ety’ in the existing ASEAN literature, this book underlines the need to
be sensitive in analysing empirical practices of the political relationships
of a wider range of non-state actors in Southeast Asia, particularly their
political activism in advocating regional issues. As such, this book adopts
Scholte’s (2014, 20) description of civil society as ‘a political sphere
12 R. W. NANDYATAMA

where associations of citizens seek, from the outside political party and
market system, to shape the rules that govern social relations’ (see also
Clarke 1998; McGann and Weaver 2006). Here, CSOs are defined as
both ‘space’ (since the form of political associations emerges and acts in a
distinct medium between formal apparatus and market system) and ‘polit-
ical actor’ (dedicated to advocating certain ideas/norms to the related
authority). This double-barrelled-definition allows us to identify several
characteristics of CSOs as follows: firstly, CSOs must reflect a sense of
agency and independence; secondly, CSOs in essence are political projects
in advocating values in a society (including with the authority); and
thirdly, CSOs are also sites of deliberation in regard to normative positions
and political actions (Edwards 2004; Keane 1988, 1998; Putnam 1993;
Scholte 2014). This conceptualisation might not seem ground breaking,
particularly as it can be deemed to have liberal tendencies, but defining
CSOs in this way enhances our ability to pay attention to the broad
range of engagement patterns and to make sense of Indonesian CSOs’
contribution to shaping the ASEAN human rights agenda.
This book is structured along the abovementioned conceptual lines,
especially in focusing on the engagement of the various Indonesian CSOs
with relevant political actors in ASEAN on human rights issues. Specif-
ically, through adopting Scholte’s conceptualisation of CSOs, this book
analyses Indonesian CSOs’ actions in engaging with other political actors
on regional human rights issues. This analytical lens not only allows
the book to acknowledge the importance of exploring the dynamics of
regional norms, but also enables a deeper investigation of Indonesian
CSOs’ agency in socialising human rights norms in the region (see Hettne
2005, 544; Nair 2008), shedding critical light on the agency of CSOs in
stimulating regional norms and the socialisation process. It is expected
that the emphasis on carefully assessing a wider array of Indonesian CSOs
can facilitate the mapping of Southeast Asian CSOs’ normative engage-
ment with ASEAN and form a robust analysis of their role in human rights
institutionalisation in the region.
One of this book’s contributions to the current body of work is that
its definition of ASEAN regionalism is based around how the agen-
tial capability in political space can influence practices on shared norms
creation and CSOs, which enables us to get an alternative view from the
dominant state-centric analyses of ASEAN human rights institutionalisa-
tion. The early establishment of ASEAN regionalism was predominantly
based on Southeast Asian elites’ closed-door communication, which they
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 13

maintained so as to preserve their power in maintaining regional peace

and stability. State-centrism has thus been the most defining structure
of ASEAN member states’ logic regarding the behaviour and nature of
ASEAN’s institutional design (Acharya and Stubbs 2006; see also Beeson
2009). However, adopting a state-centric analytical perspective obscures
the complex role non-state actors play in reinforcing, modifying, or chal-
lenging the attitude of ASEAN member states towards the adoption of
human rights norms. This book recognises a broader range of polit-
ical actors which engage with and shape ASEAN politics than is usually
accounted for in the literature.
Some scholars have observed the emergence of contemporary CSO
activism in Southeast Asia, seeking to make sense of both the CSOs’
advocacy in regional issues and the development of ASEAN in embracing
CSOs. Scholarship on CSOs in ASEAN appears to be divided into two
camps. On the one hand, some researchers focus on certain CSOs with
close relations with ASEAN elites (see Hernandez 1999, 2006; Kraft
2000; Soesastro et al. 2006) and often simplify the map of CSOs and
overemphasise the form of CSOs which have amicable interactions with
ASEAN. On the other hand, some other researchers often focus on a
certain form of CSO with a strong animosity towards ASEAN member
states (see Chandra 2006, 2009; Gerard 2013, 2014a; Rüland 2014).
As a result, these researchers often overemphasise the hierarchical aspect
and adversarial position of the state vis-à-vis CSOs. Both camps, in turn,
provide only partial explanations in the study of ASEAN regionalism,
including in human rights issues. This leads to a risk of neglecting the
complexity of various CSOs’ agential relationships with other relevant
actors and underappreciating the more complex norm dynamics in the
region.
This book aims first to provide a robust conceptual basis for discerning
different modes of CSO engagement with ASEAN. Focusing on power
relations among wider political actors, it utilises Bourdieu’s field theory to
examine how Indonesian CSOs engage with other actors as they grapple
with dominant regional norms and seek to shape human rights norm
dynamics in ASEAN. This approach identifies the contributions of a wider
range of political actors to stimulating norm dynamics in the region and
adds to our understanding of the institutionalisation of human rights in
ASEAN.
The book further contributes to the current body of work by
responding to the need for an alternative participatory framework to
14 R. W. NANDYATAMA

advance ASEAN’s regionalism. Acharya (2003) notably signals the dawn

of a much more participatory tendency in ASEAN regionalism. He argues
that along with ‘democratisation in the Philippines, Thailand and more
recently Indonesia, the ASEAN model of elite-centric regional socialisa-
tion has been challenged’ and ‘the civil society in the region demands
greater openness in Southeast Asian regionalism’ (Acharya 2003, 375;
see also Chandra 2006; Gerard 2014b; Uhlin 2016). However, before
arriving at an appropriate approach to participatory regionalism in
ASEAN, we need a clear understanding of ASEAN’s power dynamic. At
present, contemporary research on ASEAN regionalism has frequently
focused on ASEAN’s institutional design, rather than the dynamics of
institutional transformation. Many existing scholarly works on ASEAN
attempt to explain the logic of the regional institutionalisation process
by focusing on instances of institutional problems or by making compar-
isons with other regional projects outside Southeast Asia, especially in the
European Union (Cockerham 2010; Jetschke 2009, 2013; Jetschke and
Murray 2012; Jetschke and Rüland 2009; Tay 2001). This has led to a
disproportionate focus on the pathology of ASEAN regional mechanisms
rather than on, for example, the norms socialisation process among wider
relevant political actors in the region.
Furthermore, there is little examination of detailed practices of how
political actors signal their actions and narratives in socialising norms and
shaping the ASEAN institutionalisation process. By focusing on polit-
ical engagement and advocacy between Indonesian CSOs and ASEAN,
this book aims to understand the diverse mechanisms of how CSOs can
contribute or add complexity to the regionalism process. Emphasis on
the detailed empirical evidence of the practice of CSO engagement with
other actors in the region allows for a much more sensitive analysis of how
their activities are embedded in norm dynamics in the region, and of the
complexities that might be created in the process of human rights institu-
tionalisation in ASEAN. This can certainly lead to a more holistic view of
the link between Indonesian CSOs’ advocacy and the ASEAN institution-
alisation process, and to a more attentive analysis of these CSOs’ activities
in ASEAN’s political sphere. Consequently, this book will build under-
standing of Indonesian CSOs’ relationships with other relevant actors in
the region, pushing beyond the dominance of state-led mechanisms to
facilitate more exploration of ‘bottom-up’ processes in ASEAN region-
alism studies, highlighting the nuanced context of ASEAN’s current
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 15

progress in advancing its institutionalisation process and increasing the

possibility of meaningful participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia.

Researching Three In-Case

Variations of Indonesian CSOs
This book adopts a Bourdieu-inspired constructivist IR perspective as an
analytical framework to probe empirical data for Southeast Asia, utilising
a case study method to explore political dynamism in Indonesia. Recog-
nising that the Indonesian government is generally accepted as the leader
and reformer in ASEAN (see Anwar 1994; Tan 2013) and accepting
the record of democratisation in Indonesia’s foreign policy, including
in embracing growing CSO voices in regional issues (see Poole 2015;
Rüland 2009), the focus on Indonesia and its domestic CSOs illumi-
nates the broader phenomena of the ways in which CSOs can engage with
other actors in the region in advocating regional human rights. Despite
refraining from making an authoritative claim on the whole picture of
ASEAN, the case study method in this book allows deep exploration
of Indonesian CSOs’ engagement in ASEAN human rights issues and
produces insights which can shed light on the larger realm of CSOs’
human rights advocacy in Southeast Asia.
The case study approach taken in this book is deliberately drawn from
the tradition of constructivist IR research, particularly in facilitating a
better exploration of agential relations and normative interactions among
political actors (Pouliot 2007; see also Klotz and Lynch 2015). This
approach suits the spirit of Bourdieu’s field theory in gaining deeper
understanding of the overarching normative structure of political inter-
actions in the region and being more sensitive towards the everyday
practices of political actors’ power relations as part of their effort in
advancing their normative positions to other actors. As such, the case
study of Indonesia is aimed at generating extensive data for compre-
hending two essential issues: first, the nature of the ASEAN human rights
institutionalisation process and the role and power of member states,
specifically Indonesia, within this process; second, the ways in which
Indonesian CSOs build power relations with other actors in the region
and socialise human rights norms to ASEAN.
This book specifically investigates the role of Indonesian CSOs within
the targeted series of human-rights-related political milestones spanning
from ASEAN’s initial inclusion of human rights concern in 1993 to the
16 R. W. NANDYATAMA

AHRD in 2012. Here, this book tries to draw on Guzzini’s (2017)

emphasis on taking some useful insights from non-positivist process-
tracing methodology, particularly in understanding the nature of historical
events as interpretable, and as interconnected with various political actors.
In doing so, this book deviates from the focus of only collecting histor-
ical evidence and making causal inferences. Instead, this book realises the
value of understanding how particular events are reflexively viewed by
the political actors involved and, in turn, pushes them to act politically,
generating a better picture of the role of particular groups within certain
historical events (Guzzini 2017; see also Pouliot 2015). By probing the
Indonesian government’s and ASEAN’s progress in human rights and
linking this with various Indonesian CSOs’ engagement strategies, we
can expect to generate a more informed understanding of the connec-
tion between regional norm dynamics and CSOs’ norms socialisation in
ASEAN.
Some scholars employing constructivist IR approaches, particularly
within the practice theory tradition, emphasise ethnographic observations
of the targeted social setting as the best method for examining shared
knowledge and social change from the view of everyday political actors’
practices (Neumann 2002, 2012; Schatz, 2009). In contrast, this book
proposes in-depth analysis of political actors’ power relations and norma-
tive interactions in the region, gathered through interviews of research
participants’ reflections on their environment recognition process as well
as media statement compilation (see Guzzini 2000, 2013a, 2017). The
adoption of Bourdieu’s field theory in enriching constructivist IR analysis
of ASEAN is not aimed at building simplified general systems of theory,
but instead serves as a theoretical point of departure to focus on under-
standing political actors’ perspectives on the existing field of ASEAN, as
well as exploring how said actors reproduce and change existing norms in
the region (Epstein 2008; Guzzini 2000, 2013b; Williams 2007).
This book draws on observations of various CSOs’ advocacy activ-
ities and on semi-structured interviews with 52 research participants
conducted during fieldwork in Indonesia and Singapore between January
and May 2016, and in Australia between November 2016 and August
2017. The format of the semi-structured interview is chosen as it can
capture broader contexts which are relevant to each participant and
explore the participant’s experience and views of reality (Denzin and
Lincoln 2008; see also Rubin and Rubin 1995). The open-ended format
allows for unprepared questions to emerge during the interview and
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 17

supports the development of trust between the targeted interviewee and

author.
Purposive sampling is used to identify and gather research participants,
who are then divided into three groups: first, relevant CSO staff members,
such as the director, coordinator for advocacy, and related persons who
deal with ASEAN human rights issues; second, Indonesian government
officials from the MoFA who specialise in ASEAN and human rights
issues; and third, ASEAN analysts from various universities, and inde-
pendent activists who have engaged with and followed the progress of
the institutionalisation of human rights in ASEAN. Semi-structured inter-
views will be utilised to gather information on the detailed engagement
practices of Indonesian CSOs and identify various normative positions
on human rights, and on the symbolic power CSOs gain through the
recognition of other regional actors. Earning trust and ascertaining the
views of interviewees regarding their experience in engaging with human
rights issues in ASEAN was not always easy, especially as some participants
still regard human rights issues as sensitive and/or constituting a foreign-
driven agenda. The information received from interviewing members of
these three groups demonstrates various reflexive narratives from different
actors on the practice of normative engagement on human rights among
actors in ASEAN.
There are three in-case variations of Indonesian CSOs that will be
analysed in this book. They are CSIS, KontraS, and HRWG, chosen
because they represent three different engagement patterns with ASEAN
in regional human rights issues (further detailed information on their
engagement patterns will be presented in chapters “Indonesian CSOs’
Political Strategies for ASEAN Human Rights Advocacy and Indonesian
CSOs’ Power Relations in the Field of ASEAN”). Of course, there are
other Indonesian CSOs and human rights activists beyond these three
that contribute to the institutionalisation of human rights in ASEAN.
Marzuki Darusman, for example, has been actively socialising human
rights norms through his personal connections with ASEAN leaders, his
network through the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights
Mechanism, and Human Rights Resource Centre for ASEAN (Gomez
and Ramcharan 2012; Munro 2011; Rüland 2009; Working Group for
an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism 2008; see also a brief elaboration
of this network in chapters “Indonesia and Human Rights in ASEAN
and Exploring Indonesian CSOs’ Normative Positions on Human Rights
in ASEAN”). However, his approach to regional human rights advocacy
18 R. W. NANDYATAMA

and engagement with ASEAN is similar enough to CSIS’ that there is

little to warrant the choice of one over the other as a target for analysis.
The three selected Indonesian CSOs are actively engaging ASEAN
in different ways with different approaches. Thus, it is essential for this
book to rigorously examine and understand how these Indonesian CSOs
engaged with and affected the ASEAN human rights agenda. The first
CSO is CSIS, based in Jakarta, Indonesia. As one of the most prominent
international-issues-focused CSOs in Indonesia, CSIS is striking in that
it has access to ASEAN as a member of the network of ASEAN Insti-
tutes of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS), and enjoys
close personal connections with senior Indonesian elites and diplomats in
the region (Hernandez 1999; Stone 2011; Wanandi 2006). The second
CSO is KontraS, which has gained recognition as one of the most active
CSOs in advocating human rights concerns in Indonesia and Southeast
Asia. KontraS has a strong critical position, especially in acknowledging its
long-standing history in pushing an alternative platform for CSO advo-
cacy in regional human rights issues (see Lopa 2012; Gerard 2014b; see
also Ginbar 2010). The third CSO is HRWG, which was created as a task
force for Indonesian CSOs’ international advocacy, including to ASEAN.
In addition to being an international-advocacy-focused CSO, HRWG
also represents a unique example due to its relations with the Indone-
sian government from its former director’s position as the Indonesian
representative for the AICHR.
Whereas IR studies which utilise Bourdieu’s works generally focus on
detailed practices of political interactions among actors at a certain event,
this book takes a different approach (cf. Adler-Nissen and Pouliot 2014;
Hansen 2011; Voeten 2011; Williams and Neumann 2000; see also elab-
oration in chapter “The Practice of Human Rights Norm Dynamics in
ASEAN”). Most of the existing Bourdieu-inspired IR scholarly works
are conducted in a relatively open data access environment which is
quite common in Western countries and international organisations. This
context is certainly different from Southeast Asia. ASEAN researchers
are often faced with limited data access to the detailed process within
the Association, watered-down versions of published reports, and official
statements laden with only harmonious rhetoric, signifying one of the
hurdles of the development of non-Western IR theory (see Acharya and
Buzan 2007). As such, this book attempts to find another way to gain a
deeper comprehension of the field of ASEAN and its link to the progress
of human rights institutionalisation in Southeast Asia. Moreover, rather
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 19

than focusing on a particular event like some existing Bourdieu-inspired

IR scholarly works have (see Adler-Nissen and Pouliot 2014), the adop-
tion of Bourdieu’s field theory is utilised to shed light on Indonesian
CSOs’ normative identity and power relations in shaping the ASEAN
human rights agenda throughout the post-Cold War period.
Supplementary sources were also gathered to gain a general under-
standing of ASEAN regionalism and to support the interview data on
various accounts of Indonesian CSOs’ experiences in regional human
rights issues. These supplementary sources were gathered from docu-
mented materials related to the targeted CSOs’ advocacy, such as from
activity reports, transcripts of agreements, and joint statements from
available websites, as well as news articles from various regional and
Indonesian media, such as The Jakarta Post and New Straits Times.
Several published books containing the reflections of prominent CSOs’
activists were also collected, including some autobiographies, as well as
assessments and commentaries on CSOs’ advocacy from the published
scholarly literature. Finally, formal statements and policy analysis made
by ASEAN officials, the Indonesian MoFA, and relevant academics were
also collected to further describe the progress and provide evidence of
human rights norm dynamics throughout the history of the develop-
ment of ASEAN. These documents were carefully examined to strengthen
the analysis of the interview data on the nuanced context of various
Indonesian CSOs’ advocacy patterns on human rights issues in ASEAN.
Ultimately, as this book is empirically driven, interview and supplementary
data are gathered to achieve data saturation of the pattern of engagement
of Indonesian CSOs in ASEAN human rights norms.

Book Structure
This book consists of seven chapters that are grouped into two parts. Part
I (chapters “Searching for the ‘Unsung Hero’: Civil Society Organisations
in ASEAN?–Indonesia and Human Rights in ASEAN”) situates this book
within the existing literature and lays out its analytical framework.
This chapter (“Searching for the ‘Unsung Hero’: Civil Society Organ-
isations in ASEAN?”) has outlined the general overview of the book.
It has defined key terms and established the context of contemporary
progress of human rights institutionalisation in ASEAN, and the need to
explore the Indonesian government and its CSOs in socialising human
rights issues.
20 R. W. NANDYATAMA

Chapter “The Practice of Human Rights Norm Dynamics in ASEAN”,

explains the logic of this book, particularly in defining the underlying
theoretical concepts and situating the book in the existing literature. In
doing so, it analyses related scholarly literature, particularly the study
of the institutionalisation of human rights in ASEAN, and Indonesian
CSOs’ advocacy in ASEAN. Interweaving between the two areas of liter-
ature, the chapter argues that Bourdieu-inspired constructivist IR is a
robust analytical framework for understanding the growing Indonesian
CSOs’ advocacy in regional human rights issues. Specifically, this chapter
elaborates on two analytical aspects: adopting Bourdieu’s field theory to
interpret the dominant normative belief in the region and the dynamics
of ASEAN norms, and conceptualising the notion of symbolic power
for analysing power relations among and between Indonesian CSOs and
other regional stakeholders.
Chapter “Indonesia and Human Rights in ASEAN”, explores the
nature of the human rights institutionalisation process in ASEAN by
reviewing its progress since the end of the Cold War. It provides a histor-
ical account of the evolution of the regional human rights mechanism
within the field of ASEAN. More importantly, it elaborates on the ASEAN
doxa, which signals the dominant norms in existing ASEAN regional
mechanisms, making links with Bourdieu’s field theory from Chapter II.
This chapter also reviews the role of Indonesia in institutionalising human
rights in the region. Drawing on ASEAN’s human rights institutionalisa-
tion, this chapter highlights the Indonesian government’s attempt to push
the recalibration of ASEAN’s values in embracing human rights, yet at the
same time, maintaining and respecting the ASEAN doxa. It also explores
the linkage between the Indonesian government officials’ cognitive beliefs
and the opportunities and challenges for CSOs in socialising human rights
norms in ASEAN.
Part II (chapters “Indonesian CSOs’ Normative Positions on Human
Rights in ASEAN–Conclusion: Competing CSOs’ Advocacy and ASEAN
Human Rights Agenda”) elaborates on Indonesian CSOs’ engagement
in socialising human rights norms in ASEAN and engages in compara-
tive analysis of the three CSOs. Each chapter deals with specific issues, as
follows:
Chapter “Indonesian CSOs’ Normative Positions on Human Rights
in ASEAN”, describes two sets of findings. First, it indicates the exis-
tence of ASEAN political space and accounts for its transformation in
responding to civil society engagement, including human rights issues.
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 21

Second, denoting the rapid progress of ASEAN human rights mech-

anisms along with Indonesia’s voice in pushing for regional human
rights issues, it explores the various Indonesian CSOs’ normative iden-
tity formations during the critical post-Cold War period and Indonesian
Reformasi era, and their distinct positions in the field of ASEAN. As
such, this Chapter IV exposes the Indonesian CSOs’ different perspectives
in engaging ASEAN, ranging on a spectrum from adapting to existing
regional norms to utilising the space by critically engaging Indonesian
officials and emphasising pressure on ASEAN.
Chapter “Indonesian CSOs’ Political Strategies for ASEAN Human
Rights Advocacy”, compares the various Indonesian CSOs’ modes of
action in advocating for human rights agenda in the region. It identi-
fies three typologies of Indonesian CSOs’ political strategy in socialising
human rights norms to other essential actors in ASEAN. As described
above, the first pattern is supportive engagement which emphasised the
logic of constructive engagement in ASEAN. This is demonstrated by
CSIS strenuously projecting its role as a trusted provider of new ideas and
solutions for the Indonesian government in dealing with ASEAN prob-
lems. The second critical engagement in pushing for radical change in the
way ASEAN adopts human rights is demonstrated by KontraS. KontraS
focuses on criticising the weak progress of human rights institutionali-
sation in the region and zealously demands a full adoption of universal
human rights measures. The third pattern is adaptive engagement, which
emphasises the logic of transformation between critical and constructive
engagement in adapting to ASEAN as shown by HRWG. Despite main-
taining its position as a critical CSO, HRWG has gradually shifted its
political strategy since 2009, especially in adopting a more supportive
approach towards the Indonesian government and ASEAN for adopting
human rights norms.
Chapter “Indonesian CSOs’ Power Relations in the Field of ASEAN”,
investigates both the logic of each Indonesian CSO’s power relations with
the Indonesian government and ASEAN, as well as their connection with
the ability of each CSO to shape the institutionalisation of human rights
norms in the region. As such, the chapter explores how the Indone-
sian government and ASEAN respond to each Indonesian CSO’s human
rights advocacy, and how this reflects the different pattern of power rela-
tions that each CSO has in relation to ASEAN (i.e. CSIS: supporting
the ASEAN doxa; KontraS: acting against the ASEAN doxa; and HRWG:
22 R. W. NANDYATAMA

flexibly adapting to the ASEAN doxa). Ultimately, this chapter demon-

strates the complexity of Indonesian CSOs’ advocacy, which reflects forms
of tension and collaboration among themselves and various reactions to
the ASEAN doxa in socialising human rights norms in ASEAN.
Finally, chapter “Conclusion: Competing CSOs’ Advocacy and ASEAN
Human Rights Agenda”, summarises the overall findings and outlines the
contributions of this book to our understanding of ASEAN regionalism
as well as the institutionalisation of human rights within the Associa-
tion. Whereas the international actors, such as EU and Western countries,
can be deemed essential in the institutionalisation of human rights,
its progress is not linear or simple. Through the adoption of Bour-
dieu’s field theory in enhancing constructivist IR analysis, we can see
a nuanced picture of how Indonesian CSOs engage with the existing
ASEAN doxa and socialise human rights norms, signalling the various
forms of power relations and normative interactions. This concluding
chapter also suggests further directions for extrapolating the Bourdieu-
inspired constructivist IR analysis to examining the roles and contexts of
CSOs’ advocacy on ASEAN human rights issues in other member states
in Southeast Asia.

Bibliography
Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:
ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.
———. 2003. “Democratisation and the Prospects for Participatory Regionalism
in Southeast Asia.” Third World Quarterly 24 (2): 375–390.
———. 2004. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localisation
and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.” International Organisation
58 (2): 239–275.
———. 2009. “Arguing about ASEAN: What Do We Disagree About?”
Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (3): 493–499.
Acharya, Amitav and Richard Stubbs. 2006. “Theorising Southeast Asian Rela-
tions: An Introduction.” The Pacific Review 19 (2): 125–134.
Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2007. “Why Is There No Non-Western Inter-
national Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the
Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 287–312.
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. 2014. “Power in Practice: Negoti-
ating the International Intervention in Libya.” European Journal of Interna-
tional Relations 20 (4): 889–911.
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 23

Alexandra, Lina. 2011. “ASEAN: Putting Indonesia on the Radar Screen”.

Accessed October 16, 2018. https://archive.lowyinstitute.org/the-interp
reter/asean-putting-indonesia-radar-screen.
Allison, Laura. 2015. The EU, ASEAN and Interregionalism: Regionalism
Support and Norm Diffusion between the EU and ASEAN . Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Anwar, Dewi. 1994. Indonesia in ASEAN: Foreign Policy and Regionalism.
Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). 2007. The Charter of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). 2018. Chairman’s Statement
of the 32nd ASEAN Summit. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
Asplund, André. 2014. “ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human
Rights: Civil Society Organisations’ Limited Influence on ASEAN.” Journal
of Asian Public Policy 7 (2): 191–199.
Beeson, Mark. 2009. Institutions of the Asia-Pacific: ASEAN, APEC, and
Beyond.New York: Routledge.
Bellamy, Alex and Catherine Drummond. 2011. “The Responsibility to Protect
in Southeast Asia: Between Non-Interference and Sovereignty as Responsi-
bility.” The Pacific Review. 24 (2): 179–200.
Bøås, Morten, Marriane Marchand, and Timothy Shaw. 2003. “The Weave-
World: The Regional Interweaving of Economics, Ideas and Identities.”
In Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader, edited by Fredrik
Söderbaum and Timothy Shaw, 197–210. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of
International Security. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Caballero-Anthony, Mely. 2006. “ASEAN-ISIS and the ASEAN People’s
Assembly (APA): Paving a Multi-Track Approach in Regional Community
Building.” In Twenty-Two Years of ASEAN ISIS: Origin, Evolution, and Chal-
lenges of Two Track Diplomacy, edited by Hadi Soesastro, Clara Joewono,
and Carolina Hernandez, 53–74. Jakarta: The Centre for Strategic and
International Studies.
Capie, David. 2008. “Localisation as Resistance: The Contested Diffusion of
Small Arms Norms in Southeast Asia.” Security Dialogue 39 (6): 637–658.
Chalermpalanupap, Termsak. 2009. “10 Facts about ASEAN Human Rights
Cooperation.” Accessed October 2, 2015. http://www.asean.org/archive/
HLP-OtherDoc-1.pdf.
Chandra, Alexander. 2004. “Indonesia’s Non-State Actors in ASEAN: A New
Regionalism Agenda for Southeast Asia?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 26
(1): 155–174
24 R. W. NANDYATAMA

———. 2006. “The Role of Non-State Actors in ASEAN.” In Revisiting

Southeast Asian Regionalism, edited by Focus on the Global South, 71–82.
Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute.
———. 2009. Civil Society in Search for an Alternative Regionalism in ASEAN .
Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Ciorciari, John. 2012. “Institutionalising Human Rights in Southeast Asia.”
Human Rights Quarterly 34 (2): 695–725.
Clarke, Gerard. 1998. The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia: Participation and
Protest in the Philippines. London: Routledge.
Cockerham, Geoffrey. 2010. “Regional Integration in ASEAN: Institutional
Design and the ASEAN Way.” East Asia 27 (2): 165–185.
Collins, Alan. 2008. “A People-Oriented ASEAN: A Door Ajar or Closed for
Civil Society Organisations?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 30 (2): 313–331.
———. 2013. Building a People-Oriented Security Community the ASEAN Way.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Davies, Mathew. 2013. “ASEAN and Human Rights Norms: Constructivism,
Rational Choice, and the Action-Identity Gap.” International Relations of the
Asia-Pacific 13 (2): 207–231.
———. 2014. “An Agreement to Disagree: The ASEAN Human Rights Decla-
ration and the Absence of Regional Identity in Southeast Asia.” Journal of
Current Southeast Asian Affairs 33 (3): 107–129.
Denzin, Norman, and Yyvonna Lincoln. 2008. The Landscape of Qualitative
Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Djani, Dian. 2009. “A Long Journey.” In The Making of the ASEAN Charter,
edited by Tommy Koh, Rosario Manalo, and Walter Woon, 137–150.
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Eaton, Sarah, and Richard Stubbs. 2006. “Is ASEAN Powerful? Neo-Realist
versus Constructivist Approaches to Power in Southeast Asia.” The Pacific
Review 19 (2): 135–155.
Edwards, Michael. 2004. Civil Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Emmers, Ralf. 2012. Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN
and the ARF . London: Routledge.
———. 2014. “Indonesia’s Role in ASEAN: A Case of Incomplete and Sectorial
Leadership.” The Pacific Review 27 (4): 543–562.
Engle, Karen. 2000. “Culture and Human Rights the Asian Values Debate in
Context.” NYU Journal for International Law and Politics 32: 291–333
Epstein, Charlotte. 2008. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth
of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
Evans, Paul. 1996. “Economic and Security Dimensions of the Emerging Order
in the Asia-Pacific.” In Southeast Asia in the New World Order, edited by
David Wurfel and Bruce Burton, 3–18. New York: St Martin’s.
Frost, Ellen. 2008. Asia’s New Regionalism. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 25

Gellner, Ernest. 1996. Condition of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals. New
York: Penguin Books.
Gerard, Kelly. 2013. “From the ASEAN People’s Assembly to the ASEAN Civil
Society Conference: The Boundaries of Civil Society Advocacy.” Contempo-
rary Politics 19 (4): 411–426.
———. 2014a. “ASEAN and Civil Society Activities in “Created Spaces”: The
Limits of Liberty.” The Pacific Review 27 (2): 265–287.
———. 2014b. ASEAN’s Engagement of Civil Society: Regulating Dissent.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2015. “Explaining ASEAN’s Engagement of Civil Society in Policy-
Making: Smoke and Mirrors.” Globalisations 12 (3): 365–382.
Ginbar, Yuval. 2010. “Human Rights in ASEAN: Setting Sail or Treading
Water?” Human Rights Law Review 10 (3): 504–518.
Goh, Evelyn. 2012. “Institutions and Great Power Bargain in East Asia:
ASEAN’s Limited ‘Brokerage’ Role.” In ASEAN and the Institutionalisation
of East Asia, edited by Ralf Emmers, 105–121. London: Routledge.
Gomez, James, and Robin Ramcharan. 2012. “The Protection of Human Rights
in Southeast Asia: Improving the Effectiveness of Civil Society.” Asia-Pacific
Journal on Human Rights and the Law 13 (2): 27–43.
Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International
Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 147–182.
———. 2005. “The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis.” Millennium:
Journal of International Studies 33 (3): 495–521.
———. 2013a. “The Ends of International Relations Theory: Stages of Reflex-
ivity and Modes of Theorising.” European Journal of International Relations
19 (3): 521–541.
———. 2013b. Power, Realism and Constructivism. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
———. 2017. “Militarising Politics, Essentialising Identities: Interpretivist
Process Tracing and the Power of Geopolitics.” Cooperation and Conflict 52
(3): 423–445.
Hansen, Lene. 2011. “Performing Practices: A Poststructuralist Analysis of the
Muhammad Cartoon Crisis.” In International Practices, edited by Emanuel
Adler and Vincent Pouliot, 280–309. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Hernandez, Carolina. 1999. “Philippine Participation in Track II Activities on
Security-Related Issues: ASEAB-ISIS and CSCAP Experiences, 1990–1997.”
Foreign Service Institute Quarterly (Manila) 1 (1): 74–121.
———. 2006. “Track Two and Regional Policy Making: The ASEAN-ISIS in
ASEAN Decision Making.” In Twenty-Two Years of ASEAN ISIS: Origin,
Evolution, and Challenges of Two Track Diplomacy, edited by Hadi Soesastro,
Clara Joewono and Carolina Hernandez, 17–30. Jakarta: The Centre for
Strategic and International Studies.
26 R. W. NANDYATAMA

Hettne, Björn. 2003. “The New Regionalism Revisited.” In Theories of New

Regionalism: A Palgrave Macmillan Reader, edited by Frederik Söderbaum
and Timothy Shaw, 22–42. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2005. “Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism.” New Political Economy 10 (4):
543–571.
Hettne, Bjorn, and Andras Inotai. 1994. The New Regionalism: Implications
for Global Development and International Security. Helsinki: United Nations
University/World Institute for Development Economics Research.
Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective.” In Regionalism
in World Politics: Regional Organisation and International Order, edited by
Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, 37–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Igarashi, Seiichi. 2011. “The New Regional Order and Transnational Civil
Society in Southeast Asia: Focusing on Alternative Regionalism from below
in the Process of Building the ASEAN Community.” World Political Science
7 (1): 1–31.
Jayasuriya, Kanishka, and Garry Rodan. 2007. “Beyond Hybrid Regimes: More
Participation, Less Contestation in Southeast Asia.” Democratisation 14 (5):
773–794.
Jetschke, Anja. 2009. “Institutionalising ASEAN: Celebrating Europe through
Network Governance.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (3):
407–426.
———. 2013. “Regional Integration Support by the EU in Asia: Aims and
Prospects.” In the Palgrave Handbook of EU-Asia relations, edited by Thomas
Christiansen,
Jetschke, Anja, and Jürgen Rüland. 2009. “Decoupling Rhetoric and Practice:
The Cultural Limits of ASEAN Cooperation.” Pacific Review 22 (2): 179–
203.
Jetschke, Anja, and Philomena Murray. 2012. “Diffusing Regional Integration:
The EU and Southeast Asia.” West European Politics 35 (1): 174–196.
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. “Treating International Institutions as Social
Environments. ” International Studies Quarterly 45 (4): 487–515.
Katsumata, Hiro. 2007. “Human Rights and Democracy: From Big Talk to
Concrete Actions?” In People’s ASEAN and Governments’ ASEAN , edited by
Hiro Katsumata and See Seng Tan, 33–40. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School
of International Studies.
———. 2009. “ASEAN and Human Rights: Resisting Western Pressure or
Emulating the West?” The Pacific Review 22 (5): 619–637.
———. 2011. “Mimetic Adoption and Norm Diffusion: ‘Western’ Security
Cooperation in Southeast Asia?” Review of International Studies 37 (2):
557–576.
Katzenstein, Peter. 2007. “Regionalism Considered.” Journal of East Asian
Studies 7 (3): 359–412.
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 27

Kaviraj, Sudipta, and Sunil Khilnani, eds. 2001. Civil Society: History and
Possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keane, John. 1988. Democracy and Civil Society: On the Predicaments of Euro-
pean Socialism, the Prospects for Democracy and the Problem of Controlling
Social and Political Power. London: Verso.
Keane, John. 1998. Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Kelsall, Michele. 2009. “The New ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights: Toothless Tiger or Tentative First Step.” Asia Pacific Issues
(Analysis from East West Centre) 90: 1–8.
Khong, Yuen Foong. 2004. “Coping with Strategic Uncertainty: The Role of
Institutions and Soft Balancing in Southeast Asia’s Post-Cold War Strategy.”
In Rethinking Security in East Asia, edited by Jae-Jung Suh, Peter Katzen-
stein, and Allen Carlson, 172–208. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Klotz, Audie, and Cecelia Lynch. 2015. Strategies for Research in Constructivist
International Relations. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Kraft, Herman. 2000. “The Autonomy Dilemma of Track Two Diplomacy in
Southeast Asia.” Security Dialogue 31 (3): 343–356.
Lee, Hock Guan, ed. 2004. Civil Society in Southeast Asia. Singapore: The
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Leifer, Michael. 1989. ASEAN and the Security of Southeast Asia. London:
Routledge.
———. 1999. “The ASEAN Peace Process: A Category Mistake.” The Pacific
Review 12 (1): 25–38.
Lopa, Consuelo. 2012. “CSOs’ engagement with ASEAN: Perspectives and
Learnings.” In Building Bridges and Promoting People to People Interac-
tion in South Asia, edited by Nishchal Pandey and Kumar Shrestha, 54–80.
Kathmandu: Centre for South Asian Studies.
MacLeod, Gordon, 2001. “New Regionalism Reconsidered: Globalisation and
the Remaking of Political Economic Space.” International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 25 (4): 804–829.
McGann, James, and Kent Weaver, eds. 2006. Think Tanks and Civil Soci-
eties: Catalysts for Ideas and Action. 2nd ed. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Munro, James. 2011. “The Relationship between the Origins and Regime Design
of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).”
The International Journal of Human Rights 15 (8): 1185–1214.
Nair, Deepak. 2008. “Regionalism in the Asia Pacific/East Asia: A Frustrated
Regionalism?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 31 (1): 110–142.
Narine, Shaun. 2002. Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
28 R. W. NANDYATAMA

———. 2012. “Human Rights Norms and the Evolution of ASEAN: Moving
without Moving in a Changing Regional Environment.” Contemporary South-
east Asia 24 (3): 365–388.
Natalegawa, Marty. 2010. “Pidato Pernyataan Tahunan Menteri Luar Negeri
Republik Indonesia”. Accessed October 16, 2018. http://www.tabloiddiplo
masi.org/asean-sebagai-sebuah-pondasi/.
Nesadurai, Helen. 2009. “ASEAN and Regional Governance after the Cold War:
From Regional Order to Regional Community?” The Pacific Review 22 (1):
91–118.
———. 2012. “The ASEAN People’s Forum (APF) as Authentic Social Forum:
Regional Civil Society Networking for an Alternative Regionalism.” In Rout-
ledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism, edited by Mark Beeson and Richard
Stubbs, 166–176. New York: Routledge.
Neumann, Iver. 2002. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of
Diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31 (3): 627–651.
———. 2012. At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Nye, Joseph. 1968. International Regionalism: Readings. Boston: Little, Brown.
Onuf, Nicholas. 1998. “Constructivism: A User’s Manual.” In International
Relations in a Constructed World, edited by Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas
Onuf and Paul Kowert, 58–78. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Palmujoki, Eero. 2001. Regionality and Globalism in Southeast Asia. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Poole, Avery. 2015. “The Foreign Policy Nexus: National Interests, Polit-
ical Values and Identity.” In Indonesia’s Ascent: Power, Leadership, and the
Regional Order, edited by Christopher Roberts, Ahmad Habir, Leonard
Sebastian, 155–176. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pouliot, Vincent. 2007. “‘Sobjectivism’: Towards a Constructivist Methodology.”
International Studies Quarterly 51 (2): 359–384.
———. 2008. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security
Communities.” International Organisation 62 (2): 257–288.
———. 2012. “Methodology: Putting Practice Theory in Practice.” In Bour-
dieu in International Relations, edited by Rebecca Adler-Nissen, 45–58.
Abingdon: Routledge.
———. 2015. “Practice Training.” In Process Tracing from Metaphor to Analytic
Tool, edited by Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey Checkel, 237–259. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pouliot, Vincent, and Frédéric Mérand. 2013. “A Political Sociology of Interna-
tional Relations,” In Bourdieu in International Relations, edited by Rebecca
Adler-Nissen, 24–44. Abingdon: Routledge.
 SEARCHING FOR THE ‘UNSUNG HERO’ … 29

Price, Richard, and Christian Reus-Smit. 1998. “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical

International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International
Relations 4 (3): 259–294.
Purdue, Derrick, ed. 2007. Civil Societies and Social Movements: Potentials and
Problems. New York: Routledge.
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roberts, Christopher. 2012. ASEAN Regionalism: Cooperation, Values, and
Institutionalisation. New York: Routledge.
Rubin, Herbert, and Irene Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of
Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Rüland, Jürgen. 2000. “ASEAN and the Asian Crisis: Theoretical Implications
and Practical Consequences for Southeast Asian Regionalism.” The Pacific
Review 13 (3): 421–451.
———. 2009. “Deepening ASEAN Cooperation through Democratisation? The
Indonesian Legislature and Foreign Policymaking.” International Relations of
the Asia-Pacific 9 (3): 373–402.
———. 2014. “The Limits of Democratising Interest Representation: ASEAN’s
Regional Corporatism and Normative Challenges.” European Journal of
International Relations 20 (1): 237–261.
———. 2018a. The Indonesian Way: ASEAN, Europeanisation, and Foreign
Policy Debates in a New Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 2018b. “Coping with Crisis: Southeast Asian Regionalism and the
Ideational Constraints of Reform.” Asia Europe Journal 16 (2): 155–168.
Schatz, Edward, ed. 2009. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to
the Study of Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Scholte, Jan Aart. 2014. “Civil Society and the Reinvention of Regions.” In Civil
Society and World Regions: How Citizens Are Reshaping Regional Governance
in Times of Crisis, edited by Lorenzo Fioramonti, 11–32. Lanham: Lexington
Books.
Seligman, Adam. 1992. The Idea of Civil Society. New York: Free Press
Smith, Anthony. 2000. Strategic Centrality: Indonesia’s Changing Role in
ASEAN . Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Söderbaum, Fredrik. 2013. “Rethinking Regions and Regionalism.” Georgetown
Journal of International Affairs 14 (2): 9–18.
Soesastro, Hadi, Clara Joewono, and Carolina Hernandez. 2006. “Introduction.”
In Twenty-Two Years of ASEAN ISIS: Origin, Evolution, and Challenges of Two
Track Diplomacy, edited by Soesastro, Hadi, Clara Joewono, and Carolina
Hernandez, 1–16. Jakarta: Centre of Security and International Studies.
Stone, Diane. 2011. “The ASEAN-ISIS Network: Interpretive Communities,
Informal Diplomacy and Discourses of Region.” Minerva 49: 241–262.
30 R. W. NANDYATAMA

Stryker, Sheldon and Anne Statham. 1985. “Symbolic Interaction and Role
Theory.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by Gardner Lindzey and
Elliot Aronson, 311–378. New York: Random House.
Tan, Hsien-Li. 2011. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human
Rights: Institutionalising Human Rights in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Tan, See Seng. 2013. “Herding Cats: The Role of Persuasion in Political Change
and Continuity in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.” International
Relations of the Asia-Pacific 13 (2): 233–265.
Tarling, Nicholas. 2006. Regionalism in Southeast Asia: To Foster the Political
Will, New York: Routledge.
———. 2010. Southeast Asia and the Great Powers. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Tay, Simon. 2001. “Institution and Processes: Dilemmas and Possibilities.”
In Reinventing ASEAN , edited by Simon Tay, Jesus Estanislao, and Hadi
Soesastro, 243–272. Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Uhlin, Anders. 2016. Civil Society and Regional Governance: The Asian Develop-
ment Bank and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Lanham: Lexington
Books.
Voeten, Erik. 2011. “The Practice of Political Manipulation.” In Interna-
tional Practices, edited by Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, 255–279.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wanandi, Jusuf. 2006. “ASEAN-ISIS and Its Regional and International
Networking.” In Twenty-Two Years of ASEAN ISIS: Origin, Evolution,
and Challenges of Two Track Diplomacy, edited by Hadi Soesastro, Clara
Joewono, and Carolina Hernandez, 31–42. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and
International Studies.
Weatherbee, Donald. 2013. Indonesia in ASEAN: Vision and Reality. Singapore:
The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Wiener, Antje, and Uwe Puetter. 2010. “The Quality of Norms Is What
Actors Make of It: Critical Constructivist Research on Norms.” Journal of
International Law and International Relations 5 (1): 1–16.
Willetts, Peter. 2011. Non-Governmental Organisations in World Politics. Oxford:
Routledge.
Williams, Michael. 2007. Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of
International Security. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Williams, Michael, and Iver Neumann. 2000. “From Alliance to Security
Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity.” Millennium: Journal
of International Studies 29 (2): 357–387.
Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. 2008. “Work on
ASEAN Human Rights Body Poised to Begin.” Human Rights Herald, June.
 The Practice of Human Rights Norm
Dynamics in ASEAN

This chapter outlines the analytical framework for this book, defining the
underlying theoretical concepts and situating the book in the existing
literature. It begins by introducing this framework and identifying the
related scholarly literature, particularly on the institutionalisation of
human rights in ASEAN and the study of Indonesian CSOs’ advocacy on
regional human rights issues. The existing literature does not adequately
investigate the complex interactions among CSOs and other political
actors in the region. In response, a Bourdieu-inspired constructivist IR
can provide a distinct analytical framework with a better hope of creating
a holistic understanding of how Indonesian CSOs shape ASEAN institu-
tionalisation of human rights norms. Bourdieu-inspired constructivist IR
helps us to make sense of how the social construction of regional norm
dynamics is linked to the ways in which Indonesian CSOs engage and
build power relations with other political actors in the region as they shape
the institutionalisation of ASEAN human rights norms.
Specifically, Bourdieu’s field theory focuses on how political actors in
the region interact with each other and what the dynamics are that influ-
ence the normative interactions within a specific political setting. Thusly,
this chapter explains two key elements of the analytical framework of the
book: (a) interpreting the existence of the dominant doxa in the region
that shapes the dynamics of ASEAN norms and (b) conceptualising the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 31

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
R. W. Nandyatama, Indonesian Civil Society and Human Rights
Advocacy in ASEAN, Contestations in Contemporary Southeast Asia,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3093-4_2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Grab, Sedjilla.

Worauf Jūnis mit unbegreiflicher Logik erwiderte:

»Was hätten sie bei der Regierung gesollt? Sie verlangten ihr
Recht!«
Im Laufe des Gesprächs fragte ich Jūnis, ob er wohl je nach
Aleppo käme.
»Bei Gott!« sagte er. »Dann setze ich mich in die Bazare und
beobachte die Konsuln, vor denen je ein Mann hergeht in einem
Rock, der wohl seine 200 Piaster wert ist, und die Damen mit so
etwas wie Blumen auf dem Kopf.« (Wahrscheinlich der moderne
europäische Hut.) »Ich gehe immer nach Aleppo, wenn meine
Söhne im Gefängnis dort sind,« fuhr er fort, »manchmal ist der
Wärter gutmütig und läßt sie gegen etwas Geld heraus.«
Ich ließ den etwas kritischen Punkt fallen und erkundigte mich,
wieviel Söhne er hätte.
»Acht, gelobt sei Gott! Jede meiner zwei Frauen hat mir vier
Söhne und zwei Töchter geboren.«
 »Gelobt sei Gott!« sagte ich, worauf Jūnis zurückgab: »Gott
beschere Ihnen ein langes Leben! Meine zweite Frau kostet mich
viel Geld!« fügte er noch hinzu.

Scheich Jūnis.

»Ja?« sprach ich.

»O, meine Dame, Gott segne Sie für dieses Ja! Ich nahm sie
ihrem Gatten und bei Gott! Sein Name sei gelobt und gepriesen, ich
mußte dem Gatten 2000 Piaster bezahlen und 3000 dem Richter.«
 Das war zuviel für Hadji Mahmūds Gerechtigkeitssinn, und er
sagte:
»Wie? Du nahmst sie ihrem Gatten? Wāllah! So handelt ein
Nosairijjeh oder ein Ismaili. Nimmt ein Muselmann jemandes Weib?
Es ist verboten!«
»Er war mein Feind,« erklärte Jūnis, »bei Gott und dem
Propheten! Es herrschte Todfeindschaft zwischen uns.«
»Hat sie Kinder?« forschte Mahmūd.
»Eh, wāllah!« bejahte der Scheich, den Mahmūds Mißbilligung
reizte, »aber ich habe 2000 Piaster dem Gatten und 3000 dem —«
»Beim Angesicht Gottes!« unterbrach Mahmūd in steigender
Empörung, »es war die Tat eines Ungläubigen!«

Haus in Serdjilla.

Hier aber fiel ich in die Diskussion ein, indem ich mich
erkundigte, ob sich denn die Frau gern hätte fortnehmen lassen.
»Ohne Zweifel,« sagte Jūnis, »es war ihr Wunsch.«
 Und daraus ersehen wir, daß das Sittengesetz mit der Sache
nicht viel zu tun hatte, obgleich der Mann den Gatten und Richter so
reich entschädigte.
Dieser Zwischenfall brachte uns auf die Frage, wieviel
gewöhnlich für eine Frau bezahlt würde.
»Für unsereinen,« entgegnete Jūnis, indem er die
unbeschreibliche Miene eines gesellschaftlich Hochstehenden
annahm, »ist das Mädchen nicht unter 4000 Piaster zu haben, aber
ein armer Mann, der kein Geld hat, gibt dem Vater eine Kuh oder
etliche Schafe, und damit begnügt der sich.«
Nachdem er von uns gegangen war, ritt ich über Ruweihā, denn
ich wünschte, die berühmte Kirche mit der danebenstehenden
überkuppelten Grabstätte des Bizzos zu sehen.

Grabstätte des Bizzos.

Die Kirche ist mit ihrem prächtigen Narthex (schmale, viereckige

Vorhalle der Basilika), den mit Bildhauerarbeit verzierten Türen, dem
überhöhten Bogen und breitgespannten Bogengängen ihres Schiffes
die schönste im Djebel Zawijjeh. Wie gerechtfertigt das Vertrauen
war, welches der kühne Erbauer in seine Herrschaft über das
verfügbare Material setzte, als er jene großen Bogen von Säule zu
Säule spannte, beweist die Tatsache, daß eine davon bis auf den
heutigen Tag steht. Das kleine Grabmal des Bizzos ist fast so gut
erhalten, als wäre es neu. Die neben der Tür eingehauene Inschrift
lautet: »Bizzos, Sohn des Pardos. Ich lebte gut, ich sterbe gut, ich
ruhe gut. Bitt' für mich.« Die leisen Anklänge an klassische Motive,
wie sie sich in manchen fast mit gotischer Freiheit ausgeführten
Bildwerken wiederfinden, sind, ebenso wie das klassische Gebälk an
Kirchenfenstern und Architraven, der seltsamste Zug in der
gesamten Architektur Nordsyriens. Die Uranfänge syrischer
Dekoration bestanden in einer Reihe von Kreisen oder Kränzen, die
entweder mit Windungen oder dem christlichen Monogramm
ausgefüllt waren. Als dann die Bildhauer geschickter wurden,
verschlangen sie die Kreise zu den mannigfachsten schönen und
phantastischen Formen, zu Akanthus, Palme und Lorbeer, und ihre
Phantasie umgab damit Kirche und Grab in den denkbar
verschiedensten Gewinden. Das Gras unter ihren Füßen, die Blätter
der Zweige über ihren Häuptern gaben ihnen eine Fülle von
Entwürfen ein, wie sie ähnlich zwölf Jahrhunderte später William
Morris begeisterten.
 Kirche und Grabmal Ruweihā.

Eine andre Kirche in Ruweihā ist kaum weniger gut erhalten als
die des Bizzos, wenn auch weniger schön im Plan. Sie ist besonders
merkwürdig wegen eines dicht an der Südmauer befindlichen
Bauwerkes, welches als ein Glockenturm, ein Grab, eine Kanzel
oder überhaupt nicht gedeutet worden ist. Es erhebt sich in zwei
Stockwerken, von denen das untere, aus sechs Säulen bestehende
eine Plattform trägt, auf deren niedriger Mauer vier Eckpfeiler ruhen,
die Kuppel oder Baldachin tragen. Die Ähnlichkeit mit
norditalienischen Gräbern, z. B. mit dem Monument Rolandino in
Bologna, tritt so stark hervor, daß der Beschauer dem anmutenden
Bauwerk in Ruweihā unwillkürlich dieselbe Bestimmung zuschreibt.
Diese Nacht blieben wir in Dana. Dieses Dorf rühmt sich eines
Pyramidengrabes mit einem Portal aus vier korinthischen Säulen,
das so wohlproportioniert und schön ausgeführt ist, wie man sich nur
etwas zu sehen wünschen kann. Auf unserm Weg von Ruweihā
hinweg kamen wir an einer Wohnstätte vorbei, die mir wie ein Typus
der Hausarchitektur des 6. Jahrhunderts erschien. Sie stand, von
jedwedem Ort durch ein oder zwei Meilen welliges Terrain getrennt,
ganz isoliert da, die offnen Veranden nach Westen gerichtet, das
reizende gegiebelte Portal — es hätte jedem englischen Landhaus
von heutzutage zur Zierde gereicht — nach Norden zu. Im Geiste
sah ich den Eigentümer aus dem 6. Jahrhundert auf der Steinbank
darin sitzen und nach einem Freunde Ausschau halten. Er brauchte
sicher keine Feinde zu fürchten, warum hätte er auch sonst seine
Wohnstätte so weit draußen errichtet und nur durch einen
Gartenzaun geschützt? In Kasr el Banāt, der Jungfernfestung, wie
die Syrer sie bezeichnen, kam mir der hohe soziale Standpunkt, den
man im Djebel Zawijjeh erreicht hat, mehr als an irgend einem
anderen Orte zum Bewußtsein, weil Sicherheit und Wohlstand hier
ganz offenkundig zutage traten, wie auch Muße genug, um der
Kunst zu leben. Im Weiterreiten fragte ich mich, ob die Zivilisation
wirklich nach unsern europäischen Begriffen eine Macht ist, die
unaufhaltsam vorwärts drängt, und in ihr Wappen diejenigen
aufnimmt, die aus ihrem Lauf Nutzen zu ziehen vermögen. Sollte sie
nicht vielmehr, gleich einer Flut, gehen und kommen, und bei diesem
rastlosen Vorwärts und Zurück, zur Zeit der Flut immer wieder
denselben Ort am Gestade berühren?
Ganz spät abends kam einer von Scheich Jūnis' Söhnen geritten,
um sich zu erkundigen, ob sein Vater noch bei uns wäre. Dieser
unternehmungslustige alte Herr war also, nachdem er von uns
gegangen, nicht in den Schoß seiner sich sorgenden Familie
zurückgekehrt, und ich argwöhne, daß sein freundschaftlicher Eifer,
uns auf dem richtigen Weg zu sehen, mit einem feinausgeklügelten
Projekt in Verbindung stand, durch welches er persönlich in jene
lokalen Störungen einzugreifen hoffte, die ihn am Morgen so
beschäftigt hatten. Jedenfalls hatte er sich davon gemacht, sobald
wir außer Sicht gewesen, und die Vermutung lag nahe, daß er zum
Kampfplatz geeilt war. Ich habe nie erfahren, was ihm zugestoßen,
aber wetten will ich, daß es jedenfalls nicht Scheich Jūnis gewesen
ist, der auf das Dorf El Mugharāh zugeritten ist.
 Kasr el Banāt.

Drei recht mühselige Tage trennten uns noch von Aleppo. Wir
hätten die Reise ja in zweien zurücklegen können, aber um die mir
gut bekannte Fahrstraße zu vermeiden, hatte ich vorgeschlagen,
einen Umweg nach Osten zu machen, denn war die Gegend auch
nicht interessanter, so mir doch weniger vertraut. Nach
fünfstündigem Ritt über offenes Hügelland gelangten wir nach
Tarutīn. Wir kamen an verschiedenen alten Stätten vorüber, in denen
sich die fast seßhaft gewordenen Araber der Muwālistämme
angesiedelt haben; die ursprünglichen Gebäude fand ich freilich fast
gänzlich in Trümmern. Am ganzen westlichen Saum der Wüste
beginnt der Beduine den Boden urbar zu machen und muß daher in
der Nähe seiner Kulturen feste Wohnungen errichten. »Wir sind
Bauern geworden,« sagte der Scheich von Tarutīn. Wenn in
kommenden Zeiten die ganze Erde unter Pflug und Ernte stehen
wird, wird das Nomadenleben in Arabien aufgehört haben. In der
Zwischenzeit wohnen diese neuerstandenen Bauern in ihren Zelten
weiter, die indessen stehen bleiben und mit ihrem sich darin
aufhäufenden Schmutz eine für alle Sinne fatale Niederlassung
abgeben. Die wenigen Familien Tarutīns hatten die Sitten der Wüste
noch beibehalten; wir fanden in ihnen angenehme Leute, trotzdem
die obigen Bemerkungen auch auf ihre Haarzelte Anwendung finden
müssen.

Grabmal, Dana.

Ich hatte noch keine Stunde in meinem Lager zugebracht, als

sich eine große Aufregung unter meinen Männern bemerkbar
machte, und Michaïl rief: »Die Amerikaner! Die Amerikaner!« Aber
uns drohte keine Räuberhorde, es war nur die archäologische
Expedition Princeton, die von Damaskus aus, auf einem anderen
Wege als wir, dem Djebel Zawijjeh zuwanderte, und als eine
erfreuliche Begegnung pries man es im ganzen Lager, denn fand
nicht jeder von uns Bekannte unter den Herren oder den
Maultiertreibern und nahm sich Muße zum Plaudern, wie man zu
plaudern pflegt, wenn man auf öder Straße einander trifft? Überdies
verschaffte mir der in Tarutīn verbrachte Tag wundervoll
anschauliche archäologische Belehrung, denn da die Teilnehmer der
Expedition Grundrisse von den Ruinen entwarfen und die Inschriften
entzifferten, stieg das ganze 5. Jahrhundert aus seiner Asche vor
unsern Augen empor — Kirchen, Häuser, Forts, Felsengräber, über
deren Tür Name und Todestag ihrer Inhaber eingemeißelt waren.
Am nächsten Tag erwartete uns ein zehnstündiger Marsch. Auf
unserm Weg nordwärts passierten wir das kleine Erdhüttendorf
Helbān und ein zweites, Mughāra Merzeh, wo wir die Ruinen einer
Kirche und sehr primitive Felsengräber fanden. (Keine dieser
Örtlichkeiten findet sich auf Kieperts Karte.)
In Tulūl, das wir erreichten, nachdem wir uns östlich gewendet
hatten, stießen wir auf eine ungeheure überschwemmte Fläche, die
sich von dem Matkh, aus welchem der Fluß Kuwēk entspringt,
wenigstens zwölf englische Meilen nach Süden zu erstreckt. In Tulūl
weinten mehrere Araberfrauen an einem frischen Grabe. Drei Tage
lang bejammern sie den Toten am Grabesrande; nur in Mekka und
Medina gibt es, wie Mahmūd sagte, keine Trauer um den
Verschiedenen. Dort stoßen die Frauen, sobald der letzte Atemzug
getan ist, dreimal einen Schrei aus, um anzukünden, daß die Seele
den Körper verlassen hat; aber damit hört auch alles Wehklagen auf,
denn keine Träne darf auf das Haupt des Toten fallen. Der Herr hat's
gegeben, der Herr hat's genommen.
Am Rande einer Erhebung hin südlich reitend, gelangten wir an
den kleinen Berg Selma, schlugen dann wieder die östliche Richtung
ein und kamen am Rande der Überschwemmung hin nach dem
großen Dorfe Moyemāt, das zur einen Hälfte aus Zelten, zur
anderen aus Bienenkorbhütten bestand. Das einzige Baumaterial
dort ist Erde; wir sahen überhaupt keine Steine mehr dort von dem
Augenblick an, wo wir den felsigen Boden, auf dem Tarutīn steht,
verließen, ja keine Steine und auch keinen Baum, nichts als ein
endloses, ununterbrochenes Getreidefeld, auf dem die ersten,
scharlachroten Tulpen zwischen dem ersten jungen Weizen blühten.
Die Pferdefüße hatten zwar weichen Boden unter sich, aber es war
schweres Marschieren. Wieviel leichter würde sich das Reisen in
Syrien gestalten, wenn die Hügel mit etwas mehr Erde bedeckt, und
dafür mehr Steine auf der Ebene wären! Aber Er, dem keiner gleicht,
hat es anders gewollt. Von Moyemāt ritten wir nordöstlich bis zu dem
Dorfe Hober, welches am Fuße eines Ausläufers vom Djebel El Hāß
liegt, und hier wollten wir lagern; da indes weder Hafer noch Gerste
oder auch nur eine Handvoll Häcksel zu bekommen war, ging es bis
nach dem auf der Karte angegebenen Kefr 'Abīd weiter, wo wir um 6
Uhr die Zelte aufschlugen. Die Kiepert unbekannten Dörfer sind
wahrscheinlich neueren Datums, in der Tat sind viele aus der großen
Zahl — bei Hober zählte ich fünf in einem Umkreis von etwa zwei
Meilen — beinahe noch Zeltlager. Die sie bewohnenden Araber
halten als Nomadengewohnheit an der Fehde fest; jedes Dorf hat
seine Verbündeten und seine Todfeinde, und die politische
Zugehörigkeit ist ebenso schwach wie in der Wüste. Mein Tagebuch
enthält als Endaufzeichnung des Tages: »Immergrün, weiße Iris, wie
wir sie in El Bārah blau fanden, rote und gelbe Ranunkeln, Störche,
Lerchen.« Das war alles, was uns für die Monotonie des langen
Rittes entschädigte.
Etwa eine halbe Stunde nördlich von Kefr 'Abīd befindet sich ein
kleines Bienenkorbdorf mit einem sehr wohlerhaltenen Mosaik in
geometrischen Figuren. Im Dorfe verstreut befinden sich auch noch
andre Mosaiken, einige in Häusern, andre in Höfen. Der ganze
Distrikt möchte genau durchforscht werden, während die neuen
Ansiedler den Boden aufgraben und ehe sie vernichten, was sie
vielleicht finden. Wir erreichten Aleppo um die Mittagsstunde, und
zwar ritten wir durch einen offnen Kanal ein. Der erste Eindruck der
Stadt enttäuschte, ob nun der üble Geruch oder der bleierne Himmel
und der staubbeladene Wind daran schuld waren, mag dahingestellt
bleiben. Der Name in seiner schönen vereuropäerten Form wäre
einer anziehenderen Stadt würdig; anziehend ist Aleppo sicherlich
nicht inmitten jener unfruchtbaren, baumlosen und öden Gegend,
dem Ausgang der großen Mesopotamischen Niederungen. Die Lage
der Stadt ist einer Unter- und Obertasse zu vergleichen; während die
Häuser in der Untertasse stehen, erhebt sich das Schloß auf der
umgekehrten Obertasse. Sein Minaret ist auf mehrere Stunden hin
sichtbar, wogegen die Stadt erst innerhalb der letzten Wegmeile zum
Vorschein kommt.
 Ein Bienenkorbdorf.

Nur zwei Tage hielt ich mich dort auf, und während der Zeit
regnete es fast unaufhörlich, weshalb ich Aleppo nicht kenne. Die
Stadt des Orients öffnet dir nicht ihre vertrauten Kreise, es sei denn,
du verbringst Monate in ihren Mauern, und selbst dann noch nicht
einmal, wenn du dir nicht Mühe gibst, den Leuten zu gefallen.
Trotzdem verließ ich Aleppo nicht, ohne bemerkt zu haben, daß es
Sehenswertes dort gibt. Es war früher eine prächtige Araberstadt; in
den engen Straßen stößt man auf Minarets und Torwege aus der
schönsten Epoche der arabischen Architektur. In demselben Stil
erbaut sind auch einige der Moscheen, Bäder und Karawansereien,
besonders die halb verfallenen und geschlossenen. In ganz Syrien
aber gibt es kein besseres Muster arabischer Kunst aus dem 12.
Jahrhundert, als die Burg mit ihren eisernen Türen aus derselben
Periode (sie tragen das Datum) und den schönen
Dekorationsfragmenten. Gewiß weist die Stadt auch jetzt noch
Lebenskraft auf, die diesen Zeichen vergangener Größe entspricht,
aber leider sind schlimme Tage ihr Los. Sie ist der Eifersucht
europäischer Konzessionsjäger verfallen und leidet mehr als irgend
eine andere syrische Stadt unter dem würgenden Griff der
Ottomanenherrschaft. Sie droht an dem Mangel eines Ausfuhrweges
nach dem Meere hin zugrunde zu gehen, und weder die
französische noch die deutsche Eisenbahn wird ihr zu Hilfe kommen.
Bis jetzt sind beide Gesellschaften nur geschäftig gewesen, einander
entgegenzuarbeiten. Die ursprüngliche Konzession der Rayak-
Hamah Bahn erstreckte sich bis nach Aleppo und im Norden nach
Biridjik — ich habe gehört, daß die Fahrkarten nach Biridjik gedruckt
wurden, als man die ersten Geleise in Rayak legte. Da kam
Deutschland mit seinem großen Plan einer Bahn nach Bagdad.
Nachdem es die Konzession zu einer Nebenlinie von Killiz nach
Aleppo erlangt, tat es sein Möglichstes, um die Franzosen zu
hindern, über Hamah hinauszugehen, indem es vorgab, die
französische Bahn würde die Konzession der deutschen Bahn
beeinträchtigen. (Meine Information entstammt nicht etwa der
Kaiserlichen Kanzlei, sondern einer heimischen Quelle in Aleppo
selbst.) Seit meiner Abreise haben die Franzosen die unterbrochene
Tätigkeit an der Rayak-Hamah Bahn wieder aufgenommen, sie soll
jedoch, glaube ich, nicht nach Biridjik, sondern nur bis Aleppo
weitergeführt werden.[10] Die Stadt wird keinen Nutzen davon haben.
Aleppos Kaufleute wollen ihre Waren nicht eine dreitägige Reise
nach Beirut machen lassen; sie wünschen einen eignen, zur Hand
gelegenen Seehafen, damit ihnen der Profit ihres Handels auch
zugute kommt — und dieser Hafen müßte Alexandretta sein. Aber
auch aus dem Weiterführen der Bagdadbahn erwächst keinerlei
Aussicht auf Vorteil. Vermittels einer bereits bestehenden
Nebenlinie, die von englischen und französischen Geldmännern
erbaut, aber neuerdings unter deutsche Verwaltung gekommen ist,
wird die Bahn bei Mersina das Meer berühren, aber Mersina ist
ebenso weit von Aleppo wie Beirut. Höchstwahrscheinlich aber ist
es, daß man eine Linie direkt von Aleppo nach Alexandretta legt, da
der Sultan über alles eine Verbindung zwischen den
Karawanenstraßen des Binnenlandes mit der Küste fürchtet,
wodurch ausländischen Truppen, besonders englischen, eine
gefährliche Handhabe geboten würde, aus ihren Kriegsschiffen zu
landen und landeinwärts zu marschieren. Aleppo sollte eigentlich
immer noch, wie in vergangenen Zeiten, den Stapelplatz für die
Landesprodukte abgeben, aber der Handelsverkehr ist gelähmt, da
die Regierung so erschreckend häufig über die Lastkamele verfügt.
Als im vergangenen Jahre der Krieg in Jemen bevorstand, und
Mannschaften sowohl als militärische Requisiten an die Küste
befördert werden mußten, um nach dem Roten Meere geschifft zu
werden, war diese Kalamität äußerst fühlbar. Einen vollen Monat
lang stockte der Handel; die für die Küste bestimmten Waren blieben
in den Bazaren aufgehäuft. Nur kurze Zeit noch, und die Zufuhr hätte
überhaupt aufgehört, da die Kamelbesitzer des Ostens nicht wagten,
ihre Tiere in den Bereich der Gefahr zu bringen. In Aleppo wie in
allen türkischen Städten fürchtete man den Staatsbankrott, hatte
doch die Regierung keinen Fonds zu den dringendsten Arbeiten, die
Schatzkammern waren vollständig erschöpft.
[10] Die Linie ist jetzt bis Aleppo fertiggestellt.

Die Burg, Aleppo.

Mein Aufenthalt war zwar von kurzer Dauer, aber nicht ohne
neue Bekanntschaften; die wichtigste war der Vāli. Kiāzim Pascha ist
ganz andrer Art als der Vāli von Damaskus. In demselben Maße wie
der letztere sich, seiner Begabung entsprechend, als wirklicher
Staatsmann zeigt, ist Kiāzim ein bloßer Farceur. Er empfing mich in
seinem Harem, wofür ich ihm dankbar war, denn ich sah seine Frau,
eine der schönsten Frauen, die man sehen kann. Sie ist schlank und
doch voll, der dunkle Kopf sitzt auf prächtigen Schultern, die Nase ist
klein und gerade, das Kinn spitz, und ihre Brauen wölben sich über
Augen, die wie dunkle Gewässer schimmern. Konnte ich doch den
Blick nicht von ihrem Gesicht wenden, während sie bei uns saß. Sie
und ihr Gatte sind Zirkassier, weshalb ich auf meiner Hut war, ehe
der Vāli den Mund öffnete. Sie sprachen beide Französisch, er sogar
sehr gut. Nachdem er mich in seiner ungenierten Weise willkommen
geheißen, bemerkte er:
»Ich bin der junge Pascha, der Frieden zwischen den Kirchen
gestiftet hat.« Nun war mir bekannt, daß er zu einer Zeit Muteserrif
zu Jerusalem gewesen, als die Eifersüchteleien zwischen den
christlichen Parteien zu außergewöhnlich heftigem Blutvergießen
geführt hatten, und daß es zu einer Art von erzwungenem Vertrag
gekommen war — ob infolge seines Scharfsinnes oder der
Dringlichkeit des Falles, wußte ich jedoch nicht.
»Für wie alt halten Sie mich?« fragte der Pascha.
Mein Taktgefühl gab mir ein, ihn auf 35 zu schätzen.
»36!« erklärte er triumphierend. »Aber die Konsuln hörten auf
mich! Mon Dieu! ein bessrer Posten als dieser hier, wenn ich auch nun
Vāli bin. Hier kann man keine Konferenz mit Konsuln abhalten, und
einem Manne wie mir ist der Umgang mit gebildeten Europäern
Bedürfnis.«
(Ein weiterer Grund zu Mißtrauen: ein orientalischer Beamter,
welcher erklärt, den Verkehr mit Europäern vorzuziehen!)
»Ich bin sehr engländerfreundlich,« fuhr er fort, worauf ich die
Dankbarkeit meines Landes in geeigneten Ausdrücken übermittelte.
»Aber was suchen Sie in Jemen?« fügte er schnell hinzu.
»Exzellenz,« sagte ich, »wir Engländer sind eine Schiffahrt
treibende Nation, und ganz Arabien hat nur zwei Orte, die uns berüh
—«
»Ich weiß,« fuhr er dazwischen, »Mekka und Medina.«
 »Nein,« sagte ich, »Aden und Kweit.«
»Und Sie behaupten sie beide,« gab er scharf zurück — ja ich
muß gestehen, sein Ton war nicht der eines Engländer-Schwärmers.
Alsdann begann er mir zu erklären, daß er als einziger unter den
Paschas die Bedürfnisse der Jetztzeit erfaßt habe. Er gedenke eine
schöne Chaussee nach Alexandretta zu legen (viel Zweck wird sie ja
nicht haben — dachte ich bei mir — wenn keine Kamele vorhanden
sind, um sie zu begehen), ganz wie die Straße, die er von Samaria
nach Jerusalem geführt hätte. Solch eine Straße solle man in der
Türkei suchen — ob ich sie kenne? Ich war kürzlich darauf gereist
und ergriff die Gelegenheit, den Schöpfer derselben zu
beglückwünschen, hielt es aber nicht für nötig zu erwähnen, daß sie
am Fuße der einzigen nennenswerten Steigung abbricht und erst
wieder da einsetzt, wo man die Höhe des Plateaus von Judäa
erreicht hat.
Des weiteren brauche ich mich über Kiāzim Paschas
Eigentümlichkeiten nicht zu ergehen.
Eine weit anziehendere Bekanntschaft war der griechisch-
katholische Erzbischof, ein Damaszener, der in Paris erzogen und
dort eine Zeitlang auch Seelsorger der griechisch-katholischen
Gemeinde gewesen war. Trotzdem ist er noch verhältnismäßig jung.
Ich war mit einem Empfehlungsbrief versehen, nach dessen
Empfang er mich höchst leutselig in sein Privathaus einlud. Da
saßen wir in dem mit Büchern angefüllten Raum, dessen Fenster die
Aussicht auf den stillen Hof seines Palastes boten, und unterhielten
uns von den Bahnen, in welche der Geist Europas eingelenkt hatte.
Ich bemerkte mit Genugtuung, daß der Erzbischof, trotz seiner
Gelehrsamkeit und seines Aufenthaltes im Westen, im Herzen
Orientale geblieben war.
»Ich freute mich, als mir der Befehl wurde, aus Paris in mein
eignes Land zurückzukehren,« sagte er. »Es gibt viel Gelehrsamkeit
und wenig Glauben in Frankreich; in Syrien findet man zwar viel
Unwissenheit, aber die Religion ruht auf einer festen Grundlage des
Glaubens.«
 Die Schlußfolgerung, die aus dieser Darlegung gezogen werden
kann, ist zwar nicht schmeichelhaft für die Kirche, aber ich enthielt
mich eines Kommentars.
Am Nachmittag erschien er zum Gegenbesuch — muß doch vom
Vāli abwärts jedermann dieser gesellschaftlichen Verpflichtung
nachkommen. Er hatte das goldene Kreuz angelegt und trug den
erzbischöflichen Stab in der Hand. Von seinem hohen, randlosen
Hut fiel ein schwarzer Schleier über seinen Rücken nieder, und seine
schwarzen Gewänder waren mit Purpur gesäumt. Hinter ihm her
schritt ein willfähriger Kaplan. Er traf bereits einen Besucher in
meinem Hotelzimmer an, Nicola Homsi, einen reichen Bankier aus
seiner eignen Gemeinde. Er gehört einer einflußreichen
Christenfamilie in Aleppo an, und sein Bankgeschäft hat Filialen in
Marseille und London. Beide, er und der Erzbischof, vertraten
sozusagen die unternehmendsten und gebildetsten Klassen Syriens.
Sie sind es, die durch die Türken zu leiden haben — der Geistliche
durch die blinde, kleinliche Opposition der Behörden, die den
Christen überall entgegentritt, der Bankier, weil seine Interessen
überall gebieterisch nach Fortschritt rufen, und Fortschritt ist es, was
der Türke nie begreifen will. Als ich die Herren daher nach ihren
Ansichten über die Zukunft des Landes befragte, sahen sie einander
an, und der Erzbischof gab zur Antwort:
»Ich weiß nicht ..... ich habe die Frage gründlich erwogen, aber
wie ich sie auch beleuchte, eine Zukunft für Syrien erblicke ich
nicht.«
Das ist die einzige glaubwürdige Antwort, die mir über irgend
einen Punkt der türkischen Frage geworden ist.
Die Luft von Aleppo eignet sich nach des Sultans Dafürhalten
ganz ausgezeichnet für Paschas, die bei ihm in Konstantinopel in
Ungnade gefallen sind. Die Stadt birgt eine solche Menge
Verbannter, daß selbst der gelegentliche Besucher mit einigen
Bekanntschaft schließen muß. So wohnte auch in meinem Hotel ein
Dyspeptiker von demütigem Auftreten, dem wahrscheinlich niemand
revolutionäre Gelüste zugetraut hätte. Vermutlich hatte er auch keine
und verdankte seine Verbannung nur einer gelegentlichen
Bemerkung, die von einem Feinde oder Spion hinterbracht und
verschärft worden war. Ich habe viele dieser Verbannten über
Kleinasien verstreut angetroffen, und keiner hat mir sagen können,
wofür ihn eigentlich sein Geschick betroffen. Gewiß hat mancher
seine Vermutungen gehabt, und manchem ist sein Vergehen genau
bekannt gewesen, aber die meisten waren wohl so unschuldig, wie
sie zu sein vorgaben. Das wirft ein schärferes Licht auf die Frage
vom türkischen Patriotismus, als anfänglich erscheinen mag, denn
es ist Tatsache, daß diese ausgewiesenen Paschas selten Patrioten
sind, die für ihre Hingabe an ein hohes Ideal büßen, sondern meist
Männer, welche sich durch eine unselige Schicksalsfügung der
bestehenden Ordnung entfremden ließen. Wofern ihnen die
geringste Hoffnung winkt, daß ihnen die Gunst wieder lächelt, zeigen
sie selbst in der Verbannung eine nervöse Furcht, irgend etwas zu
tun, was bei den Behörden Verdacht erwecken könnte; erst wenn sie
eingesehen haben, daß zu Lebzeiten des regierenden Sultans keine
Hoffnung für sie existiert, geben sie sich dem Verkehr mit Europäern
ohne Zwang hin, sprechen auch offen von ihren Trübsalen. Es gibt,
soviel ich sehen kann, keine organisierte Körperschaft für freisinnige
Ansichten, alles beruht auf individuellem Mißvergnügen, das durch
persönliches Mißgeschick hervorgerufen wird. Schwerlich werden
die Ausgewiesenen, wenn sie bei dem Tode des Sultans nach
Konstantinopel zurückkehren, irgend welcher Reform das Wort
reden oder den Wunsch äußern, ein System zu ändern, durch
welches sie, infolge der natürlichen Umwälzung der Dinge, wieder zu
Einfluß gelangen können.
Es gibt dann noch eine andre, ehrbare Verbannung in der Türkei:
die Versetzung an einen entfernten Posten. Zu dieser Klasse gehört
mein Freund Mohammed 'Ali Pascha von Aleppo und wohl auch
Nāzim Pascha selbst. Der erstere, ein angenehmer Mann von etwa
30 Jahren, ist mit einer Engländerin verheiratet. Er geleitete mich in
das Haus des Vāli, erwirkte mir die Erlaubnis, die Zitadelle zu sehen,
und machte sich auf manch andre Weise nützlich. Seine Gemahlin
war eine nette, aus Brixton stammende kleine Dame, er hatte sie in
Konstantinopel kennen gelernt und dort geheiratet; soviel ich weiß,
ist das teilweise der Grund, weshalb er in Ungnade fiel, denn die
englische Nation ist keineswegs gens grata im Yildiz Kiosk.
Mohammed Pascha ist ein Gentleman in des Wortes vollem Sinne,
und er scheint seine Gattin glücklich zu machen, aber — verstehen
Sie recht — im allgemeinen möchte ich türkische Paschas nicht zu
Gatten für Brixtons Jungfrauen empfehlen. Denn wenn jene Dame
schon Tennis spielen und die Nähkränzchen der europäischen
Kolonie besuchen durfte, mußte sie sich doch bis zu einem
gewissen Grade den Sitten der muselmännischen Frauen
anbequemen. Sie betrat nie unbeschleiert die Straße, »weil,« wie sie
sagte, »die Leute reden würden, wenn die Frau eines Pascha ihr
Antlitz sehen ließ.«

Wasserträger.
 Wir erklommen die Burg in der einzigen Stunde meines
Aufenthaltes in Aleppo, wo die Sonne schien, und wurden von
höflichen Offizieren in prächtigen Uniformen und mit rasselnden
Schwertern und Sporen umhergeführt. Sie waren besonders
ängstlich, daß ich nicht die kleine, in der Mitte der Festung stehende
Moschee übersehen sollte, die an jener Stelle errichtet war, wo
Abraham seine Kuh melkte. Wie sie sagten, ist selbst der Name
Aleppo auf diesen historischen Vorfall zurückzuführen, und ohne
Zweifel besteht seine arabische Form, Haleb, aus denselben
Stammlauten, die auch das Stammwort melken bilden. Trotz der
hohen Bedeutung der Moschee interessierte mich die Aussicht von
der Spitze des Minarets mehr. Flach wie eine Planke lag unter uns
die Mesopotamische Ebene ausgebreitet; bei schönem Wetter ist
der Euphrat sichtbar, ja selbst Bagdad könnte man sehen, wenn die
störende Rundung der Erde nicht wäre, denn keine andre Schranke
hemmt den Blick auf dieser weiten Fläche. Zu unsern Füßen
drängten sich die Dächer der Bazare und Karawansereien;
dazwischen dann und wann ein Blick aus der Vogelperspektive auf
Marmorhöfe, und hier und da der schöne Turm eines Minarets.
Bäume und Wasser fehlten in der Landschaft, wie Wasser überhaupt
die große Schwierigkeit in Aleppo ist. Der träge Strom, der den
Matkh verläßt, vertrocknet im Sommer, und die Quellen schmecken
das ganze Jahr hindurch salzig. Gutes Trinkwasser muß von weit
her geholt werden und kostet jedem Hausstand wenigstens einen
Piaster pro Tag — eine ernste Verteurung des Lebensunterhaltes.
Dafür ist aber das Klima günstig; der Winter bringt scharfe Kälte, und
der Sommer nicht über einen oder zwei Monate übergroße Hitze.
Das wäre Aleppo, die Stadt mit dem volltönenden Namen und den
Spuren einer glänzenden Vergangenheit.