Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

ASEAN and human rights - it’s a slow burner

By Annie Herro - posted Tuesday, 11 August 2009


The much-anticipated ASEAN human rights body, put forward at a recent meeting of ASEAN in Thailand, has been greeted with derision by elements of the media and human rights bodies.

To be known as the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, its terms of reference have been dismissed as lacking in teeth and letting rights abusers off the hook.

The Jakarta Post is already labelling it a “not-so-righteous body”, while the Wall Street Journal mocked it as an “outrageous ... toothless council”. Amnesty International noted with concern that each state would be able to reject criticism of its own human rights record by veto because decisions would be made by consensus.

Advertisement

ASEAN human rights groups such as Solidarity for Asian People's Advocacy, based in Thailand, were “disappointed” that the terms of reference lacked a binding protection mandate - in other words, permission for monitors to conduct country visits and assess the situation on the ground or even some form of redress if a member state violates human rights.

Australian media groups have been noticeably quiet on the development of the ASEAN human rights body.

There is a tug-of-war growing between those who desire more radical change - human rights organisations, Western commentators and politicians - and those who would prefer to see more gradual evolution, the bureaucrats and leaders of the countries in question, the so-called “ASEAN elite”.

With these two factions in conflict, can such groups be reconciled and establish a workable frame of reference for the rights of ASEAN’s 500 million citizens? Based on my recent consultations with policymakers in Indonesia and Singapore, there appear to be two key geopolitical considerations that offer glimmers of hope.

First, civil society in South-East Asia along with ASEAN’s dialogue partners, like Australia and the US, have contributed to putting human rights on the organisation’s agenda. On this issue, former ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong says: “Most of the [regional] civil society has started to make an impact on the concept of ASEAN ... there is a good case to be made that some of the other partners of ASEAN, plus their civil societies actually contributed to the momentum that we see in elevating ASEAN to a more formal regional body and developing the ... political, economic and cultural/social sectors.”

Second, in South-East Asia, there is growing acceptance that human rights violations in one country can affect the political, economic and security situation of the region. Ong says about Burma, “The feeling among South-East Asians is ... the issue is domestic but the impact is beyond domestic. If the impact is not good for us outside the country, then all of us should try to find a solution.”

Advertisement

Ong told me that ASEAN members were becoming increasingly intolerant of Burma because it is affecting ASEAN’s international image.

ASEAN was formed in 1967 against a background of regional disputes about borders and regime legitimacy. The region’s leaders were focused on preventing inter-state conflict. While they were exceptionally successful at this, the protection of human rights was not a priority.

But more than four decades later, the ASEAN Charter, released in 2008, refers to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Four ASEAN members have created national human rights institutions. Smoke and mirrors, maybe, but an improvement on what was there before.

These two factors - the growth of civil society and the increasing interconnectedness between the states - have had a strong impact on the “ASEAN Way” - a framework to enhance regional security first popularised in the 1990s by former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and former Mahathir bin Mohamad of Malaysia.

The principles of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states and a purely consensus-based style of decision-making are being eroded. Yet non-interference remains the bedrock of ASEAN. It is stated again and again in virtually every significant ASEAN document, including the ASEAN Charter, and involves refraining from criticising other member governments in public.

This “consensus style of decision-making” depends on extensive consultation: negotiators do not try to coerce others into consent but rather seek to find a compromise that all can agree on. It is thus easy to see why there was such resistance among ASEAN members to include investigating, monitoring and reporting provisions within the ASEAN human rights body’s terms of reference.

There is evidence that some countries are breaking away from the consensus, “softly, softly” approach and speaking out unilaterally. Examples of this include Indonesia’s public criticism this year of the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. The Philippines government has also been vocal about Burma. In 2007, President Gloria Arroyo told the UN General Assembly, “This is the time for Myanmar to return to the path of democracy and to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi - now - and to involve all the parties including the National League for Democracy in the democratisation and the constitutional process.”

The strict interpretation of the “ASEAN Way” was also challenged when ASEAN successfully paved the way for international aid to reach the victims of the May 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Burma after the military junta refused repeated offers of help from the West. Even back in 1999, the then Indonesian President B.J. Habibie attempted to generate a regional intervention force in East Timor. Neighbouring states were eager to assist but they lacked the capacity to do so.

The repressive regime in Burma, the political and ethnic persecutions in Vietnam and Laos respectively, and accusations of abuses by Thai and Indonesian security forces are all clear signs for the need for a greater commitment to human rights in the region.

Continued pressure from South-East Asian human rights groups, support from ASEAN’s dialogue partners along with a greater willingness of South-East Asian leaders to honour universal human rights standards suggests that the body in question would be more than a “toothless tiger”. The outcome of Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial will be another important test for of ASEAN leaders’ commitment to human rights.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Annie Herro is a researcher and PhD candidate at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, The University of Sydney.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy