ASEAN’s
Declaration of Human Rights might flatter to deceive when released this
July, but it won’t be an opportunity lost, writes MATHEW DAVIES.
ASEAN’s
15-year engagement with human rights reaches a critical moment in July
2012 with the release of the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights (ADHR).
The final form of the Declaration will reveal which direction ASEAN has
chosen to take its commitment to human rights. Civil society actors are
keen for the Declaration to provide a considerable list of rights and
freedoms in order to breathe life into what to date has been an
engagement with human rights devoid of any detail. However, there are
considerable reasons to doubt whether this is what is being prepared.
Yet, even if the Declaration falls short of what optimists hope, it lays
the groundwork for future efforts. The Declaration is likely to be an
opportunity delayed, not an opportunity missed.
Getting
from there to here: understanding the nature of ASEAN’s commitment to
human rightsThe apparent scale of ASEAN’s journey towards
human rights initially appears impressive. ASEAN was founded in 1967 in
the wake of the failure of previous efforts to create a regional body,
with memories of colonialism still fresh in the minds and the threat of
regional tensions spilling over into armed conflict dangerously present.
This atmosphere shaped the first 30 years of ASEAN, which was formed
with an overriding commitment to member state and regional stability,
something achieved by a firm belief in non-intervention. Human rights
concerns, with their focus on the nature of domestic politics, were not
only excluded from ASEAN’s interests but also understood to be actively
detrimental to them.
The 1997
Asian Financial Crisis dissolved this consensus. As the crisis spread
across the region ASEAN seemed not only deaf to the suffering of its
citizens but also increasingly part of the problem, as the principle of
non-intervention was held complicit in worsening economic and social
dislocation. In response ASEAN members felt the need to develop a focus
on the social well being of their citizens alongside more traditional
goals. By 2004 this commitment had developed a clear human rights
component under the combined impact of direct member state deliberation;
the input from Track Two and Track Three actors; and the growing
concern with the status of Myanmar as a member. In November 2007 all 10
members adopted the ASEAN Charter that placed human rights promotion as a
core principle of regional cooperation. In 2009 ASEAN members further
agreed to the creation of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights, explicitly tasked with protecting and promoting rights.
More
informative, however, than what ASEAN has done, is the way that it has
achieved this reform. Before 1997 ASEAN was governed by the principles
of consensus, unanimity and sovereign equality. There was no hint of
supranationalism to ASEAN and all members were required to agree to
reforms. This set of practices rode out the storm of the Asian financial
crisis and survive today. ASEAN members were, and remain, highly
diverse with regards to their commitment to human rights. The
Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia have been in the vanguard of pushing
for regional adoption of human rights, but a long tale of more
reluctant states – the newer members of Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and most
obviously Myanmar – have shown markedly less interest.
From
the history of ASEAN to the nature of the DeclarationThe
variety between member states position on human rights, when read
alongside the continued need for unanimity in decision-making, has
exerted strong influence over ASEAN’s commitment to rights. Both of
these impacts have weakened regional oversight of human rights. They
also both strongly suggest the likely form of the upcoming Declaration.
First
ASEAN’s engagement with human rights has always favoured breadth over
depth. ASEAN has never provided detail about what it means when it
speaks of “human rights”. Nor has ASEAN pointed towards any global
treaties to fill that gap, unsurprising given that Brunei, Myanmar
Malaysia and Singapore have not ratified either the International
Covenants on Civil and Political or Economic, Cultural and Social
rights. Getting the agreement of such a variety of members has been
achieved by stripping away the detail that enables scrutiny.
Second, there are no formal mechanisms for enforcing human rights within
ASEAN. Yes the Commission now exists, but the terms of reference for it
explicitly require it to work within the established non-intervention
principle.
A
detailed declaration of rights cuts across both of these trends. A
detailed list of rights and freedoms would provide a precise way to
measure how well member states are fulfilling regional standards. This
would not only apply to civil society actors; the Commission itself, an
ASEAN institution, would be in a position to judge the situation within
member states. ASEAN has in the past made similar efforts to do this
with regards to Myanmar, but this has been the exception. A detailed
list of rights would make regional and official discussion of rights a
regular part of ASEAN politics.
Both of
these consequences are at odds with ASEAN’s approach to rights up to
this point. The signs are that the Declaration will fall short of the
desires of the optimists. Drafting of the final wording of the
Declaration has been undertaken by the 10 member state delegates to the
Commission, meeting behind closed doors, with no input from civil
society. A brief window of consultation with civil society is planned
but only after the draft has been created in late June 2012, immediately
before final agreement on the Declaration.
An
opportunity delayed is not an opportunity missedThe final
form of the Declaration will be known soon and, for the reasons given, I
think it will disappoint those who are looking for a big and radical
step forwards. Even if this is the case however, it is not the
end of the process. ASEAN’s engagement with human rights remains
ongoing. Discussion about human rights has not only become a legitimate
part of regional politics but is now a far more complicated conversation
than ever before. Track Two institutions, NGOs and National Human
Rights Institutions are now all part of the “human rights space” within
ASEAN, something unthinkable even a decade ago. The declaration does not
finish that conversation; instead it will become part of it, a new
topic for debate and a new avenue for pressure - and this may well prove
to be its lasting contribution.
Dr Mathew Davies is a research fellow in the College’s School of International, Political and Strategic Studies. His research interests cover human rights, socialisation, ASEAN, the EU, the OAS, regionalism, norm diffusion and international relations theory.
Dr Mathew Davies is a research fellow in the College’s School of International, Political and Strategic Studies. His research interests cover human rights, socialisation, ASEAN, the EU, the OAS, regionalism, norm diffusion and international relations theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment