Posted 25 October 2009 | link
It seems certain that the fledgling AICHR will face a tough time welding its mission to the pragmatism of Southeast Asian bureaucracies
It is the last Asean summit to be hosted by Thailand, the current chair of the regional body, but unfortunately the deck is stacked against the chances of the country retiring the chairmanship in a blaze of glory.
At the 15th Asean summit in the neighbouring seaside resorts of Cha-am and Hua Hin, it was unprecedented that half of the regional leaders missed the opening ceremony and a series of meetings with youth representatives, Asean parliamentarians, civil society groups and last but not least, the newly-launched regional human rights body.
The summit is supposed to lay out a strategy to get the region robust again in the recovery period of the global financial crisis, but it has hovered on the edge of disaster because of questions surrounding a dispute between Thailand and Cambodia - this time not over Preah Vihear Temple, but Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen's blunt remarks in favour of the fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, whom he has offered a safe haven. Host Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's retaliatory response was that one of the region's most senior leaders had allowed himself to be misinformed, and more importantly he had misplaced personal comments in the setting of the regional talks.
Thailand as chair has formally heralded the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA) scheduled to come into existence Jan 1, 2010, but the implementation of the Asean Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) has been delayed due to differences regarding agricultural products, such those between the Philippines and Thailand over rice tariffs.
The Asean Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA), designed to make Asean an attractive investment destination, has also hit a snag, as members remain at odds with the sensitive list for trade liberalisation. As of now ratification of ACIA is suspended. What's more, Asean has yet to conclude negotiations on trade in services.
Domestically, Thailand's participation in trade liberalisation agreements is facing fierce opposition from NGOs who say tariff reductions would hurt farmers and pave the way for the multinational corporations to exploit the region's biodiversity through Asean proxies.
Thailand's last chance to pull a rabbit out of the hat and turn the Asean summit by the sea into a success seemed to rest on the long-delayed launch of the 10-member Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). The birth of the regional body was mildly welcomed by the United Nations and also NGOs as a vehicle to address human rights abuses in the region, but it is already being criticised for a lack of boldness in its design.
The hopes of having a functioning rights body in the near term have been dashed by the unashamed intervention of some Asean governments in the national selection processes of their commissioners _ though in fact the word commissioner is not officially used.
Following is a brief rundown of the AICHR membership:
Malaysia's Mohammad Shafee Abdullah is a renowned lawyer with good connections to the ruling UMNO party, who was only appointed a national human rights commissioner early this year - a platform which allowed him consideration in human rights circles.
Vietnam has a respected career diplomat, a former head of Asean Department and also former ambassador to Thailand, Do Ngoc Son, sitting in the panel, whose members have a three-year term.
Singapore has non-timidly said they need a person who has a better understanding of the bureaucracy than the viewpoint of civil society groups, so they appointed former district judge Richard Magnus.
Burma has appointed its ambassador to the UN in New York, Kyaw Tint Swe, a great junta defender, as its AICHR representative.
Brunei has Abdul Hamid Bakal, a shariah judge, as its commissioner.
Particularly dismaying to outside observers is the presence of three of the body's rules-drafters: Cambodia's Om Yentieng, Laos's Bounkeut Sangsomsak and Philippines's Rosario Manalo.
The trio were members of the High-Level Panel, which drafted the AICHR's toothless terms of reference. Most embarrassing perhaps is the presence of Mr Bounkeut, since he is also deputy foreign minister of Laos.
Only Indonesia and Thailand produced genuine champions from civil society groups with solid human rights credentials. Rafendi Djamin is a straightforward activist from Indonesia's Human Rights Working Group.
Sirprapha Petharamesree is an academic lecturing on human rights issues at Mahidol University with close contacts in domestic and international NGO circles.
Both Mr Rafendi and Mr Sriprapha have indicated they aren't interested in taking a confrontational approach. They want to get to know their peers and work toward promotion and protection of human rights through a common approach.
It seems certain that the commission will face a tough time welding human rights and democratic values to the pragmatism of Southeast Asian bureaucracies.
The bureaucratic bias has been evident in the so-called Interface Meeting, in which human rights workers in civil society are supposed to meet with Asean leaders to discuss the way forward for the AICHR.
The dialogue was begun in Malaysia in 2005, but when the Philippines and Singapore chaired Asean they allowed only one representative from civil society to read a statement to the assembled leaders.
Thailand has been the first Asean head to provide a full-fledged platform for the dialogue. In February the Asean People's Forum (APF) was created as a venue to select civil society representatives to talk with Asean leaders.
The first attempt in February was undermined when representatives from Burma and Cambodia were denied presence in the meeting with Asean leaders. Their colleagues from the other member countries went ahead and detailed human rights abuses, including many in Burma, to the flabbergast leaders.
In Phuket this year at the Asean Ministerial Meeting, some some countries, including Singapore, announced they would appoint their own people to represent the civil society at the meeting.
In Cha-am, Thai officials faced a tough time trying to bridge this communications gap before an Interface Meeting on Friday, and finally informed the APF half an hour before midnight on Wednesday that half of those on the civil societies' list of representatives were accepted but not allowed to speak.
Representatives from Brunei, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam therefore protested by not entering the meeting room on Friday and instead talked to the press about their disappointment.
Mr Rafendi said it was a sad and unfortunate situation and that Asean has sent a contradicting signal to the whole region and to the international community.
He added that it indicates there is a steep learning curve ahead.
''It is usually a common understanding that the civil society must speak for itself and by itself, not through imposed or appointed representatives,'' said the Indonesian commissioner.
Debbie Stothard, coordinator for Alternative Network for Asean on Burma, said the situations with the Interface Meeting and the selection process for the AICHR were ''irrational and unacceptable'' and that the Asean leaders' unwillingness to have a dialogue with NGOs shows the ''negative mentality of the Asean elites''.
Whether Vietnam, which is the next chair of Asean, will be able to do something Thailand could not - get the ball rolling on the necessary inclusion of civil society groups in the Asean human rights body - remains to be seen. In Cha-am Tran Thi Thu Thuy, a representative from Vietnam, maintained that an Interface Meeting with the full participation of the APF would be held in her country.
