Posted 26 October 2009 | link
All the built-up hope for 15th ASEAN summit currently underway at the twin resort of Cha Am and Hua Hin has dried up. The three day high-profiled conclave does not seem too keen on supporting civil society actors and their "the peoples' agenda", before the heads of ASEAN governments and advisers who have gathered in Cha Am. Hours before the summit began, heads of five ASEAN governments refused to meet with some NGO representatives.
The meeting between the ASEAN heads of state and members of civil society from ten South East Asian countries was a scheduled event. The ten member delegation was selected in the ASEAN Peoples' Forum (APF) meet which was held at Ch Am a couple of days before the summit.
But things began to fall apart when five out of the ten civil society representatives were rejected and certain rules were fixed for the remaining members during their proposed meet with the ASEAN governments. The rules were: no members (except Surichai Wangaeo a professor of the Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, who was originally appointed as moderator of the forum) could make his presentation before the ASEAN leaders. This rather "unilateral and undemocratic" approach of the ASEAN leaders forced the civil society representatives to walkout in protest.
The face-off between the ASEAN heads and the NGOs does not bode well for ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission for Human Rights (AIHCR). "That was bound to be," said Zulfiqar Ali a senior Asian civil rights activist, critical of the AIHCR from its very conceptualization. "Just forming human rights commissions are not enough, when goals are not realistic," he added.
The fact of the matter is that ASEAN has existed for over four decades and nothing much has changed during these years. There is need for discourse between civil society groups and pro-democracy supporters within the ASEAN on more critical engagement to avoid friction and create bigger space for participation. Otherwise each time an ASEAN summit takes place, the divide will surface and it will do no good to anyone, not even governments that reject civil societies.
Soon after the rejection of the civil society group delegation, activists like Sister Lucero from Philippines said that the rejection sabotaged the AIHCR's credibility on the very first day of its inception. However what Lucero perhaps does not realize is that the foundations of the AIHCR was more about hype and less about credibility.
It is no use pointing a finger at Burma, Cambodia, Laos or Singapore whose activists were rejected along with a nun from the Philippines. Thailand as the chair of ASEAN too needs to pull up its socks before making any tall claims on making human rights the peoples' agenda in ASEAN and the like. Firstly, the present government cannot be viewed as a peoples' government. Let's not forget how this government came to power and how peoples' basic human rights, their right to be governed by their elected governments were all trampled in one way or the other. Furthermore, there are other trans-border issues such as the tussle for a Hindu temple--Preah Vihar--with Cambodia.
Countries that are projected as more democratic, even Indonesia or Philippines for that matter, perhaps therefore have no right to push for peoples' agenda without first cleaning the mess in its own backyard. After all it cannot be a case of holier than thou image which needs to be realized and recognized by all ASEAN members. Otherwise the AIHCR will be meaningless and toothless as has already been described by several civil society groups.
Ironically, no body, not even the civil rights bodies question the Thailand Prime Minister when he tom toms about protecting everyone's human rights through AIHCR. Would you Mr. Prime Minister dissolve your parliament and apologize to the people whose voting rights your government has disrespected? This question begs an answer.
On the face of it, everything looks hunky dory as many Thai civil rights activists would try to argue, "Our political problem is internal and it's not for ASEAN to discuss it," but you need to scratch the surface and see the huge political instability below.
One newspaper in Thailand have tactfully described the ASEAN summit as one that would make representatives of the ASEAN heads of Government and their advisers feel a sense of deja vu, the reason being less than eight months ago a similar summit in Pattaya was stalled following intrusion by Red Shirt demonstrators. The Red Shirts who represent the previous undemocratically ousted governments supported by fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatara were trying to tell the world that in that meet that "human rights are equal and its abuses must be recognized without any hypocrisy."
At the end of three day conclave, it may make very little difference to the ASEAN governments or even to Thailand if they were accused of not managing to sustain its effort to make human rights a popular agenda. Criticisms are already flying thick and fast that the AIHCR was an experiment which came at the cost of playing with people's hopes. There is no denying the fact that this initiative has lost its credibility and authority. "When it has been made clear by some countries that they would not allow the human rights initiative to override the policy of non-interference, that says it all doesn't it?" is how Pongsak a senior grassroots human rights worker from Bangkok observed.
The ASEAN Charter which was ratified during last year talks, on the principle of "non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN member states," has already been used by the military regime in Burma to influence other member states to avoid any discussions on amnesty for pro democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Reports say that the Burmese regime is also attempting to use the opportunity to seek an ASEAN approval to legitimize its proposed elections next year.
However, the article on non-interference notwithstanding, other articles (1) also states the purposes and principles of the ASEAN charter as one that would strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law, besides promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Given this backdrop, many progressive human rights scholars and researchers have described the charter as "a bundle of contradictions." Their prescription for civil society groups in South East Asia is that "The faster to we learn from our mistakes the better and that can only happen by accepting real situations and find real solutions." Slogan shouting too seems to be fading with more and more activists willing to engage in dialogue, but the irony is that the much required free and honest environment still eludes the ASEAN social environment.
Moreover, this summit has also other transnational and trans-ASEAN agenda on its plate. Heads of countries like India, Japan and Chine are also here to attend the summit with the hope of creating Asian economic community. Each country has come with its bag of attractions for the other. While Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has underscored the need for an East Asian community to lead the world, Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmahon Singh has announced India's keen interest in working together with its ASEAN neighbors to take forward its "Look East Asia" policy. It remains to be seen whether the ASEAN heads of states would continue to sit inside the comfort of five star hotel conference facilities and talk about ambitious plans to make a "economic community" by 2015 or become more willing to discuss issues of immediate concern like people's livelihoods.
The ASEAN summit moves to Vietnam next year and till then there would be sufficient time for both governments and the civil society groups to do some soul searching on whether ASEAN is of any use to the development and prosperity of the people, especially the poor or does it merely exist as another tool for increasing diplomacy minus any real commitment to democracy and respect for people's basic and fundamental rights.
