DEVELOPMENTS

At the fifteen annual summit this past October, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) launched the first regional human rights commission. Called the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), the commission aims to promote regional cooperation on human rights and curb human rights abuses committed against nationals of the ten ASEAN member countries. Though critics have accused the AIHCR of being little more than an attempt to improve ASEAN's image to potential trading partners, some in the international community remain optimistic that the AIHCR may be the first step to a regional human rights protection mechanism strong enough to address atrocities committed by the Burmese junta. However, hopes turned to criticism and even condemnation when five of the member states-- Burma, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Singapore--refused to meet with a pre-selected group of civil society activists, whom the ASEAN countries had already agreed to see. Southeast Asian media excoriated the fledgling institution, calling it a “toothless tiger” that had no intention of making substantive progress on human rights. Is AICHR poised to make substantive progress on regional human rights or is it doomed to remain a "toothless tiger?"

BACKGROUND

ASEAN is a regional trading bloc composed of ten southeast Asian nations, including regimes with particularly atrocious human rights records, such as Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam. Traditionally, ASEAN member states have adhered to the principle of non-interference in what they believe are one another’s domestic affairs, which include human rights. They have turned a blind eye to the egregious human rights violations committed in Myanmar, for example, and have maintained investments with the brutal regime. However, the AICHR represents the first sign that ASEAN may be willing to act on its commitment to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as stated in ASEAN Charter.

The AICHR was created in accordance with Article 14 of the ASEAN Charter, which states that a regional human rights body must exist in “[i]n conformity with the purposes and principles of the ASEAN Charter relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” This stipulation has left some doubtful and pessimistic about the ability of AICHR to apply pressure on ASEAN member states that violate human rights; it is likely that, especially in the early stages, ASEAN countries will continue to practice non-interference in one another's affairs.  However, proponents such as Rafendi Djamin, one of ten commissioners appointed to the AICHR, point out that the AICHR represents a "commitment to build a foundation to...promote human rights" and that it "shows a seriousness of the political leaders." Djamin defends the relatively modest beginnings of the body, saying, "The way we chose to start should not be seen as a barrier to develop a regional human rights institution, to develop principles. We had to start somewhere and get it working. In the ASEAN context, it had to start with the commission first."

Djamin has a point. Although the ASEAN Charter acknowledges the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ASEAN countries have never had a mechanism through which they could put that acknowledgment into action. The AICHR is a platform where ASEAN member states may discuss, debate and criticize one another’s violations and collectively apply pressure on violating member states; even in the short run, its very existence may encourage some ASEAN states like Indonesia, which has become increasingly vocal in its criticism of Myanmar’s iron-fisted control over elections, to continue to push for reforms like fair and transparent elections in Myanmar.

Successful execution of the AICHR will necessitate a culture shift within ASEAN, specifically regarding the principle of non-interference and practice of decision-making by consensus. But, even if not all ASEAN states are willing to change their behavior, more willing states may band together and take initiative. In a policy brief for the East West Center, Dr. Hao Duy Phan points out that ASEAN’s history of cooperation suggests that when there is no consensus, some members may create a sub-group that others may join later; this may be particularly valuable since ASEAN member states have indicated varying levels of support for a strong human rights mechanism in the region. Dr. Phan’s article suggests that one possibility may be for some member states to take the initiative to create a judicial body that could make legally binding resolutions on human rights issues. States that have more favorable political conditions to support a stronger human rights mechanism can do so without waiting by joining a sub-group.

It is yet unclear whether the AICHR has any intention of evolving into a body that will eventually not simply promote human rights but investigate and prosecute human rights violations. From a funding standpoint, AICHR looks ill-prepared for the significant task ahead of it. So far, ASEAN leaders have pledged only $200,000 USD in start-up funds, which they say will be augmented by further donations from member states and other sources. The monies will fund human rights education, advice and capacity building, reports and studies for the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meetings. However, the AICHR is just a few months old, and further funding may be on its way.

ANALYSIS

The modest goals of AICHR have left many disappointed and pessimistic, but it is important to note that strong human rights mechanisms take time to build and establish credibility, recognition and support. For now, AICHR may represent the only feasible mechanism through which politically diverse (and some, reluctant) ASEAN member states are willing and able to cooperate. A significantly stronger AICHR may have alienated some ASEAN member states and caused them to refrain from the crucial first step of what could lead to substantive human rights reform in southeast Asia.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites