Since the Asean Charter was launched on Dec
15, 2008, some monumental follow-up action has been taken to promote and
protect human rights, including establishing the Asean Human Rights Body
(AHRB).
The
establishment of this body was initiated at the Joint Communique at the Asean
Ministerial Meeting in Singapore on July 23, 1993, which adopted a commitment
to set up an Asean human rights mechanism.
Nearly
two decades since the adoption of the joint communique, now is the right time
to adopt the Asean Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) as a trigger to promote and
protect human rights in the region.
As
mandated by its terms of reference, the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights (AICHR) is responsible for developing an AHRD. However, the
mandate has led to no significant progress.
To
avoid stagnation, the commission could explore these inputs for a comparative
perspective to achieve its mandates.
First,
the declaration and other regional human rights instruments could be made
realistic to address the existing challenges in the region.
As
reported by World Fact 2011, this region is likely the most heterogeneous part
of the world in terms of socio-cultural phenomena which means a great variety
of concerns for each member state on human rights issues.
In
terms of religion for example, Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country
(86%), while Thailand has a Buddhist majority (94%), and the Philippines is
mostly Roman Catholic (81%). In terms of territory and population, Brunei's
size is about 5,700 sq km occupied by over 300,000 people, while Indonesia's is
about 2 million sq km with more than 240 million people.
And
it's a similar situation with their systems of government. Thailand is a
constitutional monarchy and Vietnam is a communist state, for example.
Other
extreme differences lie in languages. Malay is very different compared with
Thai and Chinese or Tagalog.
There
is therefore a constant potential for suspicion. Under these circumstances, it
would take a miracle for each Asean member to voice their support for human
rights in the same tone.
For a
comparative perspective, the European Union has a clear common denominator to
human rights. The region has been moved by twin concerns which make it
genuinely committed to its human rights convention.
Firstly,
the genocide of some six million Jews during World War II, a systematic
state-sponsored Holocaust by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout
Nazi-occupied territory.
Secondly,
the convention was a response to the growth of communism in Eastern Europe and
designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe from communist
subversion.
Similarly
for Africa, centuries of colonialism and apartheid appear to be its common
denominators to human rights.
Racial
segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch and British
rule by classifying population into four racial groups: native, white, coloured
and Asian. This segregation systematically marginalised and dehumanised the
native Africans. It produced a collective awakening among African nations to
adopt the African Charter on Human and People's Rights which then led to the
establishment of a regional human rights system.
However,
Asean is different. Its common denominators to human rights remain in grey
areas, which makes its cohesion on human rights very weak.
Second,
the AHRD and other regional human rights instruments could be made more
flexible to address the existing diversity of interests in the region.
It is a
paradoxical reality that some Asean countries are resistant to universal human
rights as they believe they will hinder their development.
Malaysia's
Mahathir Mohamad and Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew led their countries along the
path of "Asian values" _ to justify their authoritarian regimes.
To
acknowledge this diversity, Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan has proposed
the declaration as a roadmap for regional human rights development for years to
come. By doing so, any potential resistance to the AHRD could be immediately
avoided.
This
has caused suspicion among some NGOs, which recently called on the AICHR to
ensure the process of drafting the declaration is transparent and fully
consultative with civil society organisations.
They
are worried that without transparency, the declaration could produce three
possible outcomes.
Its
declaration could be brought forward as a document that challenges Asean to do
more on human rights and sets standards above existing international human
rights accords. Another outcome is the declaration does meet international
human rights standards, which would raise further questions about why Asean
needed so much time to create such a declaration.
But the
outcome human rights defenders feel is most likely and thus are preparing to
oppose is an AHRD that seeks to undermine international standards.
Another
way to avoid stagnation is to ensure the declaration and other regional human
rights instruments are linked to the spirit of the 1993 Joint Communique, or
even the 1967 Bangkok Declaration.
The
AICHR could explore, for example, what the common denominators were to adopt
the 1993 Joint Communique.
Why did
this communique lead to various consecutive initiatives, such as: a Working
Group on Asean Human Rights Mechanism in 1995; a National Human Rights Institution
in the Philippines in 1987, Indonesia in 1993, Thailand in 1998, Malaysia in
1999; the adoption of Vientiane Action Programme in 2004; the Declaration of
Cooperation among the four National Human Rights Institution in 2007; and
finally the signing of the Asean Charter in 2007 and establishment of the Asean
Human Rights Body in 2009?
This
long process could be an inspiration to the AICHR to draft the AHRD.
Finally,
the AICHR has to immediately map out common concerns on human rights issues
prior to the adoption of the AHRD such as: border conflict issues, smuggling,
trafficking women and children, narcotics, illegal logging, migrant workers,
money laundering, and terrorism.
The
AHRD and other rights instruments have to be a unifying factor. The absence of
transparency and wide participation of civil society will be a big setback.
Hafid
Abbas
Hafid
Abbas is a professor at State University of Jakarta, and a former
director-general of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Indonesia.
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. We also propose Higher Education, as a bridge between educational structures and industries, by supporting international programmes. Many thanks for visiting www.yourvietnamexpert.com and/or contacting us at contact@yourvietnamexpert.com
No comments:
Post a Comment