Acceptance of global norms by regional
organisations is only the beginning of a long process of institutionalisation,
as cases in the African Union (AU) and the Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN) demonstrate.
This is
complicated where norms originate outside a regional institution, yet the
opportunity for reform is now present.
Political
upheaval and democratic reforms in Asia and Africa have proceeded at a dramatic
pace over the course of the past year. The Arab Spring has seen long-standing
dictatorships such as those in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia unravel, a political
crisis in Côte d’Ivoire resulted in armed international intervention, and
Myanmar’s democratic opening has astounded observers.
The
social upwelling of the movements that caused these events has been distinctly
bottom-up. New forms of communication and organisation in social media have
connected people and made possible political changes that were once deemed
unimaginable. Peoples’ demands for political representation, human rights,
justice and accountability have echoed many international conventions and
normative standards that have been established to date, and to which many of
their own states have even acceded. Thus regional organisations such as the
African Union (AU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have
been expected to be the primary actors managing responses when violence or
conflict erupts.
Yet
these regional organisations develop at a much slower pace than the people
driving them. Decision-making here is not a mass participatory or democratic
process, but conducted in close circles of technocrats, diplomats, or military
officers. Accepting certain commitments, such as to democracy or human rights,
may not necessarily reflect the internalisation of these values by states or
the organisations which represent them. Other factors, such as peer pressure,
keeping up appearances, resisting external interference, or a desire to manage
the debate on norms and their corollary requirements may be at work.
The Interface Of Norms In Regional
Organisations
These
competing interests played out in stark fashion in the AU’s response to Libya:
The African Commission of Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) condemned the
suppression by Gaddafi’s forces, citing a litany of human rights violations,
and the African Court of Human and People’s Rights ordered that measures be
taken against Libya, yet the AU blithely ignored these statements. It was a
tragic replay of the situation months earlier in Côte d’Ivoire where the AU, in
its desire to reach a political compromise, ignored the condemnation of human
rights abuses in that country by the ACHPR. Embarrassingly, in both cases the
AU’s attempts at mediation were overruled by UN mandates that saw interventions
carried out ostensibly under the auspices of the protection of civilians and
the responsibility to protect.
The
picture is more complicated in ASEAN’s relationship with Myanmar. Recent reforms
in the country have given the long-running stalemate a feel-good gloss.
Nevertheless, external pressure slowly shifted ASEAN’s posture towards the
country from a defensive one to that of censure of the military junta on some
occasions, and of direct intervention during the Cyclone Nargis disaster of
2008. ASEAN has even committed to establishing a declaration on human rights in
2012. Despite this, ASEAN has stood resolutely on its insistence that
non-interference in the affairs of its members is sacrosanct. Its fledgling
regional human rights commission has the unenviable task of addressing human
rights concerns – a fundamental matter of relations between a state and its
citizens – without “interfering” with the member states of ASEAN.
The Opportunity For Governance Reform
Human
rights and expansions of their conception such as the “responsibility to
protect” are now firm fixtures in the international system. Nevertheless, most
of the struggle for their acceptance happened elsewhere (such as following
World War II and the Rwandan and Balkans conflicts), and their passage in UN
resolutions did not necessarily reflect their regional acceptance. Rather, the
AU (under the old Organisation of African Unity – OAU) and ASEAN had their
origins in Cold War security concerns. They thus established organisational
norms such as non-interference to deal with these issues, greatly complicating
the acceptance of other kinds of normative standards even where they impacted
on security, particularly human rights.
While
on paper, African states moved away from this approach when the OAU was
transformed into the AU in the early 2000s, in practice the AU has still been
hesitant to move away from non-interference. It prefers taking a soft approach
towards its member states despite being empowered to intervene and protect
civilians in grave circumstances. In recent crises, the AU has tended to favour
political engagement aimed at negotiated settlements, with human rights
considerations largely secondary.
The
political crises and reforms that have developed over the past year have
demonstrated the need to rethink organisational practices. In the AU, a
post-mortem examination of the organisation’s responses to the Arab Spring and
Côte d’Ivoire will have to be undertaken, and while organisational reform may
not necessarily be needed, the AU’s ability to strengthen its role and its
response to crises on the continent, especially vis-à-vis its own member
states, will be key to the organisation’s future.
ASEAN
separately began its own reforms with the signing of the ASEAN Charter in 2007
and is slowly developing from an intergovernmental organisation to a
fully-fledged regional body in order to maintain its centrality in Asian
geopolitics. There is recognition that the new dynamics of open information and
citizen-power will require political changes to meet the aspirations of youth
in both regions. These events offer a window of opportunity as the
institutional components of these regional bodies are developed.
Institutional
evolution will have to come from within. Importantly, both organisations’
outward commitment to human rights protection has opened the space for rapid
development of political discourse within the region, and this must be
strengthened – and supported – in order for these organisations to put up the
scaffolding for regional commitments to human rights.
By Joel
Ng, Walter Lotze and Andreas Stensland
Joel Ng
is an associate research fellow at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies, S.
Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore. Walter Lotze works in the Peace Support Operations Division of the
African Union Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Andreas Øien Stensland is a
researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
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