In search of human rights

The ASEAN summit is over. The leaders have posed for the de rigueur “family photo” in their uniform attire, waved uniformly at cameras, shared meals, and gone back home. Manila, which was in virtual lockdown over the weekend, is back to chaotic normal.

What was that really all about? The theme for Manila’s hosting is “Partnering for Change, Engaging the World” and its priorities include the usual ASEAN buzz-words: “people-oriented” and “people-centered” initiatives, peace and stability, maritime security and cooperation, inclusive and innovative growth, ASEAN resiliency, and ASEAN integration.

ASEAN integration has truly exciting prospects — open borders, free trade, bigger markets, better job and study opportunities, spelling out a rosy future, especially for young people.  But there is one significant item that was not on the agenda: human rights, the elephant in ASEAN’s expanding economic but shrinking democratic space. 

The summit’s host, Rodrigo Duterte, has declared himself an enemy of human rights.  To be sure, ASEAN states in general have never really been human rights-friendly. Where there can be animated conversations among leaders around trade and investments,  ASEAN governments clam up and clamp down when the topic of human rights comes up, citing the ASEAN “tradition” of non-interference.

Around 25 years ago, the Philippines was the only country in ASEAN where “human rights” was part of the vocabulary, but today, the President of the Philippines consistently follows it up with a curse word or two.  Speaking at a workshop in Vietnam in 1995, I was advised to refrain from using “human rights” when discussing the rights of children. “Good governance” was the more acceptable term. 

Since 1995, I have been a member of the Regional Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights mechanism.  Organized by LAWASIA, we have been working on ASEAN member-states to create a human rights body in the region. Latin America, Europe, and Africa have regional mechanisms that set human rights standards for governments, if not human rights courts, where citizens can file complaints of human rights violations. It is only right that ASEAN has one, too.

It was a shot in the dark in this part of the world. But we had the support of the Philippine government, which established the first National Human Rights Commission in the region. Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia followed with their own commissions. But Singapore, Cambodia, Laos, Brunei, and Vietnam were the hold-outs, committing to neither a national human rights institution nor a regional mechanism. Myanmar, the latest addition to ASEAN, was under the iron rule of the generals.

Getting the senior officials to listen was like pulling teeth. But we honored their process and built their trust in an unhurried, consultative manner — the ASEAN way. In 2004, after nine years of regular dialogues between the Working Group and the senior officials, ASEAN adopted the Vientiane Action Programme (VAP) which listed human rights action points on the rights of migrant workers, women and children, among other concerns.

On ASEAN’s request, the Working Group convened workshops, round-table discussions, and meetings to help build consensus on implementing the VAP.  An Eminent Persons Group (EPG), established to make recommendations on the contents of an ASEAN Charter, suggested that an ASEAN human rights mechanism was a “worthy idea” that “should be pursued further.”
  The ASEAN Charter was ratified in 2008 and the human rights mechanism, called the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), was launched in 2009 with the mandate “to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of the peoples of ASEAN.”

Mission accomplished?  Far from it. What the Working Group had in mind was a commission with monitoring, promotion, and recommendatory functions, and that would receive complaints from states and individuals. While AICHR’s mandate for the promotion of human rights is clearly spelled out, the protection part is weak. It can monitor and recommend, but it has no mandate to receive and investigate complaints of human rights violations. The few cases filed by individuals and civil society groups before the AICHR have been, at best, archived.

Furthermore, for the most part, AICHR membership is made up of retired or active government functionaries appointed by their governments, who do not necessarily have a human rights background, serving part-time and on a voluntary basis. AICHR does not have a permanent secretariat or a regular budget. 

It is not difficult to imagine that AICHR is probably regarded by member states as merely a bureaucratic obligation created to get the international human rights community off ASEAN’s back. 

Clearly, the task of the Working Group isn’t done. Twenty-two years since we started this advocacy, and 50 years into ASEAN’s existence, the region’s leaders still have to acknowledge that the protection of human rights is an integral element of a “people-centered,” “people-oriented” ASEAN.  It must be placed front and center as ASEAN engages the world. HEART & MIND by Paulynn Sicam