ASEAN LIP-SERVICING HUMAN RIGHTS?

Rohingya refugees in refugee camp in Bangladesh, 2017

Danilo T. Ibayan, 22 September 2018

First published in the Manila Times and accessible at: https://www.manilatimes.net/asean-lip-servicing-human-rights/443914/

Political rights and civil liberties have been in decline for the last 12 years and in 2017 reached their lowest point, laments Freedom House in its 2018 report. The period has been characterized by the emergence of autocrats, beleaguered democracies, and the United States’ withdrawal from its leadership role in the global struggle for human rights.

The report classifies 88 countries as free, 58 as partly free, and 49 as not free. The decline is not shown in these totals but in countries dropping scores. The US, the self-proclaimed global model and widely expected leader, has never been in the top 10 and in 2017 dropped several notches, from 16 to 23, not only for its abdication of leadership but for outright human rights violations.

(The Freedom House rating system is as follows: A rating of l is equivalent to most free while 7 is least free; an aggregate score of 100 is most free while 0 is least free.)

By the Freedom House measure, no country in ASEAN is free. Five are partly free, while the remaining five are not free. Partly-free Indonesia gets the highest aggregate score of 64 and a freedom rating of 3. The Philippines has the second highest aggregate score of 62 and a freedom rating of 3. No. 3 is Singapore with an aggregate score of 52 and a freedom rating of 4. No. 4 Malaysia scores 45 and 4. No. 5 Myanmar has 31 and 5. Among the not free, Thailand leads with an aggregate score of 31 and a freedom rating 5.5. Cambodia has scores of 30 and 5.5, Brunei 28 and 5.5, Vietnam 20 and 6, and Laos 32 and 6.5.

In Freedom House’s assessment of regions, Africa rates worst, but Eurasia is a close second. And in Southeast Asia, “Human rights are under attack across Southeast Asia and the region has shown signs of increasing human rights violations and moving away from democracy.”

Throughout Southeast Asia, the report notes that, “There is a lack of accountability for security forces who committed grave abuses…. The security forces of the Philippines and Myanmar are implicated in alleged crimes against humanity, and their governments have shown no signs of respecting calls from the United Nations to end the atrocities and hold those responsible to account.”

The Cambodian government is criticized for banning the political opposition and jailing its leader. Prime Minister Hun Sen gets special mention for threatening protesters in Australia set on burning effigies of him. “I will follow you all the way to your doorstep and beat you right there.”

The report notes that Thailand is run by a military junta that has curtailed basic rights to expression and association and repeatedly delayed restoring civilian rule. Vietnam and Laos are one-party states that maintain a choke-hold on fundamental rights and freedoms. Malaysia and Singapore severely restrict rights to free expression. The heaviest censure is reserved for Myanmar for conducting ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims in southern Rakhine state that caused the flight of more than 699,000 refugees to Bangladesh.

ASEAN as an institution is not spared from criticism. Freedom House describes it as hostile to the promotion of human rights. The ASEAN Charter mentions human rights principles but these provisions are heavily outweighed by language emphasizing the importance of non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN members. The non-interference principle that governs ASEAN leads to inaction on human rights violations rampant among the member-countries.

The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration of 2012, adopted without civil rights participation, undermines rather than affirms international human rights law and standards. “It remains a declaration of government powers disguised as a declaration of human rights.”

The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), says the report has no real powers. Each government appoints its representative to the commission, which works through consensus, a procedural arrangement that effectively prevents reporting on a human rights issue in any country, since that country will object.

Freedom House observes that in December 2017, the chairmanship of the AICHR was handed over by the Philippines to Singapore, which itself is frequently accused of human rights abuses: press freedom and political views that contrast with those of the government are still under threat while hanging remains a primary execution method and caning of prisoners for various offenses is standard practice. The report notes that, “The former AICHR chair Philippines had a former role as a human rights advocate within ASEAN but like Singapore, the overall Philippine human rights situation at present is not good.”

Pauline Kline of Human Rights Watch sums up the work of ASEAN thus: “Everything that ASEAN has done in the field of human rights is all very cheap lip service. This is evident in the lack of meaningful and substantive human rights policy or actions in its 50-year history,”

Despite the negative media comments on its work, the AICHR is undaunted in reporting its accomplishments in 2017. It hosted in November 2017 the Second ASEAN-EU Policy Dialogue on Human Rights together with the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children and the ASEAN Committee on the Implementation of the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers. In December 2017, the AICHR conducted a study visit to Australia at the invitation of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Freedom House itself observes that, “The crux of the problem is the fact that the very concept of human rights remains foreign to most states in the region. Human rights are profoundly connected to more comprehensive notions of security such as human security. Yet most Southeast Asian governments continue to perceive security as being limited to preserving the regime rather than securing the people. Until that reality changes, we are unlikely to see huge inroads made on (the human rights) front.”

With more drastic ways having failed and been discredited, such as enforced regime change, and under the basic circumstances of ASEAN, is there a more effective way than gradual education and reorientation of the public to promote democracy and human rights?

Danilo T. Ibayan was a diplomat of the Republic of the Philippines.