FOX News : Health

Showing posts with label Asean Human Rights Body. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asean Human Rights Body. Show all posts

23 October, 2020

UN experts urge Thai government to allow peaceful protests and release unconditionally those arbitrarily detained

 OHCHR, Oct. 22, 2020

GENEVA (22 October 2020) – UN human rights experts* urged today the Thai government to guarantee the fundamental rights of peaceful assembly and free speech and called for an end to a crackdown on peaceful protests. 

“The imposition of a state of emergency is the latest in a series of draconian measures aimed at stifling peaceful demonstrations and criminalizing dissenting voices,” the experts said. 

“We urge the Thai government to allow students, human rights defenders and others to protest in a peaceful manner. The Thai people should be allowed to freely speak their mind and share their political views, both online and offline, without prosecution.”  

Thousands of people have joined pro-democracy protests in Bangkok, calling for government and monarchy reforms. Since 13 October 2020, at least 80 individuals have been arrested, of whom 27 remain in detention. Some have been charged under Thailand’s Criminal Code on counts of sedition and holding an “illegal assembly”. Some have also been charged under the Computer Crimes Act for using their social media accounts to call the public to participate in the rallies. Two face lifetime jail sentences for allegedly using violence against the monarchy.

In full: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26408&LangID=E

07 January, 2012

Cambodia vows to finalize ASEAN human rights declaration this year

Source: The Jakarta Post
Saturday, January 07, 2012


Rasmei Kampuchea Daily, The Asia News Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia | Sat, 01/07/2012

Cambodia aims to finalize the drafting of an ASEAN Human Rights Declaration this year as it chairs the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Cambodian Human Rights Committee chairman Om Yin Tieng said.
"This is a big job and needs a lot of discussions. However, we are confident that we can finalize it by this year," said Om Yin Tieng, who is also a senior minister and chair of the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights in 2012.

He said the commission would hold its first meeting on the declaration in Siem Reap on January 8 and 9, immediately ahead of a meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers.

Human rights group Amnesty International called Friday for ASEAN institutions to make public and accessible a draft of the declaration.

"An inclusive drafting process, taking into account input from civil society and any other interested individuals or groups, is crucial for the Declaration. The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration concerns every woman, man and child in the region, and it is only natural that they should be given an opportunity to have their say," a statement said.

The group said it was "disappointed by the secrecy surrounding the drafting process so far. Not a single piece of substantive information on the process has been officially shared, and even the Terms of Reference of the Drafting Group have been kept confidential."

Om Yin Tieng said the upcoming meeting of the commission was an internal meeting. (mtq)

24 December, 2011

Top 10 ASEAN Stories of 2011

Source: The Diplomat
23 December 2011

Southeast Asia was overwhelmed by political brinkmanship, territorial disputes and natural disasters in 2011. Perhaps just as important, the courts also figured prominently with some of the region’s more colorful and notorious personalities feeling the full brunt of the law. Here are some of the biggest ones:

1. Southeast Asia’s Big Wet

Storms killed more than 2,000 people across the region with record floods and billions of dollars in losses chalked up by business primarily in Thailand and the Philippines, with Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos also taking a massive knock.

Floods were a constant fear throughout most of the second half of the year, culminating mid-December in a storm dubbed Washi that triggered flash floods and mudslides in the Philippines and left a thousand dead. Hardest hit were the cities of Cagayan de Ura and Iligan, where more than 250,000 were homeless.That natural calamity, like the typhoons that struck earlier in the year, came suddenly and proved almost as deadly as the floods in Thailand, which persisted for months.

The United Nations noted Bangkok had for years been warned about the need to develop a fully integrated approach to flood prevention. But the biggest impediment was convincing government, and this was made all the more difficult in Thailand where rapid changes in leadership had compromised the ability to plot long term strategies to combat floods.

International aid donors were quick to react with millions of dollars of food, supplies and medicine airlifted in. Harder to shift were attitudes. As waters rose, authorities complained that residents refused to budge, saying they feared looters.

Thailand is the world’s largest rice exporter and had expected a rice crop of about 25 million tons in 2012, a number that’s forecast to slump by a quarter. From livestock to poultry and computers to automobiles, industries are still counting the costs.

2.     Emerging Burma?

Thirteen months ago, the Burmese military allowed elections that resulted in the first civilian government coming to power since 1962. The poll – despite being widely regarded as a sham – has pushed the country in a direction welcomed by the international community.

President Thein Sein has revised laws on political parties, freed about 300 political prisoners, sought a conciliatory line with pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and stunned observers by defying one of its few allies, China.

Beijing had planned to build a mega-dam inside Burma, but the plan generated enormous local resentment, prompting Naypyidaw to suspend construction. The government has also legalized trade unions and eased censorship laws.

The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) applauded the moves and decided to award the ASEAN chair to Burma in 2014.

As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived on an historic visit to encourage further reforms, Suu Kyi lent some support by announcing she would contest up-coming by-elections once her National League for Democracy (NLD) party had been re-registered.

However, 1,700 political prisoners remain behind bars and complaints of human rights abuses persist, particularly in the countryside, where ethnic conflicts continue, prompting warnings that Burma’s ruling elite still had a long way to go before convincing skeptics its reforms are anything but superficial.

3. Clean Malaysia

When a group of non-governmental organizations and opposition political parties decided to rally in support of fair elections in Malaysia, few had expected the police and politicians in Kuala Lumpur would react as harshly as they did.

Prime Minister Najib Razak had initially attempted to play down the protest by Bersih, which means “clean” in Malay, but changed his tune after Amnesty described the crackdown as the worst case of suppression seen in his country for years.

Police were deployed under “Operation Erase Bersih”. They sealed off roads, dispatched toxic water cannons and opened fire with tear gas as tens of thousands attempted to march towards the iconic Merdeka Stadium. Stampedes followed, and the crowds dispersed into smaller groups and taunted riot police armed with batons, guns and shields. Baton charges followed.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, whose trial for sodomy was finally wrapped up at years’ end, was injured after police fired tear gas canisters into a tunnel. Protesters, however, remained defiant amid more than 1,000 arrests.

Most were too scared to wear yellow, the color synonymous with the movement. One man was dragged and kicked from outside the Chinese Maternity Hospital as tear gas was fired into the hospital’s grounds and next door at Tung Shing Hospital where protesters had sought shelter.

4. Yingluck Win Eases Tensions

Thailand was the only country in Southeast Asia to experience a change in leadership in 2011 after Yingluck Shinawatra and her Pheu Thai Party won a landslide victory over Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in July.

Her win resulted in an easing of tensions at home and across the border and paved a way home for her brother and former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a bloodless 2006 coup. Her victory also delivered some respite for Thais frustrated by the long running and bloody standoffs between the Red and Yellow Shirts.

Importantly, victory generated an improved political climate with Phnom Penh, allowing for an easing of tensions along their border. At the 900-year-old Preah Vihear Temple where at least 10 people were killed in February when fighting broke out between Cambodian and Thai troops. A further 18 died when fighting erupted in April along other parts of the border.

Many thought her first task would be to negotiate an amnesty for her brother. However, Yingluck’s priorities were to change rapidly as the country’s worst disaster since World War II began to take shape.

Floods would take a heavy toll and redefine her first months in office, winning applause from her supporters and, perhaps too predictably, criticism from her political opponents.

5. End of a Deadly Era

Almost nine years after bombings by Islamic militants left 202 people dead on the idyllic Indonesian island of Bali, the last of the bombers was finally arrested, signaling an end to an historic manhunt and the War on Terror in Southeast Asia as defined by the first decade of this century.

Omar Patek was captured by Pakistani authorities in January following an apparent tip-off from U.S. intelligence. His arrest wasn’t made public for another two months.

The arrest afforded some closure for the relatives of victims and survivors of a tragic episode that heralded what became known as the Second Front in the War on Terrorism, covering Southeast Asia.

Osama bin Laden was killed soon after.

An explosives expert, Patek was Jemaah Islamiyah’s deputy field commander at the time of the first Bali bombing, committed amid calls for an Islamic caliphate across Southeast Asia. He’s also wanted in Australia, the United States and the Philippines, and is standing trial in Indonesia.

6. The Spratly Islands

Southeast Asian countries have seen an unwanted rise in tensions over the Spratly and Paracel Islands as China tries to flex its growing economic and military muscle. Tensions this year were perhaps at their worst yet with Chinese belligerence over the issue leading to rare protests in Vietnam.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines also have claims over the chain. Chinese claims are ambitious as the Spratlys lie across a sea and largely within the 200-mile limit of the Philippines and a political stone’s throw from Malaysia and Brunei.

In Hanoi, where the Paracels are particularly sensitive, protests were allowed and held in the lead-up to an ASEAN Regional Forum in Bali that was dominated by the Spratly issue. There was also a push to drop the name South China Sea. No one could agree on that either. Manila is now referring to it as the West Philippine Sea, the Vietnamese call it the East Sea.

Then Manila decided enough was enough and sent a political delegation of four to Pagasa Island, populated by about 60 Filipinos, within the disputed chain. They declared it Philippine territory and Beijing was hopping mad, again. Foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu insisted China held “indisputable sovereignty” over the island chain despite the geographical realities. None of its neighbors agree.

7. Khmer Rouge Tribunal

The Khmer Rouge Tribunal hit its stride with the three most important surviving leaders of the ultra-Maoists confronting the U.N.-backed court for crimes against humanity and delivering shocking testimony before the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts in Cambodia (ECCC).

Prosecutors focused on the immediate forced evacuation of Phnom Penh and urban centers around the country after the Khmer Rouge seized control in April 1975. Brother Number Two Nuon Chea, one-time head of state Khieu Samphan and former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary denied the charges.

Nuon Chea says the Vietnamese were to blame for atrocities, including genocide. Between 1.7 million and 2.2 million people died under Pol Pot’s rule, which ended in January 1979 when invading Vietnamese forces pushed the Khmer Rouge into the countryside where conflict continued for another 20 years.

Construction of a massive Chinese-backed airstrip in the central province of Kampong Chhnang was telling. Beijing supported the Khmer Rouge throughout the Cold War.

At least 30,000 people were marched to the air strip and ordered to work. Conditions were so bad that many preferred suicide, choosing to leap under passing trucks. The court was told how every member of Pol Pot’s Standing Committee visited the site and encouraged people to work harder.

8. Singapore’s Irritated Elite

When a government loses a handful of seats at a general election with little impact on the overall governing of the state, the media attention is usually minimal. But in Singapore, where the authorities have for years’ encouraged nothing but whole-hearted support for their leadership, such losses seemed tragic.

At the 16th parliamentary elections in May, the opposition polled better than ever. The People’s Action party (PAP), in office since independence in 1965, won a reduced 60 percent of the vote, down from 67 percent in 2006.

Still the PAP managed to win 81 of the 87 contested seats.

Singapore’s founding father, longest serving prime minister and, from 2004, the cabinet’s minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew, was upset and resigned. His son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, subsequently urged citizens to become part of a cause to build a better Singapore.

He also described the poll as a watershed. Housing shortages, problems with public transport, a growing wealth gap and immigration were blamed for the PAP’s worst performance in its history. Singapore’s ruling elite isn’t used to criticism. The prime minister’s commented: “… the issue is not policies or whether we are doing right or wrong, but who is in charge, in power.”

9. People Smuggling

For Australia, the year began much the same way as it ended. People smuggling and illegal immigration dominated its agenda with Southeast Asia, particularly Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

A refugee swap with Malaysia was struck down by Australia’s High Court as overloaded boats ferrying human cargo from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka continued to land. This led to the December sinking of a boat off Indonesia, with perhaps 180 lives lost.

However, Prime Minister Julia Gillard insists a deal with Malaysia along with a regional solution remains the best way to combat people smuggling. More than 1,200 asylum seekers are being held in detention facilities on Christmas Island off Australia’s northwest coast.

10. Malaysian Heroics in London

One Malaysian deservedly won himself a place among the top stories of 2011 for being decent. Soft spoken Asyraf Haziq Rosli, stunned and bleeding, was filmed being helped to his feet after being beaten in East London at the height of the August riots.

The cameras then caught his apparent “rescuers” rifling through his backpack and stealing what they could. At least three million people watched the cowardly act on YouTube. But Rosli was applauded for his response, after initially suffering a broken jaw and lost teeth when 100 youths charged him and a friend.

“I feel sorry for them... It was really sad, for among them were children, boys in primary school. It was quite shocking,” the 20-year-old reportedly said.

Cameron said Rosli’s plight highlighted how things were “badly wrong in our society.”

10 December, 2009

Cambodia faces worrying human rights trends: UN

Foreign 2009-12-10 17:14
PHNOM PENH, Dec 10 (AFP) - Rising land disputes and crackdowns on government critics are "worrying trends" in Cambodia, a UN representative said Thursday in a speech marking international human rights day.

Christophe Peschoux, head of the UN's office of the high commissioner for human rights in Cambodia, said there had been some improvement in human rights but urged the government to behave in a "tolerant manner" towards the issue.

"We have also observed some worrying trends in recent years," he said in his speech at a rally where thousands of people gathered to mark international human rights day.

He mentioned people being forcibly evicted from their property in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh as well as ethnic minorities who have been robbed of their land in northeastern areas of the country.

"As land has become a new source of wealth, they (minority people) are being dispossessed of their lands," Peschoux said.

"And day after day villagers are robbed of their land by powerful economic interests, often with the support of the authorities," he added.

The Cambodian government has faced mounting criticism for a spate of forced evictions throughout the country over the past few years at the hands of army and police.

The Cambodian administration has also been heavily criticised by rights groups over the past year for launching a number of defamation and disinformation lawsuits against critics and opposition members.

Peschoux's speech also criticised recent crackdowns on government critics who have been sentenced to jail or fined for their comments.

"In a tolerant political environment, differences of opinion should not be dealt with through threats, intimidation or criminal action, but through public debate," he said.

In a joint statement marking international human rights day, 18 local rights groups also called on the government to open more space for the freedom of expression and to stop forced evictions around the country.

ASIA: Crisis in Human Rights Protection in Asia - Bad Policing Systems as a Major Threat to Human Rights

Source: The Mindanao Examiner
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 08:48:39 PM



On the 10th of December Human Rights Day is celebrated the world over. It reminds us of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which symbolized the start of an era based on a respect for human dignity and on the obligations of states to protect human rights.

But what kind of reminder is this day for people living in the Asian region? How many of them have seen improvements that would allow them to participate in such a celebration joyfully?

For the majority of people in Asia human rights remain a promise and a dream; they are not protected to the extent that they are thought worth celebrating. Instead on this day, once again, people will air their grievances louder; they will remember the many who have unnecessarily died because of violence, or because of neglect on the part of their government to provide them with economic, social and cultural development necessary to sustain them.

Threats to the Right to Life

When considering widespread poverty, extreme unemployment and the lack of basic resources available for people to live simply and decently in Asia, these grievances will be largely related to the right to life. It is this right that remains most under threat, in the area of civil and political rights, as well as in economic, social and cultural life across the continent. The more vulnerable sections of society, such as women, children and the elderly, will have the most to say about this. For most of them, Human Rights Day is celebrated under grim conditions.

States are yet to demonstrate that they pay anything beyond lip service to the protection of human rights, and remain preoccupied with the protection of privileges for a particular minority. They are proving slow and often unwilling to open to the democratisation of their societies in a manner that would give people access to basic rights. Instead the typical Asian state still strongly protects the rights of privileged sections of societies to engage in exploitation. Various ideological justifications and pretexts are made, and often they are overtly nationalist. Nationalism has not yet come to mean the protection of all those living in a particular country, but rather perversely represents certain stronger sections of society.

The Massacre in Maguindanao

One terrible reminder comes from a recent massacre in Maguindanao, in the Philippines, in which over fifty seven innocent persons were executed, including thirty journalists, while on their way to assert their basic democratic rights. It brings to mind many similar killings that have taken place throughout Asia during this year, perpetrated by state actors or other powerful sections, often to suppress more powerless sections of their societies. Besides such mass murders, we receive constant reports of extra-judicial killings, which appear to be used by governments as a way to deal with problematic individuals. Governments in Asia have failed to make a clear legal stand against extra-judicial killings, with punishments rarely resulting from the use of the rule of law mechanism and the operation of due process, both of which continue to be severely undermined continent-wide.

Failures in Criminal Justice Systems

A major reason that violations continue, is the failure of the Asian states to develop their criminal justice systems in terms of universally accepted norms and standards, and on the basis of human rights and criminal justice principles. Instead they rely on underdeveloped systems of policing, which themselves rely heavily on the use of brute force to control populations, rather than the rule of law.

This failure to develop credible systems of policing is the greatest visible sign of states' neglect of civil and political rights. Torture continues to be a common part of the investigation process and its legitimisation paves the way for other violations and the abuse of criminal justice itself, extortion in particular. Police officers enjoy enormous, unchecked powers, and these are often used to illegally enrich themselves.

A police station here is often simply used as a form of domination by the elites and upper caste persons, its staff are symbols of caste and not of law. Internal processes within the policing system are overly controlled and rarely democratic. A critique of the criminal justice systems from this point of view is essential if societies are to be democratised and entrenched inequality within society is to be handled.

By not reforming bad policing systems, no credible mechanisms for complaint are being developed; complaints cannot easily be filed against anyone in the police force and the problem self perpetuates. Those who are brave enough to complain against the police are often exposed to various abuses, sometimes threatened with death. Witnesses are commonly killed. Thus there is a systemic, sanctioned silencing. This is as helpful for authoritarian governments as it is for powerful individuals looking to exploit the poor; arbitrary forms of power are commonly maintained through the misuse of police both during election times and throughout the year. Opposition political parties across the continent claim to have been suppressed in the localities by police.

Thus in countries such as China, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Thailand, Burma and Cambodia, the improvement of human rights must be measured by the extent to which the policing systems are democratised. As long as policing systems remain as they are, the likelihood of any improvement in human rights or democratization will remain scant.

Caste-based Discrimination

Systems of extreme caste-based discrimination are still powerful within the Asian region, particularly in South Asia, where they maintain tight cycles of impoverishment. While some forms of modernisation have made certain inroads, the undermining of this system here is still in its initial stages. Economic power is still very much in the hands of those who control power systems that utilise caste-based discrimination. As a result free expression and free organisation among the lower castes is systematically obstructed by traditional elites. This sector uses national resources for its benefit only. The empowerment of lower caste communities depends upon the unjust practices that have been built into the very criminal justice systems, to the point of being ingrained. Justice is currently very often out of reach of the poor.

Women's Rights

Discrimination against women, particularly those who are underprivileged, remains deeply entrenched in the very processes of criminal justice in Asia. A woman who wants to assert her right to equality finds little protection within the criminal justice system of her country, where judges remain biased and laws traditionally patriarchal. A woman's access to the rule of law is also often blocked by the police force, where gender sensitisation has yet to take place and where crimes against women are commonly committed.

Traditional forms of community justice also prevail in many parts of the region, which mostly involve the assertion of the will of the wealthy sectors of society. This process controls the rights of women to their property in particular; the roots of most honour killings dealt with by the AHRC lie in land-grabs. This lack of economic empowerment and legal access leaves women with little room to fight social inequality, and the cycle perpetuates.

Starvation, Malnutrition and Hunger

A formidable obstacle for participatory democracy in many Asian states is the prevalence of starvation, malnutrition and hunger. In India, the largest democracy in the world, an estimated 27% of its population lives below the poverty line, unable to earn more than 1USD a day. An equally alarming percentage of people live in similar conditions in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Philippines and Burma. Those worst affected by hunger are women and the children, and in particular the girl child. Malnutrition adversely affects a child's prospects to learn and poverty prevents parents from sending their children to school, thereby ruining a generation's options to participate in whatever democratic process is available in their country.

Nevertheless little is being done by the governments in these states to ameliorate the living conditions of the poorest of the poor. The AHRC has reported many cases of acute malnourishment and hunger this year, particularly from India, where it has most access to this information. Trusted sources from Burma suggest that the condition is even worse there, where acute food shortages are not due to natural disasters, but rather the disastrous failure of the state to manage its resources for the good of its people.

Corruption

Asia harbours many of the world's corruption dens, where the practice hampers the meaningful functioning of justice institutions and demoralises the masses. It affects people's motivation to push for reforms wherever such space is available.

Corruption has contributed to economic polarisation in the region, and adversely affects the majority, yet there have been not active steps to tackle it, except for in a few selected states. Backslides have been observed, as in South Korea, where the state has increasingly resorted to the use of force to crackdown on popular descent against corruption and highhandedness in the government.

Inadequate Funding for the Administration of Justice

One of the major strategies employed by Asian governments to prevent the improvement of human rights systems and democratisation, is to not adequately fund the institutions that administrate justice. Investigating and prosecutorial systems are extremely underfunded across the region. This administratively prevents their independence. Underfunded police often do not have the personal or institutional resources to deal with their tasks, and underfunded prosecution systems do not have the qualified or competent personnel needed for matters of law and justice. By underfunding the judiciary, governments can be sure that judicial functions will be stunted, and this allows the executive to exert easy control. The heavy control of justice institutions is a strong characteristic of the Asian nation.

The Responsibility of the International Human Rights Community

These are the factors that allow human rights violations to flourish in the Asian environment. The international community has still not adequately grasped the nature of the problems of rights implementation in this region. It has instead wasted much of its resources on promoting, for example, national human rights commissions, which are primarily ombudsman institutions for countries that do not yet have the institutional foundations to administrate justice. Yet the former cannot function without the latter.

The emphasis must lie in improving policing, prosecutorial systems and judicial systems. The challenge for the international community is to review its old strategies for human rights development in countries where the basic rule of law and due process is seriously flawed.

30 October, 2009

Beware of ASEAN rights diplomacy

UPA Asia.com
By Awzar Thi
Column: Rule of Lords, Published: October 29, 2009







Hong Kong, China — Last Friday, 10 civil society representatives learned the hard way what a new Asian regional human rights initiative is really all about.

The 10 had expected to meet leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, one representing each country in the grouping, for a chat prior to the launch of the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights.

But the night before, officials from the Foreign Ministry of Thailand – where the event was being held – said that only five would be allowed through the door. When the five arrived at the venue, officials told them that they could not open their mouths.

Welcome to human rights dialogue, ASEAN style.

In a statement, the spurned activists said that the move was “a rejection of both civil society and the democratic process” that “sabotages the credibility” of the new commission. Media reports cited other groups as “bashing” and “deriding” the body.

All this seems to be much ado about nothing.

It was obvious from the start that the purpose of the new ASEAN body is not to protect human rights. Its purpose is the exact opposite.

ASEAN has created the Intergovernmental Commission so that member governments and their own ineffectual rights institutions can push complaints of abuses outside their borders. There they can be professionally watered down and run through various “channels” and “mechanisms” until the original point is forgotten and frustrated complainants give up.

Although the commission is not intended to promote rights, it is aiming to promote members’ campaigns for seats on prestigious international bodies, like the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Thailand has already announced that it will bid for the peak U.N. rights body next year. Its current ambassador to the council was government spokesman when former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s administration was enabling the murder of thousands of alleged drug dealers in 2003.

In his new improved role as ASEAN human rights defender, the ambassador has been working on the intergovernmental body, perhaps with the expectancy of a better seat at the big hall in Geneva.

That these governments are working hard on their human rights diplomacy for reasons other than human rights is unsurprising. That civil society groups have been suckered into the diplomacy agenda is unfortunate.

Not only has it proven to be a complete waste of time and money, but also it is damaging to the defense of human rights in Asia.

Human rights diplomacy causes groups to lose touch with the real work of human rights advocacy. Diplomacy obliges negotiation and compromise. It is the stuff of closed doors and secret handshakes. By contrast, advocacy means standing firm on principles. It is necessarily public and open.

Rights diplomats fear to speak out because they might step on officials’ toes or risk their status with fellow diplomats. They sacrifice their ability to communicate on critically important issues on the streets in order to keep their cherished places at the table.

This is why, for instance, some groups have failed to speak out against the use of the lèse majesté law to silence and imprison people in Thailand, when in principle they ought to have not even hesitated.

Rights diplomats may flatter themselves into thinking that they can make progress through quiet negotiating, as if they were concluding a trade agreement or making an arms deal, but the fact is that this method is inimical to the real work of defending human rights.

This is because the single most important purpose of human rights advocacy is to break open silences and challenge taboos that allow abuses to continue. The work of human rights is to end the censorship of debate on problems that cause violations to persist.

Censorship can only be broken through advocacy. Human rights diplomacy, by contrast, not only reinforces censorship but also forces its participants to engage in self-censorship.

Persons who engage in self-censorship on the pretence of dialogue should expect little sympathy later when they find that they have been made victims of their own attempts at diplomacy, and then cry out that they have been unfairly treated.

But hopefully they will have learned an important lesson, that human rights diplomacy and human rights advocacy are incompatible. Anyone opting to engage in the former can only do so at the cost of giving up on the latter. And to give up on the latter ultimately means to give up on human rights.

--

(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)

13 August, 2009

Oh ASEAN!

Malaysia Today
Thursday, 13 August 2009 10:55
By Hakim Joe


Here we go again. Aung San Suu Kyi was once again found guilty of violating the terms of a previous five-year house arrest order and sentenced to yet another one and a half years of house arrest. That this was a political motivated decision by the military government of Myanmar to stop the Lady from contesting in the next elections (scheduled for next year) is beyond doubt.
The question of why ASEAN needs to suffer having such a regime within its ranks is beyond reasonable justification. But then again, the member states of ASEAN retains the same type of mentality and political forcefulness that it comes as no surprise that “birds of the same feather, flocks together.”


ASEAN is made up of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Of these 10 nations, we have six so-called different types of democracies, one military dictatorship, two socialist (single-party) and one sultanate (under martial law)? What does one call such a grouping of differing ideologies?

The Myanmar government is not the sole ASEAN member that finds ways to incarcerate and victimize its political opposition and to repress civil liberties. The other six democratic governments have done exactly the same. Cambodia (banishment of Sam Rainsy), Indonesia (autocracy under Soekarno), Malaysia (jailing of Anwar Ibrahim), Philippines (assassination of Benigno Aquino), Singapore (jailing of Dr. Chee Soon Juan) and Thailand (military coup ousting Thaksin Shinawatra) have at one time or another suppressed human rights by force. Brunei is still effectively under martial law and the word of the Sultan is law. Laos and Vietnam are one-party socialist (communist) states that tolerate no opposition.

ASEAN is also a grouping which has a non-intervention policy of its fellow members. Non-intervention in this case refers to zero criticism, censure or denunciation of its brothers-in-arms regardless of how the neighboring countries are governed. One country could be systematically exterminating its minorities and another member nation cannot show overt signs of disapproval. Another country might be importing illegal firearms and yet all other member country must remain silent. So, what does hypocritical ASEAN really stands for? Whatever it stands for or attempts to represent, all one can say that it is no friend of human rights and civil liberties.


Look at the five founding fathers of ASEAN. Adam Malik (ex-kidnapper and alleged CIA operative) from Indonesia, Abdul Razak (NEP Supremo and champion of Ketuanan Melayu) from Malaysia, S.Rajaratnam (rejected the ASEAN proposed enforcement capacity of the human rights body) from Singapore, Narciso Ramos (father of military strongman turned politician Fidel Ramos) from the Philippines and Thanat Khoman (Preah Vihear controversy) from Thailand do not exactly instill any confidence of sorts. From the very beginning, ASEAN was a convenient grouping of neighborly countries that has nothing in common and without a common goal. The Bangkok Declaration of 1967 only just about covers economic ties as its assumptions to both social and cultural representations are for show only.

So, what’s wrong with ASEAN? Economically, it is a region of different developing countries vying for the same contracts and benefits from other first-world nations who intend to invest here. Culturally, it is a jumbled mass of diversity without common grounds. Politically, we have communism, military dictatorship, sultanate, constitutional democracy, constitutional monarchy, electoral democracy, unicameral parliamentary democracy and presidential constitutional republics. Religion is across the board from Islam to Buddhism to Roman Catholic to Confucianism to atheism. Ethnically, it is even worse with a multitude of indigenous people and settlers that makes social integration a massive headache. Linguistically, at least these ASEAN nations speak English (which is neither their mother tongue) or their version of what is English.

Even the establishment of ASEAN was anything but a formality when these Southeast Asian countries decided to form an association to safeguard their own interests. First we have the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA), composed of Malaya, the Philippines, and Thailand (in1961) which Indonesia did not want to join. Then there was the Maphilindo (in 1963), a combined name of Malaya, the Philippines, and Indonesia which was a no go owing to the military disputes between the member countries. SEATO was a blatant waste of time as the lack of agreement between the member states made it unviable. The Asian Pacific Council (ASPAC) and the Southeast Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SEAARC) were similarly impossible to maintain as each individual country seek opportunities that were advantageous to themselves only.

ASEAN (formed in 1967) is basically a loose organization whereby its three basic principles constitute a respect for state sovereignty, non-intervention, and renunciation of the threat or use of force in resolving disputes. ASEAN did not base its foundation on formal dispute-resolution mechanisms and hence is not a collective security arrangement. This means that if Thailand decides to whack Singapore or vice versa, Malaysia (situated in between) will just have to sit down and watch it happen.

ASEAN's primary objectives were to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to promote regional peace and stability. Whether these are the actual objectives are to be seen as it can be said that the ten member nations are atrocious (and notorious) when it comes to human rights and civil liberties in their respective countries. But then again, ASEAN members did not say that they will improve human rights and civil liberties within their own borders.

Each founding member had its own agenda when joining up - Indonesia needed to restore its relations in the region, but it also identified ASEAN as an opportunity both to exercise regional leadership and to diminish the capacity of external powers to influence events in Southeast Asia. Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines supported ASEAN as a way to constrain a militant Indonesia.

To Singapore, belonging to ASEAN symbolized that it was accepted and tolerated by its neighbours as an equal state after seceding from Malaysia. For Malaysia and the Philippines, ASEAN was an opportunity to enhance their national prestige on a global platform. The Philippines additionally hoped that ASEAN would strengthen Filipinos' Asian identity and trading links, thereby counterbalancing the Philippines' relationship with the United States. Thailand hoped that ASEAN would become the basis for the "collective political defense" of the region, forming an organization that could possibly supplement and perhaps eventually replace its own security relationship with the United States.


“Will ASEAN work?” Still existing from its establishment in 1967 until today, it does not automatically grant them success. The question now becomes “Is ASEAN working?” This is because the decisions agreed upon in the ASEAN are consensus oriented.

ASEAN undertakes to solicit agreement from most of the states. However, "consensus does not assume that everyone must agree; it assumes at least that no one objects to the proposal." In other words, consensus does not require unanimity but rather leads to finding a common interest that could appeal to the whole.

At the beginning it was not that difficult as agreements were entirely economically orientated and there were only five democratic member countries. These days there are ten and no longer are all member countries democratically inclined. Anyway, the ASEAN charter does not enforce a collective agreement and each member is allowed to disagree entirely with any accord that is proposed. One can even walk out from the conference if one is sufficiently pissed off (without penalty), which Hun Sen (former Khmer Rouge cadre) almost did in the last conference in Thailand.

In conclusion, ASEAN is like ASA, Maphilindo, SEATO, ASPAC and SEAARC – defunct, obsolete, redundant, superfluous, pointless, insignificant etcetera. Politics aside, ASEAN is too small even to be effective as an economic integration grouping even though the combined population exceeds those of the EU (which is an economic powerhouse). The lack of balance between national priorities and regional interests become a major impediment to a sustained integration as a whole. Moreover, the very principle that ASEAN practises – setting aside conflicting problems in order to prevent military confrontations – makes the association powerless, toothless and helpless. To avoid the problems means leaving them unsolved. A bloody waste of money, effort and time, if you ask me.

The other predicaments include the unrepresentative representation of the society at large and its failure to manage military concerns effectively and proficiently. As the representatives from each member country are from the educated social class, they have problems representing the value systems and social norms in their society at large.

Additionally, although the perception of a common external threat had played an important role in ASEAN's creation and grew more important as the organization developed, there have not been sufficient consensuses amongst the ASEAN states on security issues. Suspicion and misgivings among the ASEAN nations remains awkward, and the ASEAN members lack the military power needed to form a credible bloc. Power afterall is projected from the barrel of a gun and ASEAN just do not have sufficiently big guns to project such an image.

Both the persistent crisis that occur in the "world's most persistently problematic areas of political friction" and the organization's inability to effectively deal with the internal conflicts remain a crucial problem ASEAN has yet to overcome, and would probably never surmount.

Altogether, ASEAN's multiplicity in diverse realms hinders the member states from achieving a realistic agreement on specific issues and programs. The assortment of nations does not lead to much benefit from economic integration either. The principles ASEAN adheres to thwart the way to development; in short, it needs to overcome a lot of difficulties with no practical hope in sight. The word “progressive-cooperation” here is a misnomer.

Coming back to Aung San Suu Kyi, the initial sentence was for another three years house arrest but this was “reduced” by the military regime on “humanitarian grounds”. Thank God the Lady remains steadfast in her quest for democracy in a repressive country that remains part of the ASEAN grouping.


Shouldn’t we follow suit?

20 July, 2009

Asean Meets to Strengthen Ties as U.S., China Vie for Influence

By Daniel Ten Kate
Source: Bloomberg.com

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Southeast Asian foreign ministers met to strengthen ties before a broader gathering this week to discuss security threats in the region with the world’s fastest- growing major economies.

“Effective action must replace extended deliberation,” Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said in an opening address in Phuket, Thailand, where the meetings are being held. “We must show to the world that Asean is ready to meet any challenge and is well prepared to act decisively.”

Top diplomats from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations are meeting this week to further their goal of forming a European Union-style economic alliance. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will join them in two days for the Asean Regional Forum, where 27 nations representing half the world’s population will discuss security issues such as North Korea’s nuclear program, border disputes and terrorism.

The U.S. and China are competing for influence in a resources-rich region that contains sea lanes vital for carrying oil from the Middle East to China and northeast Asia. The adoption of a charter last year has fortified Asean’s structure even as individual members struggle with recession, political upheaval and terrorism.

Wide economic disparity among the countries has made it difficult to leverage the group’s market of 575 million people in vying for investments with China and India, the world’s fastest growing major economies. Abhisit said the bloc should “continue to nurture a culture of concerted action” in order “to reinforce Asean’s centrality.”

Swine Flu, Currencies

Abhisit called for cooperation in making vaccines for swine flu and lauded the group’s completion in May of a $120 billion foreign-currency reserve pool to help revive investor confidence. The pool, formed with China, Japan and South Korea, widens access to foreign-exchange reserves and allows Asean countries to defend their currencies.

Foreign direct investment into Asean fell 13 percent last year to $60.1 billion, according to the group’s official statistics. China attracted a record $92.4 billion last year, excluding the financial sector, and has since seen overseas investments decline each month this year as companies pare spending to weather the global financial crisis.

Export-dependent countries like Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia are all facing recession as the global slump crimps demand for electronics, cars and computer chips. Indonesia, which has avoided recession because of a stronger domestic economy, suffered a blow last week when suicide bombers killed nine and wounded 53 in attacks at two U.S.-run luxury hotels.

Purchasing Power Disparities

Southeast Asia’s four largest economies -- Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore -- account for almost 80 percent of all foreign investment into Asean. The purchasing power of the group’s four richest countries was 10 times greater than the other members last year, according to statistics on the bloc’s Web site.

“We should begin to think about what type of community we want to see,” Abhisit said. “In a region as diverse as Southeast Asia, I am sure our ideas will be varied but I hope as we get to the year 2015, our ideas will converge.”

Internal political fights in the 10-member bloc have disrupted the region’s efforts to integrate and stymied progress on a human rights body. An April summit of Asian leaders in Pattaya, Thailand, was canceled midway through after anti- government protesters who wanted Abhisit to resign stormed the meeting venue. Thailand has beefed up security this week.

Human Rights Body

Asean foreign ministers today hope to complete the details of a human rights body that has no mandate to investigate country-specific issues, according to Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. The commission reflects a “maximum consensus” among member states and its powers will be reviewed every five years, he said.

Since its founding in 1967, Asean made decisions mainly by consensus, refusing to comment on affairs of individual members. Two years ago the bloc’s leaders signed a charter, the group’s first legally binding document.

Governments found to be in violation of its rules will be referred to Asean leaders to come up with a consensus on action. The group rejected proposals to add voting, expulsion or sanctions on its members.

Asean includes Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. Thailand holds the rotating chairmanship until December.

To contact the reporters on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Cha-am, Thailand at dtenkate@bloomberg.net;

29 March, 2009

No probe powers for ASEAN rights body yet

No probe powers for ASEAN rights body yet



INQUIRER.net
First Posted 13:13:00 03/28/2009

Filed Under: Diplomacy, Justice & Rights


MANILA, Philippines—The controversial ASEAN Human Rights Body to be launched this October after the terms of reference for its creation is finished by July will not have investigative powers yet, Ambassador Rosario Manalo, head of the high-level panel preparing the document, told reporters.

As any TOR, the one enabling the creation of the body contains its purposes, principles, mandates, and functions, defining it as consultative and integral to ASEAN and specifying that each member-state send a representative.

But, Manalo said, the body is “evolving” and would not have investigative powers, “not for the moment.”

The diplomat said the TOR has already been presented to the foreign ministers of the ASEAN member-countries and is being revised following their proposals. The creation of the body has been controversial due to the sorry situation of human rights in some ASEAN member-states, particularly Myanmar.

Eventually, she said, the ASEAN Human Rights Body may develop into one investigating possible violations of human rights.

“It is not just there is no political will, there is no capacity to create a court presently. We are still getting acquainted with the idea of human rights. We are beginning to confront human rights issues and internalizing them in our own societies. The TOR is allowing for more evolutionary space,” she said.

Manalo said members of the panel are also preparing the programs of the body for the next five years, focusing on both promotion and protection of human rights.

She said they are also meeting next week in Cambodia to finalize funding of the body to support its operations and activities.

Initially, she said, the member-states will be required to give equivalent annual compulsory contributions, but those who can give more—within and outside ASEAN—will be more than welcome.

In the next five years, this TOR that would create the body will be reviewed.

Manalo said the body would not be retroactive, but “prospective.”

Earlier, Ambassador Alistair MacDonald of the European Commission said he is happy with the developments in the creation of the regional body. He said these developments, culminating with the creation of a body, represent big steps from the original idea of simply creating a human rights mechanism within ASEAN.

ASEAN groups together Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

13 March, 2009

Cambodia: Where The Ruled And Rulers Meet

Cambodia: Where The Ruled And Rulers Meet

Friday, 13 March 2009, 10:53 am
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission

Cambodia: National Congress Where The Ruled And Rulers Meet Must Not Be A Still-Born Constitutional Institution

Cambodia's constitution which the Constituent Assembly issued from the UN-organised election had adopted in 1993 has established an institution of direct democracy called National Congress. This is the congress of people where, according to Article 147 of the Constitution, Cambodians meet their rulers "to be directly informed of various matters of national interest" and "to raise issues and make proposals for the state authorities to address." The Prime Minister is to convene this congress once a year in early December and, according to Article 148, it is to be chaired by the King of Cambodia.


Since 1993 this congress has never been held and there has been mounting pressure on Prime Minister Hun Sen to convene it. On 4 March 2009, in a public speech, he rebuffed the pressure instead of looking for ways to fulfill his constitutional duty and convene the congress. He said that "it is impossible to make the law" on its organization and functioning as required and "it is impossible to hold the National Congress."

Referring to the existence of at least 50 registered political parties which would take advantage of the congress, he expressed fears that "holding it could cause turmoil in the system" of government. According to him, the congress was unnecessary when his party, the Cambodian People’s Party, already received enough input from its parliamentarians to need to convene the congress to stay in touch with the people. He concluded that "it would be better to remove it from the Constitution altogether" and suggested that, with its majority in the Parliament, his party could amend the Constitution to that effect.

The reasons Hun Sen has put forward to scotch this important institution of democracy are hardly plausible. This institution is not a brand new one in Cambodia. The National Congress was first instituted as a constitutional institution in 1958. It was held every six months in an open space next to the Royal Palace in the centre of the capital. The Head of State, Prince Sihanouk, chaired each congress which lasted several days at a time. Thousands of people from every corner of the country participated in it with enthusiasm, heard their government’s report on national affairs, made recommendations and challenged corrupt officials. There was no turmoil, but rather peace and order throughout every congress.

To discharge his constitutional duty, Hun Sen needs simply to draw on that past experience to make the law on the organisation and functioning of the National Congress and to hold it in an orderly manner. After all, the present constitutional provisions on the National Congress are almost the exact copy of those that had instituted its predecessor in 1958.

However, the arrangements and practices in the past may not entirely fit the new circumstances of the country, and more needs to be done to ensure a smooth-running, trouble-free congress. In the first place, the country’s total population has doubled and the population of Phnom Penh, which provided the most active participants in the past, has almost tripled. Proportionally speaking, more people than in the past are politically conscious and may be willing to participate in the congress. People are more polarized than in the past.

The larger number of participants requires a larger venue, good organization so as to give more people an opportunity to voice their opinion, and also effective crowd control. The biggest venue Cambodia is the Olympic stadium in Phnom Penh which can seat up to 100,000 people. Participation may be limited to this number, either through local registration of participants on a first-come, first-served basis or with random-sampling based on electoral rolls.

Rules of procedure could be devised to enable participants to meet in harmony, voice their opinion and engage in debates in harmony and to break up in harmony.

As for crowd control there does not seem to be an insurmountable problem. So far, public gatherings, be they public demonstrations or protests, have been orderly. The trouble and disorder that have happened have been mainly caused by crackdowns by public forces. Mass meetings comprising thousands and even tens of thousands of people at a time, including the one organised by the ruling party in early January 2009, have been held in an orderly manner in the Olympic stadium. Additional fences may need to be erected to help this crowd control.

The real obstacle to holding the National Congress may be something else, and it is curious to note that, in the same statement, Hun Sen also said that if he were to convene a National Congress, he would only invite his party’s supporters. This part of the statement is more significant and should indicate he was not so sure he and his security forces could prevent criticism from being voiced in the congress and in his presence. He could face embarrassment to say the least.

When there is no insurmountable technical obstacle to the organization of an annual National Congress, the killing of this institution of direct democracy through a constitutional amendment is a serious violation of the Cambodian people’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression (Art. 41), and to participate actively in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the nation and have state authorities seriously consider all their proposals (Art.35), through the denial of an important venue for the exercise of these rights.

Furthermore, for a country where Buddhism is the state religion, the killing of this venue is also a derogation of one of the seven principles the Buddha taught a powerful and strong people called the Vajjians for their continued prosperity, a principle that may have inspired the establishment of the National Congress in 1958. The Buddha said that “as long as the Vajjians hold regular and frequent assemblies…as long as they meet in harmony, carry on their business in harmony and end in harmony they may be expected to prosper and not decline."

Prime Minister Hun Sen should honour his country’s international human rights obligations by meeting the constitutional rights of the Cambodian people. He should positively consider the Buddhist principle of governance above. He should abandon his scheme to remove the National Congress from the Constitution. He should instead fulfill his constitutional duty by making a law on its organization and functioning and the related rules of procedure, and convening this congress at the earliest possible moment.


About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

ENDS

04 March, 2009

NGOs reject regional rights body

NGOs reject regional rights body
The Phnom Penh Post
Written by Cheang Sokha And Sebastian Strangio
Wednesday, 04 March 2009

Local civil society leaders call for changes to a draft Asean human rights mechanism, saying the proposal gives member governments too much control over appointments to the body.
Photo by: SeBastian Strangio


A COALITION of local human rights groups on Tuesday rejected the draft proposal for a regional human rights body adopted at last weekend's Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Thailand, citing "significant concerns" relating to the body's "independence, accountability and effectiveness".

A draft proposal for the Asean Human Rights Body (AHRB) was adopted by the foreign ministers of Asean's 10 member states Tuesday, in line with the Asean Charter adopted in November 2007.

But in a joint statement Tuesday, local NGOs criticised the adopted terms of reference (TOR), arguing that appointments to the body - to be made by Asean member governments - would directly compromise its independence.

"We are concerned that this body will not operate effectively because most human rights violation cases are committed by government officials or state institutions," the statement said.

"The AHRB should be accountable to the Asean peoples and to the victims of human rights violations instead of being accountable to the respective appointing governments only."

The statement argued that the proposed AHRB's role will be "purely consultative" if it is not also given a mandate to conduct fact-finding missions, publish findings and enforce its rulings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AURB should be accountable to... victims of human rights violations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It also called on the High Level Panel on the Asean Human Rights Body to incorporate the civil society recommendations when the TOR are finalised at an Asean ministerial meeting in July.

"We see that the first draft mechanism is very weak," said Thun Saray, president of local rights group Adhoc, at a press conference Tuesday.

"Civil society groups want revisions to be made, not just by consulting with us on human rights issues but also to ensure protection against human rights abuses in the region."

However, a fully independent human rights body is likely to be a challenge in a regional grouping that contains Myanmar - a military dictatorship - and Vietnam and Laos, one-party communist states.

Conflicting priorities
Although Asean's charter pledges it to establish a regional rights body, the goal appears to clash with some of its core political precepts - including the "non-interference in member states' internal affairs" - raising fears that the body will lack the political will to enforce human rights standards.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Hun Sen and his Myanmar counterpart Thein Sein reportedly blocked Cambodian and Myanmar human rights activists from taking part in a rare face-to-face meeting with Asean leaders, drawing criticisms from international rights groups.

Ou Virak, president of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, said Sunday that while the involvement of civil society in Asean proceedings may have ruffled some authoritarian feathers, several Asean countries had taken large steps to ensure NGO participation.

"If you look at Asean as a regional body, [civil society involvement] is not the norm. But if you look at individual governments, it is the norm.

The Philippines in particular is very good at setting up parallel meetings on the side of the official meetings," he said.

Koul Panha, executive director of local election watchdog Comfrel, likewise said he had "a lot of hope" for the AHRB, citing recent human rights reforms in other Asean member countries, including Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

"I hope that some major Asean countries will encourage the formation of a political and economic community, and that we can use [human rights] policies to pressure individual countries," he said.

Thun Saray said that he did not expect the AHRB would be as binding as similar bodies in Europe and the United States, but that civil society would take action to ensure "a maximum degree of protection" against rights abuses in the region.

He added that the High Level Panel had already incorporated some civil society recommendations into the draft TOR and was hopeful more would be included in the final document at July's meeting.

03 March, 2009

CAMBODIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ON TERMS of REFERENCE OF ASEAN HUMAN RIGHTS BODY

JOINT STATEMENT OF CAMBODIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ON TERMS of REFERENCE OF ASEAN HUMAN RIGHTS BODY

-----------



We, a group of civil society organizations who have watched the process of the establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB) with great hope and interest, would like to state that we appreciate the efforts made by the different member states of ASEAN in elaborating the Terms of Reference (TOR) of this body. However, after perusing the first draft of the TOR for the establishment of the AHRB, we have significant concerns relating to its independence, accountability and effectiveness.



While there are some provisions in the first draft of TOR that stipulate that “ each member State shall appoint a representative with consideration to that persons’ integrity and competence, and should consult, if required by their respective internal processes, with appropriate stakeholders (including civil society)”, we remain concerned that many Member States will not follow these provisions. To avoid political appointments and to ensure independence we would like to urge the Member States of ASEAN to appoint their representative to the AHRB through transparent process and consulting with members of civil society.



According to the TOR, each representative of the AHRB shall be accountable to the appointing Government, in this regard, we are therefore concerned that this body will not operate effectively because most human rights violation cases are committed by government officials or state institutions. The AHRB should be accountable to the ASEAN peoples and to the victims of human rights violations instead of being accountable to the respective appointing government only.



We are concerned that the AHRB cannot be effective as its role will be purely consultative, with its only power being to report to ASEAN ministers of foreign affairs. While the AHRB is unable to conduct fact finding mission, publish its findings or fulfill a protection mandate, its effectiveness and impact can only be limited.



We urge the high level panel of ASEAN to review the first draft of the TOR and incorporate the recommendations of regional NGO networks into the TOR before the adoption of finalized TOR at the ASEAN ministerial foreign affairs meeting in July 2009. It is only though adopting this process that we can ensure that the AHRB will be independent, accountable and effective.



“We want an ASEAN Human Rights Commission with teeth”



Phnom Penh, March 3, 2009

Further information, please contact:



Mr. Sok Sam Oeun CHRAC Chairman, Executive Director of CDP,

and CEDAW Vice Chair Tel: 012 901 199

Mr. Thun Saray President of ADHOC Tel: 016 880 509

Ms. Seng Theary Executive Director of CSD Tel: 012 222 522

Mr. Hang Chhaya Executive Director of KID Tel: 012 865 910

Mrs. Say Vathany Executive Director of CWCC Tel: 092 993 358

Mr. Chhith Sam Ath Executive Director of NGO Forum Tel: 012 928 585

Mr. Koul Panha Executive Director of COMFREL Tel: 012 942 017

Mr. Ath Thorn President of C.CAWDU Tel: 012 998 906

___________________________
Cambodian Human Rights Action Committee (CHRAC)
Address: # 9E0, St. 330, Sangkat Boeung Keng Kong III,
Khan. Chamcar Morn, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel/Fax: (855) 23 218 759, Tel: (855) 23 301 415, 30 56 09
E-mail: chrac@forum.org.kh or chracsecretariat@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.chrac.org

02 March, 2009

Asian Summit Snags on Human Rights


Asian Summit Snags on Human Rights
Activists Pull Out of Meeting After Ultimatum by Burma and Cambodia


Leaders from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations link arms at the group's annual summit, held in Thailand. From left are Thailand's Abhisit Vejjajiva, Vietnam's Nguyen Tan Dung, Burma's Thein Sein, Brunei's Hassanal Bolkiah and Cambodia's Hun Sen. (By Tomohiro Ohsumi -- Bloomberg News)

By Tim Johnston
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 1, 2009; Page A13

HUA HIN, Thailand, Feb. 28 -- A summit of Southeast Asian countries got off to a rocky start Saturday when the leaders of Burma and Cambodia threatened to walk out of a meeting on human rights if activists from their countries were included. The activists reluctantly offered to withdraw, and the meeting went ahead without them.

The annual summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is the first since the organization formally signed a charter that, among other things, mandates the establishment of an independent human rights body as part of a program to make the organization "more caring and sharing," in the words of Abhisit Vejjajiva, Thailand's prime minister and the group's chairman.

"We need to make ASEAN more people-centric. Protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms is a key feature of our community," Abhisit said at the opening ceremony Saturday afternoon. "The establishment of an ASEAN human rights body by the end of this year, the first ever of its kind in the region, will be a big step in this direction."

Rights groups said that Saturday's ultimatum from Burma and Cambodia shows that they are already trying to undermine the agreement.

"The Burmese military regime and the Cambodian government have set out to deliberately sabotage one of the most important aspects of the ASEAN charter," said Debbie Stothard of Altsean-Burma, a human rights advocacy group.

The refusal of Burmese and Cambodian authorities to engage with their critics will bolster skeptics who say the organization has always put the principle of noninterference above its promise to better the lives of the 570 million people who live in the 10 member countries.

Analysts have expressed doubt that all of the ASEAN members, especially Burma, are fully committed to the process. Burma was severely criticized in a recent U.S. State Department report for its human rights abuses.

Burma was controversially brought into ASEAN in 1997 on the grounds that regional engagement was more likely to change the country's direction than ostracism. But the experiment has been largely unsuccessful, and Burma's human rights record almost always threatens to overshadow the rest of the ASEAN agenda at its meetings.

Some observers say the organization's problem lies in execution rather than principle.

"If engagement is still the principle, you have to use the carrot and the stick, and I don't see any stick," said Bara Hasibuan, a political analyst based in Jakarta, Indonesia's capital.

After the human rights meeting, Abhisit made an effort to meet the excluded delegates. He later told reporters that the organization would "try to ensure that there is civil society participation" in its future work, the Associated Press reported.

"We will take gradual steps and encourage a wider participation," he said.

The ASEAN members are Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam.

20 February, 2009

Civil society questions mandate of ASEAN human rights body

Civil society questions mandate of ASEAN human rights body
Posted by Chea Sophal
Asia-Pacific News

Feb 19, 2009, 6:18 GMT


Bangkok - The establishment of a human rights body for the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) this year will be of little worth if it has no mandate to conduct independent fact-finding missions in the region, a leading civil rights group warned Thursday.

'The body should be able to conduct country visits where there are severe human rights violations and conduct fact-finding missions,' said Yap Swee Seng, executive-director of the human rights group FORUM-Asia.

'If the body doesn't have this kind of mandate then the effectiveness of this ASEAN human rights body is questionable,' he told a press conference in Bangkok.

Yap is one of 800 representatives of South-East Asian civil society groups joining the ASEAN People's Forum in Bangkok on Friday and Saturday.

The forum will present its findings and concerns to the 14th Summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) being held in Hua Hin, Thailand, on February 27 to March 1.

This year's summit will disclose the terms of reference for the establishing an ASEAN human rights body this year to promote and protect human rights in the region.

Setting up an ASEAN human rights body is an outgrowth of the ASEAN Charter, approved by the ten-nation grouping last year, which enshrined protection of human rights as a regional objective.

The charter, however, also enshrines ASEAN's diplomatic principle of 'non-interference' in one another's domestic affairs, a stance that has made the grouping ineffective in dealing with gross violations of human rights committed by member-states such as Myanmar, also known as Burma.

'We are concerned that the non-interference principles in the ASEAN charter have been inherited in the terms of reference for the ASEAN human rights body,' Yap said.

It is hoped that once ASEAN has set up a human rights mechanism it will be used to deal with regional challenges such as the treatment of the Rohingya boat people.

The Thai military has been accused of pushing back about 1,000 Rohingya boat people from Thailand's southern shores in December, putting them in boats without engines or sufficient food and water supplies, causing them to perish at sea.

The Rohingya, from northern Arakan State in Myanmar, have been denied citizenship by Myanmar's ruling junta who claim the Muslim minority group are migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has also denied the Rohingya citizenship, leaving the minority group stateless, homeless and without work.

The Rohingya problem will be discussed on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Hua Hin, 130 kilometres south-west of Bangkok.

Besides human rights, the ASEAN People's Forum will also discuss other regional problems such as migrant workers and unemployment in the region, the impact of the global economic crisis and the on-going construction of hydroelectric dams on regional rivers.

Their findings will be presented to ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan and Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Sunday. ASEAN includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Thailand's rights reputation in the sewer

Thailand's rights reputation in the sewer
By Awzar Thi
Column: Rule of LordsPublished: February 19, 2009

Posted by Chea Sophal

Hong Kong, China — Not so long ago, Thailand’s representatives at United Nations meetings sat quietly while counterparts from nearby countries like Burma and Cambodia were grilled on their human rights records.
Around the world, Thailand’s legal, political and social developments in the 1990s were greeted with applause, and its people in Geneva could sit comfortably, confident that their country would be held up as an example of somewhere with an improved record, even as their neighbors were being singled out for the opposite reason.

How times have changed. This week, the Asian Legal Resource Center submitted a statement to the Human Rights Council that has painted the bleakest picture yet of denied rights and declining rule of law in Thailand during the past few years.

According to the Hong Kong-based group, Thailand is now in real danger of turning back into an internal-security state. The center’s indicators include the repeated overthrow of elected governments by antidemocratic forces, large-scale public criminal activity with impunity, Internet censorship and the lese-majesty witch-hunt, threats to human rights defenders, and forced repatriation and murder on the high seas.

The first item on the center’s list is the removal from office of Samak Sundaravej’s and Somchai Wongsawat’s governments through court orders based on bizarre clauses in the army-sponsored 2007 Constitution. Neither of them, the group underlines, was a friend of human rights, citing Samak’s fantastic denials of historical fact on the Thammasat massacre and Tak Bai killings. But, it adds, that both were pushed out, and the manner in which each was pushed, indicate that “electoral politics in Thailand have been sidelined and that the senior judiciary has been made into a tool for conservative political forces and is not at all independent.”

The second of the center’s indicators concerns the military-style Government House and airport takeovers at the end of 2008. “The group spearheading them,” it continues, “Ran a de facto police force whose members openly and covertly carried and used weapons, including guns, explosives, knives and an array of blunt instruments, and which assaulted and illegally confined numerous persons, and is believed to have been responsible for at least one killing.”

Despite all this, there have so far been no reports of credible criminal inquiries, and the prime minister’s excusing himself from responsibility by saying that it is a job for the police and courts is patently ridiculous. Not only can he have special teams take up these cases, but he is duty-bound to do as much given the scale of the events and their consequences. But with the latest news that he and his staff have attended the funeral ceremony for a member of the group responsible for the takeovers, it looks unlikely that he is going to take this duty seriously.

In its third point, the legal center takes up the increasingly hot topic of people charged for commenting about the royal family, and the closely-related issue of online censorship. It cites a number of widely-reported cases and expresses special concern over the new “Protect the King” website operating on the parliament’s server, which is encouraging citizens to make complaints about others whom they think have committed an offence against the monarchy.

Fourth, the group describes the growing harassment of rights defenders in Thailand, along with the systemic failure to solve killings and disappearances of activists in previous years, which “are not sporadic but are a part of the institutional make up of the internal-security state”.

Most recently, after the Internal Security Operations Command said that insurgents in the south of the country were using human rights agencies to spread hatred among local people, soldiers and police raided the office of one well-known group. The command’s subsequent claims that the raid was part of a search for an alleged terrorist hiding in the area are unbelievable: the man they were purportedly hunting could not have hidden himself in the document files and computer drives that they went through for some three hours.

Fifth and finally, the Asian Legal Resource Centre has raised the widely-reported inhuman treatment of hundreds of persons travelling across the Bay of Bengal who passed into or near Thailand’s waters only to be forced back out to sea again, many to their deaths. After weeks of blanket denial, the prime minister’s recent allowance that there may have been some such incidents is not only morally bankrupt but also holds no hope that the full story will ever be revealed. His qualifying of every remark and his insistence in a recent interview that these people about whom he knows nothing are “not refugees, just illegal immigrants” are the words of a man trying to squirm out of a tight spot rather than trying to do something about a matter of life or death.

All this and more is being put before the current sitting of the Human Rights Council. Ironically, back in 2006 before the coup Thailand tried to get a seat on the council. It failed then not because of poor diplomacy, as it claimed, but because after five years of government under Thaksin Shinawatra its rights reputation was in the gutter. It is not in the gutter any more. Now it’s in the sewer.

To get it out again requires courage to admit the facts, tell the truth and do something about it. Neither Thailand’s mealy-mouthed prime minister nor the phalanx of generals at his rear can be expected to do this, which is why it falls to everyone else concerned about the defense of human rights in Thailand to speak and act instead.

--

(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)
សារព័ត៌មានអន្តរជាតិInternational News

BBC News - US & Canada

CNN.com - RSS Channel - HP Hero

Top stories - Google News

Southeast Asia Globe

Radio Free Asia

Al Jazeera – Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera

NYT > Top Stories

AFP.com - AFP News

The Independent

The Guardian

Le Monde.fr - Actualités et Infos en France et dans le monde

Courrier international - Actualités France et Monde