N.B. – A journalist from Vietnam asked me some questions regarding the ASEAN Human Rights Body which seeks to protect and uphold human rights in the ASEAN region. Please find below my answers.

Due to the diversity of ASEAN member-countries, do you think that they can have a “real” common view of human rights?

Despite the socio-political and cultural differences of ASEAN countries, I think that all 10 member-countries adhere to the definition of human rights as enshrined in the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Even if the protection of human rights leaves much to be desired (as in the case of Philippines and Burma), the ASEAN and the international community could take erring countries to task through legal courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the People’s Permanent Tribunal (PPT).

One pillar of the “ASEAN Way” is non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN member-countries. Do you think this pillar basically compromises the ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB)?

The principles of non-interference and mutual respect are good on paper but these make the ASEAN practically helpless in imposing sanctions on erring countries. While there are dispute settlement mechanisms, these are seldom resorted to as even the ASEAN encourages bilateral settlement. If you read the pertinent provisions of the AHRB in the new ASEAN charter, they are vague in terms of how it can go about ensuring the protection and upholding of human rights in the ASEAN region. This would explain, for example, why the ASEAN cannot play a major role in resolving current human rights-related issues in the Philippines (e.g., extra-judicial killings and abductions) and Burma.

Some people think that the AHRB’s creation shows political will on the part of ASEAN member-countries. What is your opinion about this?

I find it hypocritical for the Philippines to take a leading role in the creation of this human rights body. Even if my country is a founding member of the ASEAN, the current regime is notorious for rampant human rights violations, even exceeding the number of those who were killed and abducted during the dark days of martial law. Even journalists have been targeted by the powers-that-be since 1986 when democracy was supposed to have been restored since the end of martial law.

In your opinion, what are the challenges for the AHRB under the ASEAN Charter?

The AHRB should have a clear mandate to take ASEAN member-countries to task for violating human rights and should serve as an intermediary in filing cases before the international courts like the ICJ and the PPT. It is only by actively monitoring and filing the appropriate cases that it can make itself relevant.

The AHRB doesn’t mention sanctions for ASEAN member-countries in case of proven human rights vilations. Does this mean that the creation of AHRB is only for the purpose of promotion but without protection the human rights?

That is one way of looking at it, and we have to also consider that other international bodies like the UN have been promoting human rights. What makes the initiative of AHRB different from the ones that are being done at present?

What would make the AHRB more effective?

As stated, it should be mandated to file appropriate cases against erring government officials of the ASEAN at international courts. That is one way for it to become effective and relevant.