N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (February 15, 8:34 a.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).
JAKARTA, Indonesia (February 15) — An interesting development in the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao (Philippines) which claimed the lives of at least 30 Filipino journalists is the decision of the widows to bring the case to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) whose secretariat is based in this city.
In early February, lawyers Harry Roque and Pete Principe who represent the 14 widows of the journalists killed last November 23 said that they already filed a complaint at the newly-established ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).
While the ASEAN was established in August 1967, it was only in December 2008 that its charter took effect. Article 14.1 of the ASEAN Charter states: “In conformity with the purposes and principles of the ASEAN Charter relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, ASEAN shall establish an ASEAN human rights body.”
The terms of reference of the AICHR clearly state that it is a consultative body. As regards its relations with other human rights bodies in the ASEAN, the AICHR is said to be “the overarching human rights institution in ASEAN with overall responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights in ASEAN.”
Whether or not the AICHR could help shed light on cases of human rights violations like the Ampatuan massacre remains to be seen. The ASEAN could help make other member-countries aware of the sorry state of human rights in the Philippines. But is it be possible for the ASEAN to help in the attainment of justice which remains elusive to the human rights victims through the years?
To be fair, the ASEAN has facilitated some degree of unity and solidarity among the 10 member-countries. It has also given those aware of the ASEAN’s existence a “regional identity” which is important in the formation and development of their national identity. There exists a sense of belonging as an ASEAN member, at least in the context of being Asian. Interestingly, the name of the association is very close to the name of the continent where the 10 member-countries belong.
Part of the ASEAN’s plan is to fully establish the three pillars (security, economic and socio-cultural) of its community by 2015. Given the uneven level of development among the ASEAN member-countries and the unresolved border disputes among some of them, the plan may be impossible to achieve.
Just like other international organizations, the ASEAN has also had its share of missteps. For one, the thrust towards economic integration via globalization has proven to be detrimental to underdeveloped countries like the Philippines. Initiatives like the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN Investment Agreement (AIA) are essentially meant to fast-track the processes of liberalization, deregulation and privatization ahead of most deadlines imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It must be stressed that even if it is not explicit in the policy pronouncements of the ASEAN, the latter is biased for globalization as economic thrust. The kind of integration it wants is removal of protection and other trade barriers which may be necessary for underdeveloped countries like Myanmar and the Philippines to industrialize.
Indeed, the ASEAN should reorient itself in a way that would protect instead of “globalize” the region. It should protect the 10 member-countries from the onslaught of globalization.
As founding member, the Philippines should take the lead in promoting self-sufficiency and sustainable development but its credibility in doing so can only be apparent with a change in administration and even economic direction. In the context of protectionism, the Philippines could present itself as a case study of wanton globalization and the consequent underdevelopment due to such economic thrust. Even if it is currently “championing” human rights in the region, there are issues about its moral ascendancy owing to the culture of impunity prevalent in the country.
It is indeed hypocritical for the Philippines to take a leading role in the creation of the ASEAN human rights body. The current administration under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 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 supposedly restored through a people’s uprising.
In the context of human rights, the ASEAN’s principle of non-interference could render useless ASEAN bodies like the AICHR. The best that the ASEAN could do at present is to lend a voice in the protection and upholding, for example, of human rights. Indeed, it has become hard for the ASEAN through the years to hold member-countries accountable for not adhering to various regional agreements.
Despite the socio-political and cultural differences of ASEAN countries, the 10 member-countries adhere to the definition of human rights as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of 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 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT).
The ASEAN’s principles of non-interference and mutual respect are good on paper but these make the ASEAN practically helpless in imposing sanctions. While there are dispute settlement mechanisms, these are seldom resorted to as even the ASEAN encourages bilateral settlement. Reading the pertinent provisions of the ASEAN human rights body in the new ASEAN charter, the terms are vague in terms of ensuring the protection and upholding of human rights in the ASEAN region.
The AICHR should have a clear mandate to take the member-countries to task for violating human rights and should serve as an intermediary in filing cases before international courts. It is only by actively monitoring and filing the appropriate cases that it can make itself relevant.
And now that 14 widows of the murdered Filipino journalists have filed a complaint at the AICHR, the ASEAN is now given an opportunity to prove that its claim of promoting and upholding human rights is not empty rhetoric.