Asean charter: should we settle for second best?

FE Team | Published: August 18, 2007 00:00:00 | Updated: February 01, 2018 00:00:00

Kavi Chongkittavorn
Come November in Singapore, the Asean leaders have to make the choice of whether to settle for the best or the second-best Asean charter.
They must iron out their remaining differences and set Asean's future direction akin to the first ever summit in Bali in 1976 when they gathered to lay down the ground rules that governed Asean for the next 30 years. Likewise, the forthcoming summit will decide on a charter that will determine the grouping's relevancy and its ability to function effectively in the 21st century.
The differences between the first and 13th summits were huge. In 1976, Asean members were of the same mind and were unified with the single purpose of collective survival. With a high level of trust, they agreed on principles and rules contained in the Bali Concord and Treaty of Amity and Cooperation that were not legally binding. Thai prime minister MR Kukrit Pramoj, Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, Indonesian president Suharto, Malaysian prime minister Husein Onn and Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos knew full well that they had to stick together like rice stalks or be torn apart.
While this sentiment is evident today within Asean, each member's level of commitment has differed greatly. That explains why the charter drafters failed to complete the first clean text in time. One has to wonder why Asean members still argue over universal values and common concerns shared by the rest of the world. Amazing as it might seem, some Asean members argue that Asean can still live in isolation without connection to international norms and conduct if only the members stick together as in the past. They think we should just wait and see while the world moves on.
After more than 10 rounds of discussion and negotiation over the charter, the drafters decided to pass contentious issues related to human rights, sanctions and decision making to their foreign ministers. At the ministerial meeting in Manila, they could only agree to consider setting up a human rights body. Asean ministers knew the international media was zeroed in on this controversial issue.
The regional human rights commissions, as discussed, would further complicate collective cooperation. As expected, media headlines focused on Burma's objection to the plan. But they were misleading, as three other countries also shared the same attitude. Viet Nam, Brunei and Singapore do not favour the idea for different reasons. Viet Nam views the human rights body as a political instrument that will interfere with internal affairs. Brunei, with its unique sultanate, is sensitive to any plan that would tamper with the status quo. Singapore views human rights issues strictly within its domestic judicial framework. But in the end, Singapore agreed with the rest of Asean to opt for consideration of a human rights body. The Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand - which wanted stronger wording - all yielded. That much was clear. Many details still need to be worked out and nothing is certain.
No progress was made concerning the provision on sanctions, or the decision-making process within Asean. New members want to eradicate any reference to sanctions resulting from non-compliance. The grouping's biggest problem has been the low level of compliance among members toward Asean agreements and principles.
At the Bali summit in 2003, Asean leaders agreed to build the Asean Community by 2020. But to do that, Asean has to formalise the organisation to meet new challenges. Two years ago, they agreed to go for the charter, hoping that it would give the grouping a much-needed legal personality. All members would be committed to implement and follow agreed-upon rules and regulations. Failure to comply could bring sanctions in various forms including suspension of membership and restrictions on participation in Asean related activities. Over time, this can-do feeling has evaporated.
At the Singapore summit, the leaders still need to decide whether Asean should move away from consensus-based decision making such as majority voting on certain issues. Asean is well known for its consensus requirement - nothing gets approved without agreement from all members. Thus, any member can place a veto on any issue, important or not.
Publicly, both Indonesia and the Philippines have shown determination not to accept a second-best charter. What is interesting is the missing voice of Thailand.
Thailand has been handicapped by the coup last September. Foreign Ministry officials at all levels have been cowed by political uncertainty at home. During the drafting process, Thai views have not been taken seriously by other Asean members, even though Thailand held strong views on human security and the adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which were subsequently turned down.
Both publicly and privately, Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda and Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo have been working hard to push for a liberal charter. But Thailand has not pushed hard enough.
Singapore, as the current Asean chair and the summit host, has a major role to play. It has already come up with the great slogan of "One Asean at the heart of Dynamic Asia".
The stakes are high for the island republic to get the charter signed at the summit. It is imperative that the host helps put together an acceptable charter that is not second best but the best for all.
..............
Internet