Nov 9, 2020 | FoRB, RM, Statements
MANILA — The failure of ASEAN leaders to confront the root causes of the ongoing crisis in Myanmar’s Rakhine State constitutes a blow to the regional bloc’s credibility, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said today, following the conclusion of the 31st ASEAN Summit in Manila.
Regional lawmakers said that the lack of a strong commitment by member states to tackle the situation in Rakhine State represented a disappointing conclusion to discussions at the Summit, after some promising initial indications that the issue had been debated. They warned that the grouping’s continued inaction threatens the security and prosperity of all member states.
“Expectations have become quite low for ASEAN, an organization infamous for its inability to tackle difficult issues. But there was hope that the sheer scale and severity of the current crisis in Myanmar would be enough for ASEAN leaders to find a way to work coherently to address a situation that is not only a grave humanitarian crisis, but also a threat to the stability of the region and the organization itself. Instead, ASEAN has continued its failure to act decisively in the face of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity being perpetrated in our own backyard,” said APHR Chairperson Charles Santiago, a member of the Malaysian Parliament.
Over 600,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since 25 August, when the Myanmar military launched so-called “clearance operations” in northern Rakhine State following a series of attacks on police outposts by militants from the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). Human rights organizations, as well as the United Nations, have documented serious rights violations against Rohingya in the context of operations by Myanmar security forces, including widespread killings, sexual violence, and burning of homes and villages.
On 6 November, the UN Security Council issued a statement expressing “grave concern” over human rights violations perpetrated against Rohingya, including by Myanmar security forces, and calling on Myanmar authorities “to ensure no further excessive use of military force.”
A draft of the final statement expected after week’s ASEAN Summit, however, reportedly made only fleeting reference to humanitarian relief for “affected communities” in northern Rakhine State. Like the ASEAN Chairman’s Statement issued in late-September – a statement criticized by Malaysia’s foreign minister, as well as by APHR, at the time – the draft document reportedly also made no mention of rights violations by security forces and did not name as a group the Rohingya, who have borne the brunt of the abuses and displacement.
Parliamentarians said that the outcome constituted an insufficient response to developments in Rakhine State, and that the avoidance of key details indicated ASEAN’s failure to address the drivers of the crisis.
“This is not simply a humanitarian catastrophe; it is a human rights crisis with deep roots in longstanding state-sponsored persecution against the Rohingya community. ASEAN’s approach seems to ignore this fact and act as though the mass displacement and associated humanitarian challenges arose out of nowhere,” said APHR Board Member Eva Kusuma Sundari, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives.
ASEAN leaders reportedly discussed issues in Rakhine State at the Summit in Manila, including mention of the recommendations issued by a Myanmar government-appointed Advisory Commission, headed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. However, key recommendations from that body’s final report, including those focused on drivers of conflict, appear to have been sidestepped by ASEAN leaders, APHR said.
“The Annan Commission’s recommendations are a key entry point that ASEAN should be using more effectively to raise fundamental issues like discrimination, citizenship, and accountability for rights violations. This was a Myanmar government-sponsored body that pushed to deal with these drivers of the current crisis. If they can do it, ASEAN should certainly be able to,” Sundari said.
Parliamentarians said the need for regional and international action was reinforced by Monday’s release by the Myanmar military of the outcome of its own internal investigation into conduct by its forces in Rakhine State, which exonerated them from any wrongdoing.
“The Myanmar military clearly has no interest in accountability. This report further underscores the need to allow for a genuine investigation into alleged atrocities,” Charles Santiago said.
MPs also criticized ASEAN’s principle of non-interference, arguing that the policy hampered an effective response and was being invoked by leaders in a disingenuous manner.
“The non-interference policy is – in the words of Aung San Suu Kyi herself – just an excuse for not helping. It shouldn’t even apply in this case, where the issue clearly has immense regional implications,” Santiago said.
“If ASEAN leaders want to quit making excuses and actually help, they should do more to pressure the Myanmar government and military to halt the attacks, end policies that promote and institutionalize discrimination, and enable conditions for the safe return of Rohingya refugees to their homes in Myanmar.”
Nov 9, 2020 | RM, Statements
JAKARTA – The adoption at last week’s ASEAN Summit of a new regional Consensus covering the rights of migrant workers fails to provide adequate protections for them region-wide, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said today.
While commending ASEAN leaders for coming to an agreement on the importance of safeguarding migrant workers’ rights, the collective of regional lawmakers said that the final document – the ASEAN Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers – was not enough. MPs argued that more robust protections are needed, including through a legally binding regional treaty.
“This Consensus fails to meet the basic criteria that we, along with many civil society organizations, have been calling for: a legally-binding document that would provide genuine protections in accordance with international human rights law,” said APHR Board Member Teddy Baguilat, a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
The Consensus adopted last week came a decade after the approval of the 2007 Cebu Declaration, which called for the development of an instrument to protect migrant workers’ rights. Although ASEAN leaders claimed that the Consensus marked the culmination of this effort, regional MPs said that language in the document – particularly repeated clauses qualifying commitments as being “subject to national laws, regulations, and policies” – undermined its potential impact and reflected the problematic approach of previous ASEAN documents, including the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration.
“The Consensus affords wide latitude to states to limit protections in accordance with domestic laws and policies, essentially allowing them to selectively opt out of adherence to critical provisions. We have seen this sort of qualifying language in ASEAN documents before, and those have been implemented in ways that have allowed for the continued violation of the rights of millions of ASEAN citizens,” Baguilat said.
“It is extremely disappointing that ASEAN leaders decided to limit the scope of migrant workers’ rights in this way. Human rights are universal and should supersede domestic law, not be curtailed by it.”
The comments from regional legislators come several months after the conclusion of an APHR-led fact-finding mission to Malaysia in August, during which a delegation of current and former parliamentarians from four ASEAN member states looked into conditions for migrant workers and ways in which their situation could be improved. The findings from the mission, as well as policy recommendations based on them, were published in a summary report released in September.
“What we found in Malaysia is applicable to all countries in the region. There is a widespread lack of political will to truly address and bring to an end rights violations against migrant workers,” said Baguilat, who took part in the August mission.
“ASEAN has time and again shown that it can say the right things. But when it comes time for action, critical commitments are conveniently ignored by member governments. We are concerned, based on our findings, that enforcement of the Consensus at the domestic level will be insufficient,” Baguilat added.
Parliamentarians said that more needed to be done on the part of ASEAN member states to prove that they had the political will to implement the Consensus and to address the lack of protections for migrant workers at the domestic level.
“Migrant workers are essential to the development of the ASEAN Community. In order to demonstrate a genuine commitment to safeguarding their rights, ASEAN should pursue the development and implementation of a region-wide action plan, including a handbook on common standards,” said APHR Board Member Kasit Piromya, a former Thai MP who also joined the mission to Malaysia in August.
Lawmakers also reiterated their call for a legally binding treaty, echoing calls from civil society.
“The Consensus demonstrates that ASEAN can be progressive in its pronouncements. It recognizes that workers can become undocumented through no fault of their own and extends protections to them, at least rhetorically. But this and other positives are rendered almost meaningless since the document is not legally binding,” said Eva Kusuma Sundari, an APHR Board Member and parliamentarian from Indonesia.
“ASEAN was able to agree on a legally binding treaty on human trafficking, so they should be able to do the same for migrant workers. Renewing discussions on a legally binding instrument, along with fast-tracking the development of action plans to implement this Consensus, would be a good way to prove that the political will to address the situation does exist,” Sundari concluded.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, FoRB, RM, Statements
MANILA — Heads of state and government attending the 30th ASEAN Summit in Manila this week should tackle critical regional challenges head-on and not shy away from difficult questions, including those related to the state of human rights and democracy, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said today.
The collective of regional lawmakers called on ASEAN leaders to face up to the growing human rights crisis in Southeast Asia and take steps to strengthen regional mechanisms to address it. APHR warned that a failure to do so could threaten the sustainability and long-term success of the regional organization, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.
“The accelerating erosion of democracy and human rights protections threatens to undermine the progress of ASEAN integration and yield a weaker regional bloc that fails to live up to its people-centered claim,” said APHR Chairperson Charles Santiago, a member of the Malaysian Parliament.
“We’re seeing several troubling trends region-wide: civil society and opposition voices, including parliamentarians, are being harassed and imprisoned; marginalized communities are under attack from security forces; and religious extremism is increasingly being used for nefarious political aims. The ASEAN Summit is a place where these issues can and should be discussed, debated, and ultimately responded to at the regional level.”
The 30th ASEAN Summit, which begins today and continues through Saturday, is the first of two annual meetings of ASEAN leaders in 2017. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is hosting the meeting in his capacity as ASEAN Chair. One of the six priorities identified for ASEAN in 2017 under the year’s theme of “Partnering for Change, Engaging the World” focuses on a “people-oriented and people-centered” ASEAN.
Parliamentarians urged ASEAN leaders to heed the voices and concerns of civil society groups, including through the creation of enabling environments for civil society and by ensuring meaningful consultation with NGOs and grassroots people’s organizations in the context of regional and national policymaking.
“As elected representatives of the people, we urge heads of government – on behalf of our constituents – to incorporate stronger consultative mechanisms at the regional level that engage all voices, including women and youth, and allow space for civil society to operate in all ASEAN countries without government interference,” said APHR Vice-Chair Mu Sochua, a member of the Cambodian National Assembly.
Lawmakers expressed concerns about a number of regional developments, including increasing government restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly; threats to civil society; and rampant extra-judicial killings, most prominently in the context of the brutal drug war being waged in the Philippines. They also raised alarm over possible atrocity crimes in the region, particularly in Myanmar, where the United Nations recently warned that crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing may have occurred.
“Governments have a responsibility to protect all ASEAN people, particularly the most vulnerable. To do so, they should ensure that national and regional mechanisms responsible for the protection of human rights are free from government interference and have the mandate to investigate human rights violations independently. The judiciary should also be independent and have the trust of the people,” Mu Sochua said.
APHR called for the regional grouping to strengthen the mandate of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) to be able to respond effectively to human rights violations. They also urged leaders to take a closer look at the bloc’s “non-interference” principle, which they argued constitutes a barrier to human rights protections recognized under international law.
“The idea of ‘non-interference’ serves as convenient cover for some governments when it comes to issues they don’t want to address. The fact is, however, that interference does take place in the economic realm without objection, so leaders must acknowledge the need to discuss whether the policy is really fit to take the grouping forward. It should be tabled for discussion at least,” Charles Santiago said.
“The goal of addressing the non-interference policy would not be to undermine national sovereignty, but to ensure that basic standards exist for member states and to strengthen existing systems for the economic and social benefit of all,” he added.
APHR called on regional leaders to take steps toward the promotion and protection of economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly within the framework of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which constitutes the main driver of ASEAN’s ongoing regional integration effort. These rights are critical to achieving successful, broad-based development, parliamentarians argued.
“ASEAN leaders have an opportunity to make significant progress toward positive development outcomes. But to do so, leaders must address growing political and economic inequality, including gender disparities, in order to ensure that ASEAN really works for all the region’s people,” said APHR Vice-Chair Eva Sundari, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives.
MPs noted concerns about the human rights implications of proposed trade deals, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and various bilateral free trade agreements, as well as the social, environmental, and human rights impacts of large-scale development projects, which often have disproportionate impacts on women and marginalized communities. They also raised concerns about the rights and safety of migrant workers, particularly as the intra-regional movement of people and goods expands under the AEC.
“ASEAN needs to be a regional community that stands on the side of the people, not one that only sticks up for big business and the well-connected. The 30th ASEAN Summit provides a chance for ASEAN leaders to make clear where they stand,” Sundari added.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Statements
ASEAN Meeting Should Highlight Disappeared Leader Sombath Somphone, Denial of Liberties
BANGKOK, 31 August 2016 — On the eve of the annual ASEAN leaders summit in Vientiane, human rights and advocacy groups called upon the Lao PDR Government to commit to address its widespread violations of human rights, including instances of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention. Visiting world leaders have a unique opportunity to publicly raise human rights concerns during the ASEAN summit in Vientiane from September 6-8. They should press the Lao government to cease the abuses that have consistently placed Laos at the bottom of rights and development indexes measuring rights, press freedom, democracy, religious freedom, and economic transparency.
At the press conference organized today by The Sombath Initiative at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand in Bangkok, the groups released a set of briefing papers on forcibly disappeared civil society leader Sombath Somphone, Laos’ restrictions on democracy and human rights, lack of freedom of expression, failure to meet human rights obligations, and impacts of foreign aid and investment.
“More than three and half years after he disappeared, the Lao government still has provided no clear answers to what happened to my husband, Sombath Somphone, who was taken away in truck at a police checkpoint in Vientiane,” said Shui Meng Ng, wife of Sombath and board member of The Sombath Initiative. “President Obama, the United Nations, and ASEAN and its dialogue partners should urge the Lao Government to urgently resolve the case of Sombath’s enforced disappearance and return him safely to me and my family. They should also demand the Lao Government end enforced disappearances, so that the ordinary people of the country can respect their government rather than fear it.”
Sombath Somphone, a national and regional leader in rural development, was forcibly disappeared on December 15, 2012, and since then, the Lao government has neither conducted a comprehensive nor effective investigation into his abduction. Laos has also failed to provide information as to his whereabouts or fate in violation of its international human rights obligations under the treaties to which it is a State Party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. Sombath was forcibly disappeared not long after he served as co-chair of the Lao National Organizing Committee, helping the Lao PDR government and civil society groups in organizing the Asia-Europe People’s Forum in Vientiane in October 2012. Sensitive issues related to land, and human rights violations, were raised in the Forum, which are believed to have prompted dissatisfaction within parts of the government.
“The fact that the Lao PDR government’s last detailed report on the progress of the investigation was released over three years ago suggests the Lao authorities are not carrying out an effective investigation into this case as they are required to do under international law,” said Kingsley Abbott, a Senior International Legal Adviser with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). “It is not enough for the Lao government to simply keep asserting on the international stage that it is investigating this case. International law obliges Lao PDR authorities to conduct an investigation that is credible and effective, and provide regular updates on its progress including to Sombath’s wife, Shui Meng.”
Basic civil and political rights are systematically denied in Laos, and government authorities move quickly to arbitrarily arrest those expressing critical views of the government, either in day to day life or more recently online. In March 2016, police arrested three Lao migrant workers who had posted critical comments about the Lao government while they were working in Thailand, and continues to detain them arbitrarily. A Lao court also sentenced activist Bounthanh Khammavong in September 2015 to 4 years and 9 months in prison for posting critical comments on Facebook.
Laos also imposes onerous restrictions on the right to freedom of association that are incompatible with its human rights obligations. The government strictly controls the registrations of organizations such as non-profit associations (NPAs), and closely monitors the work plans and budgets of NPAs that it does approve to operate. Any person who dares to organize and operate an unsanctioned organization faces arrest and prosecution. Workers are compelled to belong to the Lao Federation of Trade Unions and organizing unions outside that framework is illegal. At the village level, mass organizations controlled by the ruling Lao People’s Revolutionary Party are often the only organizations operating. Public protests or assemblies are strictly forbidden without government permission, and any efforts organize such events face immediate suppression by the police and security forces.
“Civil society in Laos remains under a hostile spotlight from the government, and UN rights officials have noted that there are few places in the world where they have encountered greater fear and intimidation among community organizations and NGOs,” said Walden Bello, former member of the Philippines Congress and Vice Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR). “Laos has now become one of the most rights repressing countries in ASEAN: leaders in the region and from around the world must stop looking the other way, and demand Vientiane end its asphyxiation of independent civil society.”
Laos is attempting to gain eligibility to graduate from Least Development Country (LDC) status by 2020, and has thrown open its doors to foreign investors to achieve rapid economic growth. However, the government’s aggressive foreign investment strategy portends huge and grave social, environmental, and economic costs to the country, and especially to those displaced by economic land concessions, dams, and other mega-projects. The strategy risks adverse human rights consequences, including to economic, social and cultural rights.
“Despite the huge amounts of foreign aid and investment capital that have poured into Laos over the past two decades, the country has little to show in the way of public services, especially education, health, water, sanitation and an effective justice system,” said Shalmali Guttal, Executive Director at Focus on the Global South. “Investment projects in Laos are destroying the environment, which is the basis of rural peoples’ livelihoods and their primary source of food. Food insecurity, corruption, inequality and distress migration are increasing, and life is becoming very hard for ordinary people.”
“Major donors such as Japan, the Asian Development Bank, and World Bank continue to provide a large number of loans and grants to Laos, apparently without due regard to their effectiveness or the negative environmental, social, and human rights impacts these projects have on ordinary Lao people,” said Toshi Doi, Senior Advisor at Mekong Watch.
For the first time since it was first organized in 2005, the ASEAN Peoples’ Forum/ASEAN Civil Society Conference (APF/ACSC) was forced to abandon efforts to hold a parallel meeting in the ASEAN meeting host country. The APF/ACSC is not being held in Vientiane because the Lao government failed to provide guarantees that Lao civil society participants would not face retaliation. The APF/ACSC organizers also refused the Lao government’s prohibitions on issues to be discussed at the APF/ACSC, including topics such as enforced disappearances, indigenous people’s rights, the rights of LGBTI persons, mega-projects like hydropower projects on the Mekong River and other rivers, and other potentially sensitive issues.
“If Laos’ authoritarian leaders have their way, the voices of civil society and concern for human rights won’t be heard at this ASEAN meeting — so it really falls to world leaders like President Obama to take up the slack by raising rights issues both privately and publicly in Laos,” said Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia Director of Human Rights Watch. “They should state very clearly that their future partnerships with Laos depend on serious rights improvements, starting with solving the enforced disappearance of Sombath Somphone. The government should also ensure that all foreign investment is carried out in accordance with the government’s obligations under international human rights law.”
Click here to download briefing papers about various human rights issues in Laos from The Sombath Initiative and affiliated organizations.
Click here to read this statement in Bahasa Indonesia.
Click here to read this statement in Burmese.
Click here to read this statement in Khmer.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, Opinion Articles, RM
By Charles Santiago
APHR Chairperson
Malaysian Member of Parliament
It’s the 27th time that ASEAN heads of state and world leaders have met to discuss the initiative for ASEAN integration, which deals with gaps in economic development in the region.
The formation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in the next six weeks, similar in concept to the European Union, which is characterized by a single market and the free flow of goods, services, and investment, has been a main focus of the meetings and has captured the imagination of regional and global economic observers.
ASEAN has consistently claimed that it works in the interest of the people. But economic integration, despite being fashioned to look as if it prioritizes the broader social welfare, in reality focuses only on Business ASEAN, and not Social ASEAN.
Business ASEAN, which includes trade deals such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement, and the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), promote multinationals, big businesses, and lobbyists.
Meanwhile, the social dimension of integration efforts by the 10 member countries has been sorely missing.
While the ASEAN Economic Community is said to be modeled on the European Union, it does not include bodies similar to the European Parliament or the European Works Council to allow workers, farmers, lower-income individuals, and indigenous peoples, to have a say in ASEAN affairs.
In fact, most of the meetings, negotiations, and discussions about the formation of the AEC were done without consulting civil society, trade unions, or human rights organizations.
As such, the aspirations of the people of ASEAN are missing entirely from the integration exercise.
The people of ASEAN are grappling with day-to-day economic issues affecting livelihoods, such as outsourcing, inequality within and between countries, migrant labor, and informal work.
It is important to note that declarations by the 10-member grouping, such as the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, have not been effective due to their non-binding nature.
ASEAN leaders gloat that the region represents over 500 million people and a gross domestic product (GDP) of over 1 trillion US dollars.
But economic integration in the region thus far has been nothing but a race to the bottom, with domestic and global capital seeking to exploit cheap labor and secure profitable investments at the expense of the workers and people of ASEAN.
For example, the withdrawal of speculative capital from Southeast Asia led to the Asian financial crisis, during which thousands lost their jobs and saw their savings vanish.
Fast-forward to today and nothing has changed except for cheap rhetoric by ASEAN governments about promoting a sharing and caring ASEAN, closing the development gap, and reducing poverty and inequality.
As such it is imperative that ASEAN leaders agree to a binding ASEAN Social Charter to be implemented as a core component of economic integration. This Social Charter would secure commitments from all ASEAN member states to address the economic race to the bottom, ensure fair and equitable distribution of wealth, respect basic labor rights, and strengthen social protections for the disadvantaged.
In short, Social ASEAN will ensure that economic integration focuses on people over profits.
Dismissing the social component of the ASEAN Economic Community would mean the bloc and its member state governments are only interested in raking in the money at the expense of their own people.
