Rohingya, the charter's first challenge

ASEAN: HUMAN RIGHTS

Today "human rights" and "human security" are no longer new words in the Asean lexicon. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations addressed the human rights issue for the first time in its joint communique in 1993. Ten years later, in 2003, ten Asean members endorsed the new regional values of promoting democracy and protecting human security under the Bali Concord.

Last year, all Asean members achieved the ratification of the Asean Charter which promises the formation of the Asean Human Rights Body (AHRB).

Interestingly, Asean members which are not democratic and have been struggling with international pressures on human rights issues had speedily ratified the charter.

On the other hand, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines saw the connection between the Asean Charter and political progress in Burma and squarely demanded the release of Aung San Suu Kyi before the ratification, but to no avail. Concommitantly, Indonesian lawmakers heavily debated on the detailed improvement of the charter's Article 14 - the creation of AHRB - but failed to influence other Asean members. Only Indonesia and the Philippines have shown their concern over the charter and made efforts to talk nuts-and-bolts.

The concept of human security places "people" at the centre of economic development, international relations and political participation. As part of human security, human rights is subject to protection. Protection of human rights - practised by the schools of "freedom from want" or "freedom from fear" - was promoted by the United Nations and the West in the early 1990s and has continuously gained international currency as a foundation of development as well as political legitimacy at home and abroad.

Under the Asean Charter, Asean officially endorses the concept of human rights, but several questions have remained lingering: whether Asean can change its taciturn approach into a proactive role in promoting human rights and democracy, and what types and functions of the human rights body will be formed to improve the human rights situation in the region.

The Asean Charter chants the values of human rights, freedom and social justice, while keeping the traditional principles of non-interference and the so-called "Asean Way" - quiet diplomacy and consultation - at the same time. The "flexible Asean Way" approach and the narrowing scope of non-interference, proposed in the charter draft, were unsurprisingly repudiated by the members. Now, the puzzle is how Asean will hold on to its famous principle of non-interference while practising the new Asean values of human rights.

This circumstance is a tug-of-war between the traditional Asean principles (non-interference and the Asean Way) and the new Asean values (human rights and democracy).

The most recent event to challenge Asean is the Rohingya issue. Rohingyas are a Muslim ethnic group who reside in the Rakhine (Arakan) state of Burma. The size of its population is estimated between 3 to 3.5 million. Their physical appearance and language are closer to South Asians. Arguments remain over their numbers, origins and ethnicity. The government of Burma has denied nationality status to the Rohingyas. Apparently, they are a "stateless people". No state claims to protect them from threats or is willing to grant them basic human rights.

Regarding this issue, there are two aspects that will challenge Asean at the Cha-am summit this week.

First, Asean will need to define the Rohingya people - who were brought as labourers to Burma under British rule - whether they are "Asean people" and thus covered under the Asean Charter.

The foreseeable argument could be a siding with the "traditional Asean principles" in order to avoid conflict. Thus, the Rohingya issue could simply be dismissed if Asean interpretes that the Rohingyas, since they are not recognised by the government of Burma, are therefore not Asean people.

Under the Bangkok Declaration in 1967, Asean framed its institution based on a geographical platform - consisting of 10 countries at that time. Asean stated that the association wished to be "one Southeast Asia" and every Southeast Asian country had the right to join the association.

On the premise that every state which is geographically located in Southeast Asia has the right to be granted Asean membership, does this mean that people who were geographically born in Southeast Asia have the right to become Asean people and thereby be covered by the Asean Charter?

Today's Rohingya people were born and have resided in Burma for generations. Although they have no citizenship, are they Asean people?

What is the absolute basis for defining "Asean people": geographical design, or state design?

Asean needs to address this technical concern in order to unravel the Rohingya issue, the East Timor issue and other human rights violations.

Second, the origin of the Rohingya problem lies in human rights abuses within Burma. This domestic issue has transformed into the cross-border problem of human trafficking, refugees and illegal labour in neighbouring countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. This issue is thus no longer an "internal affair".

No doubt the Rohingya issue is exceptionally complicated and difficult, but it is not insoluble. It will be the first real challenge for Asean in materialising its charter and proving itself to the international community in its application of the new values and norms.

This historic charter has created high hopes for Asean people to witness the development of Asean toward a regional community and a pro-active institution regarding human rights protection.

At the 14th Asean Summit in Hua Hin, Thailand, between Feb 27 and March 1, Asean heads of government will have an opportunity to tackle this issue.

The Asean Charter will be tested, to see whether it is a valuable tool to integrate the peoples of Southeast Asia and its member states, or is it simply a drop in the bucket.

• The author received a PhD in Development at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.