Opportunity for progress, not a rubber stamp

THE Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) signed a Charter which aims to cement “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” for its 10 member-countries.  However, Asean’s leaders have failed to use this occasion to gain concrete concessions from Burma regarding the release of political prisoners, the instigation of inclusive national dialogue toward national reconciliation and meaningful steps toward a peaceful transition to democracy. 

All of these demands were included in a widely acknowledged statement issued by Asean’s foreign ministers on September 27.  Yet, as the people of Southeast Asia have come to learn, it is important to judge Asean on its actions rather than its words. 

Earlier in the month, at the third Asean Civil Society Conference (ACSC III) held in Singapore, over 200 participants from civil-society organizations and trade unions from across Southeast Asia called upon the leaders of Asean to postpone the signing of the Asean Charter until concrete steps had been taken to resolve the political crisis in Burma in accordance with basic human-rights standards. 

However, instead of using the Charter signing process to gain concessions from Burma, the Asean leaders seemed to have shown more concern toward appeasing Burma’s prime minister, Thein Sein, with the cancellation of scheduled meetings during the summit with the UN special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari. 

With the signing of the Charter now complete, the onus falls upon the national parliaments of Asean’s member-countries to delay ratification of the Charter until meaningful progress has been made within Burma. 

The Philippines’ President Gloria Arroyo indicated that the Philippine Congress would rise to the challenge and refuse to ratify the Asean Charter unless Burma commits itself to restoring democracy and releasing Aung San Suu Kyi.  It is now up to the other national parliaments within Asean to follow suit.    

Yet it is not only on the issue of Burma where civil society is now looking toward national parliaments to flex their democratic muscle.  It is also the job of the parliamentarians to seek the views of the citizens they claim to represent before deciding on whether to ratify the Charter. 

Such engagement is something that Asean has singularly failed to do during the Charter-drafting process, with no copy of the Charter even being made public prior to its signing.      

It was the Eminent Persons Group, set up by Asean in 2006 to provide recommendations on the Charter, which stated that Asean needed to “shed its image of being an elitist organization,” and strengthen “the sense of ownership and belonging among its people.” Yet the very process of drafting the Charter has shown that Asean is not yet ready to ditch its old way of doing things. 

Inevitably, the resultant Charter is state-centered rather than people-centered.  The principles of “non-interference” and “decision by consensus” retain their preeminence, while references to people-centered principles such as human rights and democracy are left deliberately vague.  Equally, the mechanisms and institutions that could lead Asean to take meaningful action on issues such as human rights are left as nothing more than empty vessels. 

For example, in establishing an Asean human-rights body, no mention is made of the basic elements necessary for an independent and effective body (such as the appointment of independent experts with an investigative mandate) or the time frame for its establishment. 

National parliaments must therefore see the ratification process as an opportunity to succeed where Asean has failed, and to engage the people of Asean on a Charter that claims to represent their interests.  Only by doing this can parliamentarians be confident that this is a Charter for the people rather than a Charter for the elites of Asean.   

The decision was also taken by the 200 representatives of the above-mentioned ACSC III to draft an alternative Asean People’s Charter which aims to embody the shared values and collective aspirations of the peoples of the region.  This should provide a useful point of reference for the parliamentarians of Asean who will be deciding whether the Charter put before them is worthy of ratification.       

YOU’D have to give it to the Burmese junta to find the argument for fending off the thinly veiled warnings from its neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to release Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and carry out democratic reforms, as the 40-year-old regional bloc stands in peril of ridicule for finally forging a charter that it cannot universally enforce on all members anyway.

ONE can’t help but take note of a Washington Post item earlier this month on how large increases in oil prices of late are actually resulting in a global shift in wealth. In particular, the benefits of higher oil prices, estimated at $700 billion annually, are obviously flowing to the world’s oil-exporting countries—Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

WINE grapes don’t grow very well in the Maldives. Actually, other than coconuts and bananas, not much does.

Servant Leader: ‘Patronage’

AS stewards of God’s work, we are reminded by Jesus to consider ourselves his humble servants, never claiming any credit for ourselves or presuming a debt of gratitude from God: “We are useless servants, we have done only what we are obliged to do.”

THE Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) signed a Charter which aims to cement “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” for its 10 member-countries. 

The world saw a video last week of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers using a Taser against a Polish man in the Vancouver International Airport in October. The man, Robert Dziekanski, died soon after the attack. In recent days, more details have come out about him. It turns out that the 40-year-old didn’t just die after being shocked—his life was marked by shock as well.