Manila Bulletin - A human rights body for ASF

Manila Bulletin - A human rights body for ASF
By DR. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs
April 9, 2009, 9:08pm

A little over 60 years ago, the international community adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the aftermath of two devastating wars, representatives from every region of the globe transcended their differing legal and cultural traditions to frame a document that came to embody the core values and common standard of inalienable rights for all of humankind.

Today, the declaration is as relevant as it was then. Its precepts continue to resonate with clarity and power. More than any other international document, the declaration continues to remind us that life is always and forever sacred: That men and women are equal; that they enjoy equal rights, without distinction of race, language, religion, politics or social status; and that all of them are entitled to live free from tyranny, persecution, poverty and injustice.

The Philippines is proud to be one of the states that drafted this landmark document. And we were one among the 48 states that acceded to the Declaration at the United Nations in 1948. Those 48 states came from Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America. Eleven Asian countries — Afghanistan, Burma, China, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Syria — supported the Declaration. This voting pattern was in itself a triumph for human rights, since it united diverse — even conflicting — political regimes. The world was one in proclaiming the collective aspirations of humankind.

The declaration as starting point

Since then, the Declaration has been the starting point — the foundation and guidepost — of an evolutionary approach toward national and regional norms and standards of human rights. A UN Human Rights Council has been established, of which three ASEAN countries are currently members (Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines).

Hence, we in ASEAN need not start from a clean slate — a tabula rasa — in our current striving toward our own human rights regime. Nor should we seek to redefine norms and standards based on cultural relativism. We should rather aim to build and improve on existing, universally-accepted human rights by adding value to these standards, which are contained in eight international covenants and conventions.

No East-West divide in human rights

Of course the promotion of human rights within ASEAN must consider fully its member-states’ need to pursue national priorities, while also respecting both established and emerging international norms in political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights.

But the universal nature of human rights should be clear in our minds. When it comes to human rights, there is no divide between Eastern or Western values. We cannot invoke cultural relativism or regional diversity in ASEAN, lest we risk losing our credibility and the international community’s trust and respect. Nowhere in the world can abuses of human rights be justified or excused in the name of religion, cultural practices, local customs or traditions.

These national institutions and local usages should rather seek to accommodate themselves to our primordial task of protecting and enhancing the human rights of ASEAN people. The Universal Declaration is the norm — the standard — the measure — for human rights and basic freedoms. It is applicable to one and all without exception. This is a fundamental principle and practice that we in the Philippines believe ASEAN countries must respect and uphold.

Indonesia is an exemplar in its adherence to this principle. As the world’s fourth most-populous country, with an array of diverse cultural and ethnic groups, and with still a great deal of poverty despite its robust economic growth in recent years, it manages to guarantee full respect for the human rights of everyday people.

Role of ASEAN human rights body

Our regional organization’s progress in establishing an ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB) is going well. Our top diplomats have just finished negotiating its terms of reference. We must continue to ensure the body is focused on strengthening universal human rights values, so that it can become an institution for building democratic states and a democratic regional community in Southeast Asia.

So that the AHRB will have an auspicious beginning, we in ASEAN must recognize our shortcomings in the matter of human rights and reflect on how we can promote and protect the basic freedoms identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As part of this process of self-examination, I believe it is time the government of Myanmar carried out its own “Roadmap for Democracy”: Its avowed program of releasing political detainees, including the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi; unfettering the National League for Democracy, and allowing its unconditional participation in free national elections. Since its acceptance into the ASEAN family in 1997, the government of Myanmar has been declaring its commitment to democracy and promising a process of national reconciliation. Fulfilling these commitments is long overdue.

For the Myanmar government to fulfill these commitments before the launching of the AHRB would be a compelling act of goodwill and sincerity. It would make AHRB credible not only to the world community but — even more important — to our own peoples.

Balancing protection and promotion

ASEAN should strive to establish a human rights body that is not only credible but also effective. Hence, AHRB should not just protect human rights: It should also promote them. Thus we support Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda’s proposal that our human rights body also disseminate human rights norms and educate our peoples in their entitlements and legitimate expectations from its operations.

Ultimately, the AHRB should be the overarching institution within the ASEAN institution that deals with all aspects of human rights. It should consult, coordinate and collaborate with relevant ASEAN bodies — such as the proposed ASEAN Commission on the Rights of Women and Children and the Committee on Migrant Workers — to promote synergy and coherence in ASEAN’s promotion and protection of human rights. Future committees and working groups relating to human rights in ASEAN should work under its framework.

Monitoring and review

Our adoption of a monitoring and review mechanisms for the AHRB would certainly increase its effectiveness. We might start by creating an ASEAN human-rights regime for women and children — in relation to trafficking, migration, environment, poverty alleviation, health and education.

Some of us may not be comfortable with the terms ‘review,’ ‘monitoring’ and ‘inquiry,’ in so far as they suggest the activities of supranational authority the member-states have not delegated specifically. The reality is that ASEAN governments have at various times been subject to these processes as ratifiers of the UN Convention on the Rights of Women, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, most recently, the Universal Periodic Reviews of the UN Human Rights Council.

We should be prepared to accept similar processes within ASEAN that aim to help our individual states fulfill their human rights obligations more effectively. Doing so will reinforce our collective credibility and standing in the international community. Some of our partners in the United Nations and in the European Union, should not feel the need to take exception to our human rights record.

In establishing the first human rights institution for a regional community, ASEAN has accomplished something remarkable. That its founders have named it generically — as the “ASEAN Human Rights Body” — reflects their own caution about its workings. But we in the Philippines are confident that once the AHRB has proved its efficacy, calling it by its proper name — as the “ASEAN Council for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights”—would accord it the level of prestige and significance appropriate to its significance within the ASEAN framework.