August 28, 2008

The context within which we are addressing the question of whether or not the draft ASEAN Charter must be ratified by the Philippines through the Senate in accordance with the proposed Charter’s mandate involves the following considerations: one, the organization is over four decades old, not exactly a spring chicken, forty one last 8 August 1967 to be exact. Two, the concept appears to be a subtle compromise to accommodate the West within the region under conditions of distrust and brinkmanship known as the Cold War.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was born in the period of the Cold War between the United States and its allies and the Socialist bloc led by then Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), on the other.

Within this polarized threat-of-war situation was a growing nonaligned movement led by Nehru’s India and Indonesia’s Sukarno in South and Southeast Asia that adroitly rejected to become part of the two contending political blocs. National liberation movements were challenging colonial structures in Indochina, spilling their influence over the borders of Thailand and Malaysia. An anti-imperialist movement was challenging US military bases in the Philippines, which the late Ferdinand Marcos had to protect, contributing to, among other factors, the declaration of martial law. Young students of Europe and America were marching the streets to protest the American war in Vietnam.

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) of the fifties had its entire slip showing as a U.S. security initiative to try and put America’s big foot on the regional bloc. It failed to convince the region that it had the region’s security and protection in mind. This was made more obvious by the bloody coup d’etat on Indonesia’s Sukarno, which was known as a CIA-initiated crackdown on the PKI (Partai Komunis Indonesia) and its influence on the people and its government. There were regional initiatives such as ASA, MAPHILINDO, and ASPAC, but only MAPHILINDO involving Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia appeared indigenous to the region without Western influence. All three initiatives were of short duration. ASEAN seemed the happy compromise. I am told that the name ASEAN was hatched in the US State Department, but nonetheless, the organization was carefully dressed in non-ideological garb and underscored economic, rather than political and security relations. Despite the non-ideological posture, economic cooperation was underpinned by free market thinking with a vision to setting up an ASEAN free trade agreement at some futuredate to make ASEAN resources available purportedly for regional benefit against the pressures of non-regional economies. In more than forty years of organizational life, the absence of any formal structure such as a Charter with a human rights perspective must have been deliberate if ASEAN were to survive as a seemingly innocent and non-ideological instrument. Its governments were led by leaders who were either successful in using their military to shake off the shackles of colonial control or leaders whose military were sustained precisely because of continuing neo-colonial control. The Philippines is an example of the latter and the presence of the U.S. bases then expressed this type of outside control over its politics and security. Understandably, the elitist ASEAN members would be foolish to subject themselves to collective discipline guided by human rights and the rule of law.

The decision to finally come up with an ASEAN Charter as ASEAN tip-toes to middle age anxiety can only be a product of internal influence on its governments and external pressures from Cold War disintegration and political realignments. Internal pressure on the Philippines in particular is grounded by a Constitutional mandate that provides our recognition of international standards on human rights and the rule of law.We are a signatory to some 32 international conventional instruments, around 28 of which are ratified and an increasingnumber domesticated into enabling statutes. The Senate has not yet ratified around five, the Rome Statute included.

A robust and dynamic human rights movement sustains lobby work for the passage of more human rights legislation, all of which impact on the significance of an ASEAN Charter ratified on a perspective of human rights and international humanitarian law. In this regard, civil society instruments through people’s organizations, NGOs and the academic community have combined forces and resources to underscore the following salient points on the draft ASEAN Charter:

ASEAN’s Charter was premised on the basic principle that ASEAN must evolve from the loose, elite-oriented association of government leaders into a rules-based organization founded on human rights. The assumption therefore of such a pronouncement was that a serious scrutiny of policies that have succeeded in allowing ASEAN to evade controversial issues that violate the fundamental rights of its peoples would have to be made.

The preamble and the general principles of ASEAN that incorporate its past agreements and its compliance individually to the UN Charter, the principles of human rights, international law and international humanitarian law are a qualitative leap in collective understanding of its rationale for being. This becomes more significant under ASEAN’s commitment to transform itself from a state-centered instrument to a people-centered organization. Such transformation is laudable and can only be done if ASEAN, as it commits itself in its preamble and general declaration of principles and purposes in Chapter 1, provides for more specific mechanisms to ensure effective enforcement of policies and principles.

There are two of these policies that have, over the past forty years, succeeded in gelling the member states of diverse cultures together. These are the twin decision-making policies of consensus and noninterference.

While non-interference was a staunch policy necessary to ward off pressure from former “colonial masters”, the policy has later evolved as a convenient tool to evade accountability for abuse of authority by any of the member states. In this regard, ASEAN has been found to be wanting and weak-kneed in addressing the non-compliance of Burma to its commitments of democratization as a presumption to its acceptance as member of the ASEAN in 1997. In particular, the refusal of the Military Junta of Burma to respect the mandate of the Burmese people who elected their representatives in 1990 is a gross violation of democracy and the rule of law. Burma’s commitment as a new ASEAN member was to democratize its rule and work on the reconciliation of its diverse contending forces through a roadmap participated in by all stakeholders. This proved to be a failure as all elected members of Parliament including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi were incarcerated. This led to the Saffron Revolution and massive student protests which were all met with brute force and violence. The Military Junta insisted on its roadmap such that, in the midst of the Cyclone Nargis, that made 2.3 million people homeless, 130,000 killed and missing, it forced a fake and unilateral referendum on a military-backed Constitution that made permanent the participation of the unelected military in parliament and did not allow for amendments to the Charter by the people through its representatives.

Mechanisms in the ASEAN Charter to address violations committed by its members through its decision-making processes and dispute settlement measures are found to be sorely weak and wanting. Article 20, Chapter VII, is supposed to address recalcitrant members through the process of decisionmaking. Should there be no consensus, which prevails as the process of arriving at decisions at the lower level, the matter is raised up to the ASEAN Summit and this process ends there. Article 20 does not allow for a time period, much less a mechanism where the Summit can decisively act on a matter of crucial importance such as a charge of a government committing crimes against humanity. No wonder the Military Junta was among the first to ratify the Charter, even with the absence of parliament mandated to ratify the ASEAN instrument.

Chapter VIII on Dispute Settlement provides for mechanisms of dialogue and arbitration. Should non-compliance by a recalcitrant state prevail, the Secretary General can refer the matter to the Summit for decision. How, when, such decision is made to make it effective and enforceable is however, not spelled out. In brief, the Charter appears to merely extend the policies of consensus and non-interference in more diplomatic language. No wonder the Junta of Burma is not threatened. There is not enough collective teeth to discipline it into compliance.Its latest “democratic” act has been to incarcerate Suu Kyi after finishing her term of arrest, contrary to international pressure and internal protest. So, with the ASEAN Charter, its member states can commit murder with impunity.

Our position remains the same.

Hold ratification of the ASEAN Charter until the following are addressed: Release Aung Sang Suu Kyi and all political prisoners. Involve all stakeholders in a genuine roadmap to making a Constitution that is truly participated in by the people. Any talk of the 2010 elections without these requisites is a mockery of the people’s rights to democratic rule and social justice.

I end with this statement. Aung Sang Suu Kyi is now on hunger strike since 16 August 2008. The Military Junta denies this. We must act quickly and get ASEAN to intervene and talk to Suu Kyi through its Sec-Gen, Surin Pitsuwan. Anything less is hypocrisy.

LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES

Chair Emeritus, AKBAYAN

Co-Chair, PCICC

Mizzima News – Mungpi

A Cambodian Parliamentarian on Wednesday called on the Secretary Generals of the United Nations and Association of Southeast Asian Nations to fulfill their promise on Burma by initiating a new approach to finding a political solution for the country.

Son Chhay, Chairperson of Committee on Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Media of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia, in separate letters on Wednesday reminded both the Secretary Generals of UN and ASEAN the need for them to abide by their promises on Burma.

“They have both promised to look into the sufferings of the Burmese people and find a solution to the crisis. But till date there is no solid evidence that the promise has been kept or put into practice,” Son Chhay told Mizzima over telephone.

Son Chhay, who is also the Chairperson of ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) Cambodia Chapter, said it is a matter of deep concern for the international community to hear reports about detained Burmese democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi living without food.

“I believe that she [Aung San Suu Kyi] is on hunger strike… I think it is the right time to remind them [UN and ASEAN General Secretaries], that they must abide to their promise,” Son Chhay.

Reports said Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under detention for the last 12 of 18 years, has refused to accept food supplies since mid-August, though the reason for her refusal is still not known.

A Burmese political party in exile told Mizzima earlier that Aung San Suu Kyi might be on hunger strike demanding direct talks with the ruling generals with regard to the ensuing 2010 general elections.

But spokesperson of her party – the National League for Democracy – Nyan Win said they could not confirm the information as they lack communication with their detained leader.

Son Chhay said Ban Ki-moon should realize that the current process of interaction with the Burmese military junta is not leading to a solution but is strengthening their rule.

Though Gambari had visited military-ruled country several times, there has been no productive outcome, Son Chhay said, adding that he agrees with Aung San Suu Kyi’s decision not to meet the UN envoy during his last visit.

“We want a more serious action. Perhaps, the UN Secretary General should appoint somebody else,” he added.

He said, Gambari had not been very effective or capable of producing any positive solution to the problems of Burma.

“I think it is about time that we find someone who is more capable,” Son Chhay added.

And similarly, Son Chhay urged the ASEAN Secretary General, Surin Pitsuwan, to pay a personal visit to Burma and find a realistic solution to the political crisis in the country.

Meanwhile, the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), in a press statement released on Wednesday expressed its concern over reports of Aung San Suu Kyi refusing food.

The AIPMC called on the UN and ASEAN to intervene and to ensure that Aung San Suu Kyi is given necessary attention.

The group urged the ASEAN Secretary-General to personally visit Aung San Suu Kyi and conduct a comprehensive assessment on her health.

“The Secretary General should also look into the reasons as to why she is refusing her food supply,” the statement said.

The group also said Aung San Suu Kyi’s refusal to meet visiting UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari last week is “an indication that his mandate is failing.”

27 August 2008

The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) is deeply concerned about reports claiming that Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been refusing her daily food supply since 16 August 2008.

If these reports are confirmed to be true, then this is a serious concern for all. We strongly call on ASEAN leaders to intervene in this matter and ensure that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is given the necessary attention, which is highly likely needed urgently.

Regional and international intervention in this matter is exceedingly essential in order to ascertain the veracity of these reports, given that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is denied any access to her friends, family, colleagues, the media and effectively the world outside her home.

AIPMC requests that the ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan immediately visit Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and to personally ascertain her health status. A comprehensive assessment of Daw Aung Suu Kyi’s health must be carried out as soon as possible. This assessment must include all aspects of her well-being. The Sec-Gen should also look into the reasons as to why she is refusing her food supply.

Further, the AIPMC calls on the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to travel to Burma and meet with Daw Aung Suu Kyi as soon as possible. Her obvious refusal to receive the UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari during his visit last week is an indication that his mandate is failing.

AIPMC is of the opinion that a visit by the Sec-Gen will ensure that the United Nations plays a pivotal role in not only solving this latest crisis but also succeed in re-opening tripartite talks in Burma.

The AIPMC takes this opportunity to remind the United Nations and ASEAN that the continued well-being of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is vital in achieving a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Burma.

Released by the AIPMC Steering Committee

For media contact or to facilitate an interview with AIPMC Parliamentarian members, please call: Roshan Jason (AIPMC Executive Director) at +6-012-3750974 or the numbers above.

21 August 2008

We the Members of Parliament Union (Burma) are extremely disappointed with the decision of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA)’s Executive Committee in denying our right to be part of this august body. We remind the Executive Committee that we, and not the current military junta, are the democratically elected representatives of the people of Burma.

By denying us our right to be a part of this Assembly, the Executive Committee has denied the voice of the suffering people of Burma to be heard. This decision also makes a mockery of the ASEAN Charter in which ASEAN countries have agreed to adhere to principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The decision by the Executive Committee also shows lack of foresight in dealing with human rights issues in the region. This brings the whole process of good governance and respect for human rights into question.

We also like to express of sincere gratitude to the Speaker of Indonesia for tabling our predicament to the Executive Committee. We also thank the Singapore Speaker for allowing the debate on this motion. We hope that the other ASEAN leaders will have the same fortitude to stand for the protection of the Burmese people and end the violations that continuously being perpetrated against them by the military junta.

We now ask all our supporters to continue to raise this issue during the plenary sessions so that MPU (Burma) members will be included into AIPA and the decision of the Executive Committee can be reversed.

-END-

For further information, please contact

- Khun Teddy Buri, Chair of MPU at Tel: +66-8-45536025
- Dr. Tint Swe, member of MPU at Tel: +91-9810003286
- Dr. Sann Aung, member of MPU at Tel: +66-800800757

Irrawaddy – Wai Moe

Five exiled Burmese politicians were invited to attend a session of the Indonesian parliament on Friday, at which President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was scheduled to present a state of the nation address.

The five—Sann Aung, Teddy Buri, Thein Oo, Tint Swe and Win Hlaing—were all successful candidates in Burma’s 1990 election, the results of which were ignored by the military regime.

Two Burmese dissident groups in exile, the Members of Parliament Union (MPU) and the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), said the five had been invited by the speaker of Indonesia’s House of Representatives, Agung Laksono, to attend the session, which marks the country’s Independence Day.

Indonesia’s Jakarta Post reported on Friday that a House of Representatives press release said the invitation mirrored Indonesia’s moral support of popular efforts to establish democracy in the member states of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (Asean).

The press release said that during their visit to parliament the Burmese delegates were expected to report on how the struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma was progressing.

“The House will need this in its bid to contribute to settlement of the problems facing the country [Burma],” The Jakarta Post quoted the press release as saying.

Roshan Jason, executive director of Asean’s Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), told The Irrawaddy on Friday that this was the first time Burmese politicians in exile had been invited to attend a session of an Asean nation’s parliament.

He said that House Speaker Agung Laksono, who exercised some influence over Indonesia’s foreign policy, would have a private meeting with the Burmese delegates, although there would be no meeting with the Indonesian president.

Roshan Jason said Indonesia’s approach to the Burma question indicated a change in Asean policy. “Asean should have a realistic engagement with the Burmese junta,” he said.

Burmese commentator Aung Naing Oo, however, thought the invitation to the Burmese exiles had more to do with their links with Indonesian politicians than with a shift in Indonesian policy towards Burma.

The Indonesian parliament earlier called for a postponement in exchanging ambassadors with Burma in view of its concern over human rights there. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, however, went ahead with accepting the credentials of Burma’s newly-appointed ambassador, Nyan Lynn, on Tuesday, The Jakarta Post reported.

In July, Indonesia hosted informal meetings on Burma with the UN special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, the Burmese ambassador to the UN, Kyaw Tint Swe, and representatives of India and China.

The international community has been pressing Indonesia for years to take a more proactive role in Burma’s affairs.

The former foreign minister, Ali Alatas, was sent as Indonesia’s special envoy to Burma in 2003 and visited the country again in 2005 as an envoy for the UN.

In recent years, some Burmese military officers have been reportedly studying at the Indonesian Military Academy, according to diplomatic sources.

But analysts say that although Indonesia favors democratic transition and political change in Burma, there are still dilemmas for engagement with the ruling junta.

Aung Naing Oo said junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe was a stumbling block.

“If Snr-Gen Than Shwe wants to engage, the meaningful engagement can start tomorrow,” he said. “Burma’s politics are now dependent on Snr-Gen Than Shwe. As long as he says ‘No’ to engagement, diplomatic efforts by Indonesia and others to solve Burma’s crisis cannot succeed.”

Associated Press

Kuala Lumpur: Southeast Asian lawmakers said Monday they will push their governments to suspend Myanmar from the ASEAN regional bloc if it fails to release opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners within a year.

Legislators from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand want their governments to set a September 2006 deadline for Myanmar, also known as Burma, to release Suu Kyi from house arrest, said Teresa Kok, secretary of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Caucus on Democracy in Myanmar.

“This is the minimum requirement we want from Myanmar,” Kok said. The decision was reached at a meeting of members of Parliament from the five countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Bangkok last week.

The lawmakers believe ASEAN should strengthen efforts to push Myanmar toward democracy because there has been “no sign of concrete steps toward national reconciliation” since Myanmar announced in July it will forgo the 2006 chair of ASEAN, Kok said.

Myanmar said the decision would allow it to focus on political reform and reconciliation with Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. But observers believe the move was designed to save ASEAN embarrassment and a punishing boycott of its meetings by the United States and Europe, the region’s close trading partners.

The lawmakers’ coalition had been one of several groups lobbying for Myanmar to forgo its turn as chair of ASEAN.

They also plan to meet with officials from the EU and the U.N. over the next few months to step up international pressure on Myanmar ahead of the grouping’s annual leadership summit in Kuala Lumpur in December, Kok said.

The 10 ASEAN nations typically follow a policy of noninterference in each other’s domestic affairs and resistance to foreign pressure. But Myanmar’s neighbors have voiced hopes that the junta, which seized power in 1988, will allow an elected government to take over.

ASEAN’s other members are Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

Suu Kyi has spent more than half of the past 16 years in detention, and her current time under house arrest began in May 2003. More than 1,000 political prisoners are also believed to be jailed in Myanmar.

The junta says it is drafting a new constitution leading to democratic elections. It last held elections in 1990 but refused to hand over power when Suu Kyi’s party won.