October 9, 2018

Dynamics of ASEAN: Its Regional and International Significance

Activity: Group Debate on Human Rights Promotion in Southeast Asia

Venue: Week 6 Class Meeting

Background:

Two years after the establishment of ASEAN Charter, the foreign ministers of
ASEAN member states agree to establish an ASEAN Human Rights body in 2009. This is
mandated by Article 14 of ASEAN Charter and the body is subsequently known as the
ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). The fundamental
constraint of AICHR is that the commission has “no power to investigate or to review the
rights record of an ASEAN state (Weatherbee, 2013, p. 35),” and that it is tied to the norms
of non-interference and respect for sovereign equality found in ASEAN Charter (Davies,
2014, p. 122). A former ASEAN Secretary General made a remark that AICHR acted only as
an “information center” for human rights protection (Chachavalpongpun, 2018).

In 1982, the government of Myanmar passed a Citizenship Law effectively barring

the ethnic group of Rohingya from the former’s citizenship and render the latter stateless
(Nordin et al., 2016). The Rohingya have settled in Rakhine State of Myanmar for centuries,
when under the British colonial rule from 1824-1948, substantial flow of migration takes
place what was today India and Bangladesh to the Rakhine State (Al Jazeera, 2018).
According to Human Rights Watch, since late August 2017 more than 671,000 out of
1,100,000 million of Rohingya’s population have fled the Rakhine State to escape
persecution by Myanmar’s military forces. Due to the increasing attention and pressure
towards the Rohingya issue, several ASEAN member states namely Singapore, Malaysia, and
Thailand urged ASEAN through AICHR to take a proactive step in arriving at a regional
solution. In ASEAN alone, there are approximately 1,000, 5,000, and 150,000 Rohingya
refugess in Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia respectively (Asrar, 2017). Additionally in
May 2015, Rohingya Trafficking Crisis took place, leading to 300, 600, and 1,000 Rohingya
asylum seekers arriving in Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia respectively by boat
(Franciscans for Justice, 2015). While the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD)
signed in 2012 stipulates “the right to seek and receive asylum in accordance with the laws of
such state (Art. 16),” none of the three receiving states are signatories to the 1951 refugee
convention. In fact, within ASEAN, only the Philippines and Cambodia have acceded to the

1
1951 refugee convention. This illustrates that there is a lack of unity and organizational
cohesiveness within ASEAN to protect and not only “promote” human rights in general and
refugee rights in particular. Acceptance and protection of human rights is not founded by
institutional strength but through the discretion and goodwill of each member states
themselves.

What to do next:

The class will be divided into two groups. The first group advocates for the
maintenance of non-interference principle in the promotion of human rights within ASEAN
framework. The second group calls for greater cooperation among ASEAN member states
not only to focus on human rights promotion but also protection of citizens within each
member states’ territorial border. In a nutshell, while the first group argues that ASEAN
member states are bound to respect the ruling regime of Myanmar, the second group argues
that border overspill as illustrated by the Rohingya Trafficking Crisis is an issue not only of
national but regional concern. The debate is divided into four motions:

1. Non-interference principle is compatible with human rights promotion in

Southeast Asia.

Group 1 will advocate this position, and Group 2 will oppose.

2. The Rohingya are not recognized as part of Myanmar’s citizenship as of 1982.

Because Rohingya are stateless and not Myanmar’s citizens, Myanmar’s military
campaign against Rohingya does not fall under the ASEAN non-interference
principle. Thus ASEAN, including Myanmar, can work more closely and
proactively for a multilateral agreement specific on Rohingya.

Group 1 and 2 will advocate. But Group 1 will reject the second sentence.

3. What happened in 2015 Rohingya Trafficking Crisis is not a national issue. It is

a regional issue because other ASEAN member states carried the moral
responsibility to take in Rohingya refugees. As a result, the principle of non-
interference cannot be applied in this case.

Group 1 and 2 will advocate. But Group 1 will reject the third sentence.

2
 4. ASEAN member states need to work on consensus on protection of refugee rights
because of what happened in 2015 Rohingya Trafficking Crisis.

Group 1 and 2 will advocate. However, group 1 wants non-interference to be applied

into the consensus while Group 2 is sceptical of incorporating such principle.

The mechanics for the activity, including the timeline for each motions, the group
members, and the speakers, will be decided during class. This activity trains public speaking
skills and logical reasoning both for the pair presentation as well as the ASEAN Ministerial
Meeting Simulation.

References

Al Jazeera. (2018). Who are the Rohingya? Retrived from

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/rohingya-muslims-170831065142812.html

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2007). The ASEAN Charter. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2013) ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) and the
Phnom Penh Statement on the Adoption of the AHRD. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

Asrar, S. (2017). Rohingya crisis explained in maps. Retrieved from

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2017/09/rohingya-crisis-explained-maps-
170910140906580.html
Chachavalpongpun, P. (2018). Is Promoting Human Rights in ASEAN an Impossible Task? Retrieved
from https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/is-promoting-human-rights-in-asean-an-impossible-task/
Davies, M. (2014). An Agreement to Disagree: The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the
Absence of Regional Identity in Southeast Asia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 33 (3):
107-129.
Franciscans for Justice. (2015). Rohingya Refugee Crisis. Retrieved from
http://www.franciscansforjustice.org/2015/06/01/rohingya-refugee-crisis/

Human Rights Watch. (n.d.). Rohingya Crisis. Retrived from https://www.hrw.org/tag/rohingya-crisis

Nordin, R., Maliki, D.F.A., Masrur, D.R., & Hashemi, H. (2016). ASEAN Human Rights Dilemma:
The Plight of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. The Law Review 2016, 590-606.

Weatherbee, D. (2013). Indonesia in ASEAN: Vision and Reality. Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies.

United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees. (n.d.). States Parties to the 1951 Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Geneva: the United Nations.