ASEAN inconsistent on rights<\/p>\n
By Arief Budiman<\/p>\n
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): One of the most publicized
\ncontroversies in the 29th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) and the
\nASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) taking place these days in Jakarta is
\nthe official acceptance of Myanmar as an observer. According to
\nprocedure, this is the step before it can be admitted as full
\nmember.<\/p>\n
The controversy flared when the western industrial countries
\nobjected to the acceptance of Myanmar as a prospective member of
\nthis regional organization. This is due to the bad human rights
\nrecord of this country. Manuel Marin, the vice-president of the
\nEuropean Union has made it clear that taking Myanmar as a full
\nmember could jeopardize the Union's plan to deepen its
\nrelationship with ASEAN. The European Union's 15 countries have
\nalready reduced diplomatic contact with Myanmar following the
\ndeath of Leo Nichols, an honorary consul for four European
\ncountries, in the custody of the Myanmar military regime. In
\nBangkok, Myanmarese and Thai students protested against Myanmar's
\nadmittance as observer in ASEAN.<\/p>\n
Why is the issue of human rights so important? Is it only
\nimportant to the industrial west where economic standards are
\nhigh and the political system is sophisticated, while the ASEAN
\ncountries have not achieved this stage yet?<\/p>\n
If we look at the history of human rights, we will realize
\nthat human rights concern everyone who wants to live in a
\ncivilized society. According to political philosophers such as
\nJohn Locke, Thomas Hobbes or Montesquieu, in the dawn of human
\nhistory, man lived in a \"natural society.\" In this society, there
\nwas no public law. The existing law was the law of nature in
\nwhich, according to Hobbes, everybody was constantly at war with
\neverybody else.<\/p>\n
To improve the situation, people agreed to give their
\nsovereignty to a higher body called the state. With the birth of
\nthe state, \"political society\" was created, replacing \"natural
\nsociety\". Law and order, stability and security were then
\nprovided by the state.<\/p>\n
However, the absolute power of the state also gave the state
\nthe option to abuse this power. To prevent this, John Locke then
\nstarted to talk about the duty of the state to protect the basic
\nrights of man, the rights to life, freedom and property. This is
\nthe area in which the state has no power. Thus what is now known
\nas the \"civil society\" was born. The state was still powerful,
\nbut not without limits. Locke's notion on these basic rights of
\nman became the basis of the present human rights concept.<\/p>\n
Thus, human rights are the weapons of the citizenry, weak vis-
\na-vis the state, to defend themselves against the abuse of power
\nby the state. The human rights struggle is in many instances
\nrelated to the democracy struggle -- they are usually two sides
\nof the same coin.<\/p>\n
When the process of globalization comes, it increases not only
\ncooperation among states, but also among civil societies. Human
\nrights and democracy struggles have become globalized and
\ntherefore more effective. Human rights violations and democracy
\nsuppression in South Africa (before Mandela), China (Tienanmen)
\nand Bosnia, to give a few examples, were protested by people all
\nover the world. The birth of international organizations such as
\nAmnesty International and Human Rights Watch is the manifestation
\nof this internationalization of civil societies.<\/p>\n
In countries all over the world, people whose rights have been
\nabused by the state expect people from other countries to launch
\nsolidarity campaigns to help them. This is clearly the hope of
\nmany of those fighting for human rights and democracy in Myanmar.
\nAfter Aung San Suu Kyi won the election several years ago, the
\nresults were rejected by the military regime in order to cling on
\nto power.<\/p>\n
This was followed by arbitrary arrests and even the killing of
\nsome democracy activists (the 1988 massacres) of the country.
\nHowever, led by their famous leader, who won the Peace Noble
\nPrize, the struggle did not end. The strength of Aung San Suu Kyi
\nhas come from the support of the international community. Without
\nthis international support, it is very unlikely the non-violent
\nstruggle of Aung San Suu Kyi could have been brought into the
\npresent stage.<\/p>\n
Now the questions: Is it not our duty, as a civilized people
\nand nation, to help this struggle for democracy of a people who
\nalready expressed their will in a general election? Or do we
\nprefer to support the military who took power against the will of
\nthe majority of the Myanmar people? We, Indonesians, have to
\nremember that we were helped by the people of other countries
\nduring our struggle for independence between 1945 and 1949.<\/p>\n
Defending ASEAN's position, Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali
\nAlatas was quoted as saying that Myanmar did not create any
\nproblems for its neighbors. Therefore, the political problems
\nrelated to the violation of human rights and suppression of
\ndemocracy are considered domestic affairs of the country, in
\nwhich ASEAN did not want to meddle.<\/p>\n
In commenting on this statement, let us reflect on this. If
\nduring our independence struggle, a leader of a foreign country
\nhad said that this struggle was the internal affair of the Dutch
\nand its colony, I would imagine that our feelings would have been
\nhurt.<\/p>\n
This may be why Indonesia has always been sensitive, helping
\ndemocracy struggles and protesting human rights violations in
\nother countries. Many ASEAN countries including Indonesia were
\nvery concerned with the massacre of innocent people in Bosnia,
\nalthough it did not directly bother ASEAN countries.<\/p>\n
This is of course a very understandable attitude, because as
\nformer colonies, many ASEAN countries have experienced the
\nbitterness of being oppressed by our colonial masters. We can
\nfeel the suffering of the people, we can't just close our eyes
\nand say it is the internal matter of the respective country.
\nTrue, in Myanmar things are not as bad as in Bosnia. However, in
\nprinciple what happened in both countries is the same: appalling
\nhuman rights violations and suppression of democracy.<\/p>\n
So, when Minister Ali Alatas talked about human rights
\nviolations in Myanmar as the country's internal problem, we can
\nclearly see the inconsistency of ASEAN in dealing with the
\noppression of democracy and human rights in different countries.
\nAbout Bosnia, ASEAN showed great concern. However, ASEAN has
\ndifferent standards in dealing with human rights violations in
\nMyanmar.<\/p>\n
In my opinion, if ASEAN still wants to admit Myanmar as a
\nmember, with \"constructive engagement\" as an alternative to
\nhostile confrontation, an official statement concerning human
\nrights violation on human rights in Myanmar has to be issued.<\/p>\n
Otherwise, ASEAN will be recorded in history as an association
\nof state bureaucrats, not of peoples who share the same problems
\nin their respective countries in dealing with human rights and
\ndemocracy. This may be the real reason why they are not able to
\ncriticize what is happening in Myanmar.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asean-inconsistent-on-rights-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }