Finally, a Charter. But…

A couple of days ago, foreign ministers of the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) gave birth to the ASEAN Charter in Jakarta, Indonesia. First proposed by the Philippines in 1989, the Charter conveys upon the Association juridical status.

Among others, this juridical status would enable the ASEAN to accede to protocols and conventions as well as to gain observer status in multi-lateral organizations like the United Nations. It gives us a new holiday: August 8 would now be observed as ASEAN Day. It also gives our president another chance to pay political debts, because from now on the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta will accredit permanent representatives- or ambassador- from members and other countries that wish to be accredited to the bloc.

Praise releases from the ASEAN and its members’ foreign ministries says that the birth of this Charter means that the ASEAN is no longer a mere talking shop. Really?

Well sure, the ASEAN will now be promulgating policies instead of just issuing declarations during its summits. But this doesn’t mean that the bloc would now have a stronger teeth in addressing pressing issues within it. In fact, as I reviewed the Charter, I kind of got the impression that it didn’t change things in the ASEAN that much.

For instance, the Charter calls on members to use pacific methods of settlings disputes. This doesn’t change anything. There is no strong mechanism, for instance, that would prevent any member from taking aggressive action against another. This is because the Charter’s provision on arbitration of disputes is vague; it only says that issues of erring members would be addressed in summit meetings. How? Who knows. 

I think a concrete mechanism in dispute settlement is very important because two ASEAN members engaged in a dispute- Thailand and Cambodia- have unstable governments, one of which face a considerably powerful nationalist/conservative lobby that seems to have a relatively little regard for regional integration.

More importantly, the Charter does not in any way empower the ASEAN to address issues of human rights. In the Charter’s list of values ASEAN must adhere to, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is included but is conspicously preceded by the dogma of non-interventionism. This maked me grin, for everybody and his uncle know how cleverly the Myanmar junta invoked non-interventionism against international criticism of its human rights violations. 

There is, of course, an article calling for the creation of human rights body. But the problem is, the Charter tasks the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting to come up with a detailed mechanism for this proposed body. This kind of reminds me of how the 1987 Philippine Constitution tasked Congress to come up with an enabling law to implement its anti-political dynasties provision. Clearly, the presence of Myanmar’s Foreign Minister in the formulation of the human rights body would in one way or another water down this initiative.

No longer a mere talking shop? Tell that to the people of Burma.

More likely, this human rights body will just be coming up with words that would have little or no effect on human rights violators in the region. And I’m not just talking about the junta in Myanmar. I’m talking about the Arroyo regime, too.

True, the birth of the ASEAN Charter is one step forward. But this step is much smaller than expected.