Article Two of the Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which is the fundamental agreement that governs
the relations of member-states within ASEAN, mentions of many principles yet
are essentially rooted in one—the principle of non-intervention. Borne out of
the high level of insecurity among newly decolonized countries in the region,
it was but logical for ASEAN to be extremely cautious of any form of external
intervention. For the earlier years of its existence, non-intervention worked. The
mutual assurance of member-states to keep to their own affairs them to focus on
quelling their respective internal conflicts and put all their resources and
efforts onto the goal of nation-building and economic development; emphasizing
national resilience as the road to regional stability. As a result of this Westphalian view of state sovereignty, ASEAN
experienced zero open conflict and war coupled with high levels of economic
growth and development.
Yet,
today, it is the same principle of non-intervention that turns a blind eye to
human rights violations, breaches of the rule of law, and sheer abuse of state
power within member-states; provided that they afford the same privilege to
each other. It is the same principle of non-intervention that incapacitates ASEAN
to respond to new non-traditional security threats such as human trafficking,
transnational crime, and natural disasters. It is the same principle of
non-intervention that keeps repressive regimes intact while endangering the lives
Southeast Asian peoples. Amidst the rise
of these new threats and problems, all ASEAN appears to be capable of is to
issue joint statements expressing deep regret.
For
intervention to work in a highly insecure region of soft-authoritarian states
and weak democracies, two changes must occur—the leadership of the region’s
more democratic states and the strict adherence to ASEAN centrality in matters
of intervention.
First,
democracies are more likely to support intervention in the name of liberal
values such as freedom and human rights. In a region with diverse regimes that
range from authoritarian hybrids to clear military rule, it is necessary that
democracies unambiguously support and lead in opening the agenda for
intervention. Yet, the region’s two democracies in Indonesia and the
Philippines have foreign policies that look beyond ASEAN. The Philippines
blindly remains faithful to its hard alliance with the United States. Indonesia
more recently just shifted ASEAN as the
cornerstone of their foreign policy to become a cornerstone. Civil society and more regional oriented
parliamentarians in both countries can and must do more to pressure their
governments to look within the region rather than outside.
Second, much of the
distrust for intervention comes from the threat of unilateral action taken by
major powers. Indeed, the series of US-led interventions throughout history
have destroyed much of the legitimacy of interventions. Evidence suggests that
interventions initiated and carried out by regional intergovernmental
organizations are more accepted because of its multilateral nature. It thus
becomes an imperative that ASEAN ensures that all interventions are initiated,
led and carried out by the organization itself. Confidence building measures
must also be intensified to create a stronger sense of mutual trust. ASEAN
needs to reimagine its role beyond mere supporters of initiatives led by
western powers and the UN. It must position itself as the central body leading
interventions in the region. Ultimately, however, it is the strengthening of
the bureaucratic structure of the organization that would create space for
regional intervention mechanisms amidst sovereignty-obsessed states.
Intervention is not a complex issue whether in
ASEAN or anywhere else in the world. When it involves the security of human
beings, whether militarily, politically or economically, intervention is not an
issue to be debated upon but a responsibility to be immediately taken up. ASEAN
remains steadfast to the principle of non-interference only because of the
longevity and familiarity of such a code of conduct. If ASEAN remains to be
held hostage by its principle of non-interference amidst new and rising threats,
it risks becoming among the many dead regional intergovernmental organizations
in history
