Saturday, September 12, 2015

Revisiting Non-Interference in ASEAN: Some Thoughts to Move Forward


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

0 comments:

Post a Comment

 

Copyright © People, Perceptions and Politics Design by Free CSS Templates | Blogger Theme by BTDesigner | Powered by Blogger