Hiya. Nice post, analytical as usual. Ok done with the pandering.

My very layman's view of it is that even with the blatantly elitist approach the ASEAN respective heads of state are taking with a possible Human Rights Mechanism via the ASEAN Charter, it does serve as a possible catalyst to garner support from the ground up in respective member countries. And of course, being Singaporean, I am interested in the effect in Singapore.

Just so you know, there now exists the probability of more than one Singapore Working group for a Human Rights Mechanism. If you read the report of the proceedings of the latest forum last Sunday on TOC, we would now know that there is a working group that is sort of spearheaded by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA), and this is the group that is ostensibly the more acceptable dialogue partner with the Singapore Government on this issue.

They're gonna be holding a conference in October 27-28, supposedly, anyone can request to sit in for the conference as an interested Singaporean (probably +/- the ISDs/SIDs). It'll be interesting to see what happens next in the following months.

ted,

There's no such thing as too much pandering. LOL

Yeah I was getting a bit confused about the proliferation of working/interim groups. I had noted the SIIA on my personal blog. Will be grateful to anyone who can provide more details about what's happening and which organizations / people will be attending the SIIA conference. Interesting times.

The unfolding events in Burma would be most on the media and ASEAN's minds in the coming ASEAN Summit. Can ASEAN do more than rebuke a recalcitrant junta in Burma? That is something I would want to see. What happens then to the spirit of ASEAN if it has to police the actions of a member? Would it strengthen or weaken ASEAN? We will know next month.

ASEAN's lack of action could be due to their economic ties with Myanmar. Thailand imports much of its natural gas supply from Myanmar. Malaysia and Singapore has links with the junta government too.

If drastic action were to be taken, it would be such that their investment gains would not be affected.

Capitalism, in this case, triumphs over democracy.

It's quite ironic that economic ties with Myanmar can be used to justify diametrically opposed policy recommendations e.g. (1) we can't/shouldn't do anything so as to protect our economic interests in Myanmar; (2) we can/should do something because our economic ties give us leverage. However, since I have no idea as to what the extent of our economic ties are, it's rather difficult to discuss the practicalities of implementing measures - or as our gahmen would have it, not implementing measures.

Given the terrible state the economy is in, i doubt if Singapore's investments are doing well. Infact, i think the only way the economy is going to be resusticated is if there is a political change.

Nice write up , but it lacks detail and is a tad unrealistic dont you think so?

Frankly speaking I much prefer the brotherhood press.

It's a pity you chaps fell out with them. I wonder what is the cost of an apology or sorry these days?

Frankly speaking how could possibly fail to see them, that's something that no one in blogosphere can understand.

Just my 2 cents. Good day.

Dr Lee, with respect to detail, there's a full official transcript of the talk available at the LSE website (PDF).

Could you be more specific on what was unrealistic? If it was the substance of what Albar was saying, I don't think there's any controversy there.

Good for you that you much prefer the BP, to each her/his own. Although SA has a collective procedure for managing guest contributions, beyond that, posts are entirely and solely the responsibility of their respective authors. As such, the state of the blogosphere post reflected BL's views (or rather Kevin's take on BL's views) rather than some kind of collective SA view. It's like this comment is just my own personal view rather than 'the SA view' (doubtful that such a creature exists anyway).

Given that I wasn't responsible for BL's post, why should I have to apologize for it, assuming for the sake of the argument that BL had anything to apologize for in the first place? And if BL doesn't feel the need to apologize, why the need to harrass him? BL's recognition confer so much prestige / kudoes / shiokness meh? [Sorry, BL. :P]

I do not believe Bernard Leong's recognition can confer mcuh in the way of prestige, that's only possible if he is more highly educated than darkness which I sincerely doubt, but I think, the question is just this, many people cannot understand how BL and SA and even all the reviewers missed out the Brotherhood press.

As for your reach, I believe that is very much reflected by the number of visitors in your counter. As it is, it leaves alot to be desired. I hope that all of you will cont writing.

japonaise,

Given that you agree that BL's recognition does not 'confer much in the way of prestige', it suggests to me it does not matter whether or not BL mentioned or neglected to mention the Brotherhood Press.

After all, the Brotherhood Press continues to be active while, as you point out (and which I personally agree with), SA's current publication frequency leaves 'a lot to be desired'. As such, your encouragement is much appreciated.

Good Morning Ringisei

"it does not matter whether or not BL mentioned or neglected to mention the Brotherhood Press" - IMHO, that's irrelevant to the whole discussion.

Most of the regular BP readers know that the BH is like Israel or ancient Sparta, they need enemies. If you acknowledge them or gave them peace, they wouldn't even know what to do. It's a fallacy to assume that is what they really want.

So to me this whole BL issue is purely self serving and selfish. Anyone who believes the BH can be so united, strong and productivity without strategically nurturing a seige mentality all these years is naive.

BL was just a very convenient victim. If it was not him Mr Brown or someone else would have fitted the bill.

japonaise,

I have read your comments and I cannot say that I agree with you. However, a few things should be said about this site, comments that are anti-brotherhood, if you notice are allowed to stand. Comments which are pro- brotherhood are NOT even published and instead regularly deleted.

Why?

Sorry for the late response, have been tied up with a weekend conference.

japonaise, I'm not so certain about your contention that the brotherhood 'needs enemies' but I certainly hope that is not the case.

diododo, I refer you to Dr Lee's comment where he expresses his preference for BP over SA - it's still there. Thanks for the opportunity to reiterate comment policy: I refer you to the last sentence in the highlighted box above the commenter's details - each comment thread is administered by the post's owner. You should ask the relevant writer if there's any specific comment thread you have in mind.

I'm also giving notice that all BP-related comments (pro or anti) hereafter will be deleted as the comment thread is going off topic and I would like to redirect discussion back towards issues raised by the original post. As such, further substantitive comments on ASEAN will, of course, be most welcome.

Being an simply a field worker in the Southeast Asian region, for the last years, I personally believe that ASEAN as an regional organization through its last 40 years of experience, has amply proved a more successful regional econmic organization in the Asian region, and aspecially if one can compare with SAARC.This success has always determuned based on the principle of non-intervention, and where regionalism has always been more emphasised rather than bilateralism.

Two weeks ago Dato Seri Syed Hamid Albar spoke on '40 Years of ASEAN: Its Evolution and its challenges today' at the LSE. Although Albar listed seven weaknesses of ASEAN [(1) Lack of coordination; (2) Overlapping jurisdiction between ministerial and sectoral agencies; (3) Proliferation of ASEAN bodies and meetings that perpetuate the 'talk shop' image; (4) Securing compliance with ASEAN decisions; (5) Organization structure including the ASEAN Secretariat; (6) Resource constraints of the organization; (7) ASEAN's (non-)role in external relations of member states], he still painted a generally positive picture of ASEAN's record and future prospects.

However the lack of transparency and consultation over the forthcoming draft ASEAN Charter as well as ASEAN's lack of concrete results in its engagement with the junta in Myanmar only serve to give more ammunition to critics and cynics.

The ASEAN Charter and the Human Rights mechanism

The Kuala Lumpur declaration of 12 December 2005 was hailed as an important first step towards a more effective ASEAN. A Charter could improve ASEAN's effectiveness by giving it legal personality, increase rules-based conduct of its affairs and strengthen its institutional framework and resource base. A year later, the Eminent Persons Group released its report (PDF) and pages 25-55 contain substantial recommendations about what should go into the Charter.

Most of the media attention focused on the recent announcement about how the draft Charter will include provisions for the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body. During the Q&A, a staff member from Amnesty International asked Albar if a copy of the draft Charter was available for comment. Albar's initial response was to point her towards the ASEAN Secretariat website before back-pedalling, emphasising that the current draft was not a final one - a wise move, because the draft is apparently not available in the public domain. It appears that the final draft will only be available a day before the next summit on 20 November 2007 which will be held in Singapore which is rather apt since there is considerable anxiety that this will be another case of decide first, solicit feedback later. Given that Myanmar did drop its objections to including the abovementioned provisions, one cannot expect too much from such a body or mechanism either.

Albar then sidestepped the issue by pointing out that the majority of the ASEAN member states (other than Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand) did not even have their own national human rights bodies. Touché - though there seems to have been a recent revival of activity by civil society groups to engage governments of member states on this issue as noted at the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, The Online Citizen and ThinkCentre. Albar then asserted that things should work from the national level up first before building up the regional level. But then this begs the question of why the provisions were mooted before such a precondition for effectiveness had yet to be met. One would have supposed that if it were a genuine human rights mechanism, a regional one could and should help to address problems at the national level.

ASEAN and Myanmar

There were several strongly worded questions about ASEAN not having anything to show for its engagement with the military regime in Myanmar (which was repeatedly referred to as 'Burma' by members of the audience). Albar employed several defences, from calling for patience to claiming that views were robustly expressed behind closed doors in ASEAN meetings. Certainly the Malaysian Foreign Minister was in an uneviable position in having to defend the indefensible. Despite the penchant to describe the ASEAN way as a "pragmatic and realistic approach" (Albar's own words), ASEAN's diplomacy and engagement has not proved very pragmatic or realistic in terms of achieving results on the Myanmar issue. Meanwhile ASEAN continues to put out rather feeble statements - this recent one from the 40th Ministerial meeting in Manila on 31 July 2007 is a case in point.

Such blandishments may soon be overtaken by events on the ground. The growing protests which had their genesis in fuel hike protests and then given a new lease of life by monks angry with ill treatment of their brethen have taken an omnious turn with the military government threatening to 'take action' against the protesters. Unless the protest movement's leaders are able to negotiate some sort of face-saving deal with the junta or to persuade enough soldiers to defect, we could very well see another Tiananmen-style massacre of unarmed civilians.

The international outrage following such an occurence may put considerable pressure on ASEAN to switch tack and suspend if not expel Myanmar outright. ASEAN's relative inaction can be contrasted unfavourably with how the African Union managed to effect some positive changes in Togo and Mauritania when it issued strong protests and even suspended the latter from its organizational activities after military coups in the two countries in 2005. But that could create a rather troublesome precedent for the rest of the member states.

A Caring and Sharing Community?

Despite the saccharine official rhetoric that recalls an American Greetings product line, the organization is still very much an instrument for regime security (the preservation of a particular domestic political establishment) rather than human security.

When Albar talked about the imperative to develop the 'we feeling' as solidarity among member states, he unintentionally hit the nail on the head on how the organization is still largely orientated towards the interests of regional states (and their controlling regimes) rather than the people of the region. Nonetheless, as Alex Au's excellent article about the what, why and how of a national and regional human rights mechanism has shown, individuals and civil society can still make themselves heard even if governments may not want to listen.