Kelly Gerard
The first of two ASEAN Civil Society Conferences to be held under
Cambodia’s chairmanship took place in late March, alongside the first
ASEAN Summit for 2012. The Cambodian government’s intervention in this event set a new
benchmark for measures employed by ASEAN governments to oust civil
society participation from official discussions. This event presented numerous challenges to Southeast Asian civil society groups, and provides insight into the current state of ASEAN-civil society relations.
The
ASEAN Civil Society Conference has been held eight times under various
titles, and is organised by members of the Solidarity for Asian People’s
Advocacy (SAPA) network. This occurs in consultation with national
civil society groups in the host country and the relevant ASEAN
government where necessary. Consequently, it is considered the ‘genuine’
forum for Southeast Asian civil society organisations to present their
ideas, network, collaborate on common areas and attempt to engage ASEAN
officials on issues of concern.
The event shadows the ASEAN
Leaders’ Meeting and comprises a series of plenary sessions and
workshops where participants discuss regional issues and collaborate in
drafting a ‘People’s Statement’ addressed to ASEAN leaders. Participants
also appoint a civil society representative from each country, who
later participates in an interface meeting with ASEAN heads of state. In
some instances, these meetings have lasted up to 30 minutes, as seen in
Hua Hin in February 2009; at others the host government has not
permitted the interface meeting to take place at all, such as in
Singapore in November 2007. Here, the ‘People’s Statement’ was submitted
to officials in the hope that it would be tabled during their
discussions.
This year’s event presented a number of challenges to
Southeast Asian civil society. The conference was held from 29-31 March
at the Lucky Star Hotel in Phnom Penh, and attracted 1200 participants
from 300 organisations across the region. The first obstacle the
conference faced was the rival ‘ASEAN People’s Forum’ held at the
Chaktomuk Conference Hall from 28-30 March. It was organised by a
Cambodian organisation, Positive Change in Cambodia, which is widely
perceived to have close ties to the Cambodian government. The event was
supported and attended by senior Cambodian government officials, and
some other ASEAN governments also supported the rival event. This was
evident in the transfer of 30 Laotian delegates by the Laotian
ambassador from the ASEAN Civil Society Conference to the ASEAN People’s
Forum. The rival forum also divided civil society participants, who
were forced to choose between groups viewed as independent and those
portraying themselves as wanting to work with governments.
The
second obstacle was the Lucky Star Hotel management’s opposition to a
number of workshops. The management threatened to cut power and padlock
the venue if particular workshops proceeded. These included workshops on Myanmar's current political and human rights situation
and its planned ASEAN chairmanship in 2014, as well as land evictions,
the expansion of mono-culture plantations and the protection of ethnic
minorities’ rights to land. SAPA network members noted that it is
difficult not to believe the Cambodian government had a role in these
prohibitions. These obstacles came on top of delays in gaining access to
the venue, following the slow release of necessary permits by Cambodian
officials.
The third issue was the Cambodian government’s request
that ASEAN member states nominate a civil society representative for
the interface meeting, rather than allow civil society groups to conduct
their independent nomination process. Only the Indonesian and
Philippines governments consulted with independent civil society groups
on this matter, and their representatives subsequently boycotted the
meeting.
These events cast doubt on the credibility of ASEAN’s
commitment to becoming a people-oriented organisation. ASEAN began
promoting its efforts to build a community in Southeast Asia following
the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and after the signing of Bali
Concord II in 2003 the idea of a ‘people-oriented community’ became a
buzzword. This was reinforced by the ratification of the ASEAN Charter
in 2008, which committed member states to democratic norms and to the
promotion and protection of human rights. After 30 years of having
little to no impact on the lives of average citizens in Southeast Asia,
these developments created the expectation of change. But the Cambodian
government’s intervention in the ASEAN Civil Society Conference, and the
support it received from other member states, belie the hollowness of
these commitments.
Through these efforts, the Cambodian government
has also demonstrated it rejects the value of civil society’s
contributions to ASEAN processes. It disregarded their expertise in
numerous areas relevant to the discussions of this ASEAN Summit,
including drug and people trafficking, the plight of migrant workers, the environmental impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects, and
disaster preparedness. The exclusion of civil society groups is likely
to prove costly in the coming decades, both in undermining ASEAN’s
efforts to distance itself from its previous image as an ‘old boys club’
and in not utilising civil society’s expertise in its ongoing reform
agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment