ASEAN 9, human rights 1

Conscience is often weakest when it is needed most. As ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) tussled over mechanisms for the grouping's new human rights body earlier this week in Thailand, the perennial law of consensus won over: If you want to get along, go along!

And so we are left with the Terms of Reference (TOR) for a regional rights body - fancily dubbed the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights - that is both unsatisfying and highlights the value gap between individual members.

A commission designed to promote fundamental freedoms, but ceding too many caveats to the supra-authority of governments - elected or otherwise - to exclusively manage rights issues free from external oversight (interference).

A body intended to protect the liberties of individuals, but potentially permissive since it is bound by a "non-confrontational approach" regardless the severity of the abuse.

A mechanism envisioned to develop human rights norms through an "evolutionary approach", but which can proceed only within the strict parameters of consensus, thereby allowing only the lowest most innocuous common denominator to be held as a regional standard.

Sources close to the meeting claimed Indonesia maintained its known position till the end to push for a more "progressive" body. One which could have the modalities to ensure minimum explicit protection.

"At the end it was a case of one against nine," said the source.

Is it any surprise then that there is a growing narrative here questioning the sustainability of ASEAN as a cornerstone of Indonesia's foreign policy when such a divergence of values is so evident?

Indonesia may sound pious, but it is becoming increasingly evident there is minimal impetus from other countries in the grouping to guarantee the highest norms and protection of political rights. It is also a sad state when civil society groups seem to eventually acquiesce to the existence of such a body, even though it fails to scale even the fundamental requirements of rights protection.

There are flickers of opportunity, however, no matter how diminutive.

Indonesia can still forge a consensus prior to the immediate establishment of the new body later this year by issuing a joint political declaration that contains elements that were rejected in the TOR by the other states.

This would serve as a principle guideline of values that prevents the watering-down of the commission's mandate. Included among them would be principles of non-ethnic or political discrimination, and rejecting any caveats on conditionalities, such as the often-used "Asian Values" argument, to the application of political rights.

The selection process of members of the commission should also be one that is transparent, not the exclusive jurisdiction of appointment by government. Indonesia can lead by example by leaving the process to the aegis of main stakeholders such as the various national human rights commissions and organizations.

It is imperative that the selection process does not become a political commodity.

The right people with the right convictions can always can always do good even under the strictest of circumstances.

When Indonesia's National Commission on Human Rights was established in 1993 by presidential decree, few thought it would be anything more than a rubber stamp to find justification for alleged violations.

But the sheer cunning, determination and independence of the members proved many doubters wrong.

Further redress to the terms of the commission should also be continually scrutinized as a five-yearly review of the TOR is also permissible under the current arrangement.

Sub-standard regional human rights norms can in the long run affect in Indonesia, as they will undoubtedly lower the higher standard that many in the nation seek.

The apparent "wisdom" of ASEAN now is that it is better to have "any" type of rights mechanism than none at all: half a loaf is better than having no bread at all.

But without further adjustments to the new rights body, ASEAN has instead chosen to have just half a loaf than the whole loaf altogether.