THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-INTERFERENCE PRINCIPLE IN ASEAN RELATING TO THE PRACTICES OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR

MUHAMMAD, ABDUL AZIZ (2013) THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-INTERFERENCE PRINCIPLE IN ASEAN RELATING TO THE PRACTICES OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR. Diploma thesis, Universitas Andalas.

Text 382.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (703kB)

Abstract

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and Philippines, aimed to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region, and to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law, and United Nation Charter. 1 Since its foundation as the confederation of five nations,2 membership in ASEAN has grown to ten Countries, including Myanmar, Which joined in July 23, 1997. The inclusion of Myanmar into ASEAN was controversial and met with much international critics. However, fears among ASEAN members regarding Myanmar’s economy and human rights practices ultimately were outweighed by greater fears that Myanmar’s continued exclusion from ASEAN would be an open invitation for China and other power to seize a greater role in the region.4Internationally, ASEAN member states would be a positive influence on Myanmar. ASEAN's commitment to non-interference is enshrined in several of the association's founding documents and declarations. The 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, for example, recognized as fundamental principles "the right of every state to lead its national existence free from 1ASEAN Secretariat, overview, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Http:www.aseansec.org/64.html (last visited, December, 23, 2012). 2John Arendshorst, The Dilemma of Non-Interference: Myanmar, Human Rights, and the ASEAN Charter, Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 8, Chicago, 2009, Page 108 4Thant Myint U, Challenges to Democratization in Burma: Perspectives On Multilateral and Bilateral Responses, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), Sweden, 2001, Page 43 3 external interference, subversion or coercion" and “non-interference in the internal affairs of one another". Other documents repeat these same themes such as ASEAN’s Bangkok Declaration in 1967, ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) of 1976, ASEAN Charter 2007, in article 2, which acts as general guideline for intra-regional relationship between states. Among another thing, the article commits ASEAN member states to have: 1. Mutual respect for independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations; 2. The right of every state to lead its national existence, free from external interference, subversion or coercion; and 3. Non-interference in internal affair of another state. The treaty does not allowed ASEAN to conduct it’s policy and member states policy to interfere internal affair of its member states. Non-intervention, has been the main stumbling block for ASEAN member states to intervene in the internal matters of other states.5 Non-interference principle is western origin, arising out of Westphalia agreement in 1648, which laid European order of sovereign states. Noninterference, sovereignty and legal equal of states, have traditionally been regarded as the three basic rules specifying “the accepted and expected forms of behavior in relation between states. They are at the center of several United Nations doctrines, which are also perpetrated in western nations.6 Non-interference has traditionally meant, is that “governments can attempt to influence each other’s behavior only through established 5JhonFuston, Asean and the principle of non-intervention-practice and prospects, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies journal , Singapore, 2000, Para 2 6JhonFuston, ibid 4 diplomatic channels”7Governments cannot seek to expand influence by a direct appeal to citizens of another country by occupation or by using home territory as a base for opposing another regime.8 The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) and State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)9 have compiled a horrific and extensive record of human rights violations during reign over Myanmar. Violations committed by armed forces, primarily against ethnic minorities, have included extra judicial killing, rape, torture, arbitrary arrest for political reasons, forced labor, forced conspiracy into military, denial of freedom of movement, and tight restriction for the press, religion, and assembly.10 This deteriorating human rights record is due not to isolated acts of individuals; rather, it seems from policies set at high level of government. Moreover, the government’s numerous violations have adversely affected people not only in Myanmar, but also in neighboring countries.11 The SPDC has claimed that they are fighting ethnic minority insurgents in areas of Myanmar and that its techniques are part of “Four Cuts” strategy to quell the insurgency: Cutting off food, funds, intelligence, and recruits to the insurgents.12 As part of four cuts strategy, the military has perpetrated widespread violations of economic, social, and cultural rights, 7K.J. Holsti, International Politics-a firmwork for analysis, Prentice-Hall International Edition, Englewood Cliffs, 1988, Page 81. 8 John Funston, opcit. Page 3 9The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) is a regime established by the military leaders of Myanmar which ruled Myanmar since elections in 1990 and ruled Myanmar by Martial law. During this time, The SLORC officially changed the English version of the country name from Burma to Myanmar. In 1997, The SLORC changed its name to State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), but did not change any of its autocratic and oppressive policies. 10 U.S. Department of states, Country Report on Human rights in Burma, 2007, available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100515.html; see also U.N. Office of The High Comer’s of Human Right, Report of The Special Reporteur on The Situation of Human rights in Myanmar, Para 59 U.N. Doc. A/53/654(sept10, 1998) available at http:/deccessdds.un.org.doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/270/28/PDF/N9827028/.pdf 11 John Arendshorst, Op. Cit Page 105 12Ibid, Page 106 5 including the deprivation of means of livelihood, the destruction of houses, excessive taxation, and exertion. The military has often used of force against civilians far in excess of level necessary for counter-insurgency operations. Furthermore, armed forces are present event in ceasefire areas and areas not involved in counterinsurgency activity. 13 A significant part of four cuts strategy is the destruction of villages. The International Displacement Monitoring Centre estimates that between 1996 and 2007, over 3.100 villages in eastern Myanmar were destroyed, relocated, or abandoned.14 As a result over half million people have become internally displaced persons (IDPs), people who have been unable to return, resettle, or reintegrated after being forced to leave their homes.15 Forced relocations are accompanied by killings, forced labor, systematic rape, and wholesale destruction of villages, crops, and land.16 In additions, these forced relocations have resulted in a large number of externally displaced people. The 2009 World Refugee Survey states that Myanmar has produced over 750.000 refugees, including 361.000 in Thailand, 193.000 in Bangladesh, 100.000, in India, and 79.000 in Malaysia. Millions have leaved Myanmar but are not officially documented as refugees. In addition to being the victim of legal and human rights abuses in Myanmar, these refugees and migrants have placed a considerable strain on the government of neighboring countries. For example, Thailand initially accepted thousands of refugees from Myanmar. Since camp of refugees along Thailand - Myanmar border existed 13 Paulo Pinherio, Statement on the Situation of Human rights in Myanmar to the 61st Session of The Commission of Human Right, items 9 (mar. 29, 2005) 14 International Displacement Monitoring Centre, No End in Sight for International Displacement crisis, International Displacement Monitoring Centre 2008 Report, Myanmar, 2008, page 5 15 Ibid 16Rudnick Gray Cary, op.cit, page 17 6 for over three decades with increasing populations and few sights of progress The Thai government has begun to lose patience.17Thailand is resisting additional refugees flows, even going so far as to forcibly repatriate some refugees, and in January 2013 Thailand authority forced the new comer refugees back to their country, event many of them stayed in the sea on their boats resisting not to go back to their country. This case makes Thailand in a dilemma to accept them or not, this condition not only happened in Thailand but also in the majority of ASEAN Countries, including Indonesia. The violations of human rights in Myanmar are not only a problem of Myanmar states, but also ASEAN as a great regional organization in Southeast Asia. Human rights condition in Myanmar is getting worst, if not be take over seriously by bigger organization than just Myanmar. The abuse related to ethnic minority groups, forced labor, forced movement, extra judicial killing, systematic rape, and another crimes against humanity happened in this county affect another conduct to neighboring countries, such as inillegal refugees and drug trafficking that bother stability and security in the region. Moreover, Non-interference principle that adopted by ASEANis one of stand points in the progress of democratization and implementation of human rights in Myanmar. The International law recognizes the principles of universality and interdependence of all human rights. Several violations happened in Myanmar become interest of international sociaty, so does ASEAN. International public sense of justice has been violated by the conditions of 17 Burma Lawyer’s Council, Analysis of The Situation Of The Refugees Camp From The Roll Of Law Aspect, Lawka Pala (Legal Journal in Myanmar), 2007, page 38 7 human right happened in Myanmar and by no massive action commited by International organizations to resolve this condition. Many of the crimes under the purview of the ICC have been committed in Myanmar. However, as Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC may not have jurisdiction over its citizens. ASEAN has historically espoused a policy of non-interference in the internal affair of its member states. The violation of human rights in Myanmar has harmed neighboring countries and become threat to the stability in the region. Related to the phenomenon in human rights condition in Myanmar and ASEAN efforts to promote human rights in the region, writer would like to put a research by the title The Implementation of Non- Interference Principle in ASEAN Relating to the Practicesof Human Rights inMyanmar

Actions (login required)

View Item