Finally, the Thai government under the leadership of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva is able to hold the postponed 14th Asean Summit after it was postponed in December 2008 after the turbulent seizure of the country’s airport by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

There was earlier speculation that a re-scheduled summit would face great difficulties after attempts by the anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship had petitioned Myanmar and Singapore to boycott the summit claiming that the government is undemocratic.

As Asean will celebrate its 42nd birthday this year - it was established on Aug 8,1967 - a lot of Asean observers are wondering if the organisation is truly relevant to the Asean population.

During the period of the adoption and ratification of the Asean Charter in 2007 and 2008, many Asean governments, including Thailand, insisted that the Asean Charter will make the body a more "people-oriented" organisation.

The actual text of the charter, however, does not detail how the people can be involved in Asean’s decision-making processes. The Jakarta-based think-tank Center for Strategic and International Studies and Indonesian lawmakers had spoken in favour of the non-ratification of the charter, seeing no benefit in the charter.

Asean’s relevancy has been questioned in many instances.

First, Asean policies have proven to be mostly rhetoric rather than actual implementation. The 1997 document, Asean Vision 2020, talks about Asean’s aim "to build a community of caring and sharing societies".

abhisit vejjajiva However, PM Abhisit of Thailand as the current chair of Asean reiterates the quote on one hand and at another, continues to label the Rohingya refugees from Burma as illegal migrants whom should be detained and "pushed-out" from the country.

Relevancy in question

This totally contradicts the essence of a caring and sharing community. It has been noted that less than 50 percent of Asean agreements are actually implemented, while Asean holds more than 600 meetings annually.

Secondly, Asean members themselves do not take the organisation seriously. Last year, when Thailand and Cambodia were at their most critical dispute in decades over the ownership of the Preah Vihear Temple - which was stirred up by the PAD’s ultra-nationalism fervor - Samdech Hun Sen, the Prime Minister of Cambodia ignored Asean and took the issue directly to the UN Security Council.

He surely must have been aware that there is a dispute settlement mechanism in Asean to which he could refer the issue.

asean logo The writer was recently told by a former senior staff of the Asean Foundation, an integral body which is tasked to promote greater awareness of Asean and interaction among the peoples of Asean, that the Asia-Europe Foundation has been receiving far more funding from Asean governments than Asean’s own foundation. He said, "Asean governments want the foundation to stand on its own".

Similarly, the Asean People’s Assembly (APA), a yearly forum that has been organised by the Asean think-tank network known as the Asean Institute for Strategic and International Studies since 2001, which attempts to bridge the gaps between the policymakers and civil society groups by bringing the two groups together to a same forum, is also facing a similar problem.

While in the Asean Vientiane Action Programme adopted in 1999, it recognises APA as an "important consultative mechanism for developing more people-oriented policies", Asean is still not supporting the initiative as this mechanism is facing large financial constraints on continuing its operation.

Thirdly, participatory democracy is a foreign term known among Asean governments. The Asean Charter which is the first document that talked about a people-oriented Asean was discussed discreetly, while there have been calls by civic groups to make it public for general discussion or to have it voted in a referendum. Three documents accompanying the charter, namely the Economic, Political-Security, and Socio-Cultural Blueprints were also discussed in private.

Meeting human rights challenges

Last and most importantly, civil society and Asean observers are viewing Asean as unable to meet human rights challenges. While Asean bureaucrats often credit Asean for having created peace in the region since its establishment, they forget to acknowledge that Asean stood still during the genocide in Cambodia, which then was not a member of Asean.

Similarly, Asean allowed Indonesia to take extreme measures against East Timor in 1974 to 1999, which Jakarta then viewed as a renegade province. The conflict in Cambodia and East Timor claimed approximately two million and 102,800 lives respectively. Not to mentioned the human rights situation in Myanmar has not improved since it was admitted to Asean in 1997.

Although, the Asean Charter is coming up with a plan to establish an Asean human rights body (AHRB) by appointing a high-level panel which is currently drafting a terms of reference of the AHRB, there is very little hope for those who have been following its development.

The confidential text of the terms of reference highlights that the body has to respect the principle of non-interference and will work to defend Asean from external interferences on human rights issues.

Furthermore, it is known that the body will focus on promotional roles rather than protecting human rights victims; that it will only serve as a window-dressing mechanism for Asean.

Earlier this month, close to 1,000 civil society representatives gathered under the banner of the Asean Peoples’ Forum in Bangkok, Thailand, to discuss issues affecting them. One question discussed was the relevancy of Asean. A statement will soon be delivered to Asean leaders outlining how they can better serve the people.

As Asean claims to be a ‘people-oriented’ body, it surely must implement policies and ensure that Asean will be able to respond to the needs of its people on issues such as democracy and human rights.

POKPONG LAWANSIRI is a Bangkok-based independent scholar and an analyst on ASEAN.