|
ASEAN
member states (AMS) are facing challenging political and security issues in
the region, including an arms race, corruption, the development gap and the
impact of it, ethnic clashes and intolerance, human trafficking, human
rights abuses, an illicit drug trade, migration, money laundering, social
injustice, terrorism, territorial maritime disputes, and other forms of
transnational crimes.
Through political
and security development cooperation among the AMS, the ASEAN
Political-Security Community (APSC) is institutionally framed to
effectively manage these issues. The APSC constitutes one of the three
pillars supporting the ASEAN Community ─ alongside ASEAN Economic Community
(AEC) and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). Under the APSC blueprint,
which provides a roadmap and timetable, the APSC will be established by
2015.
Promoting
political development based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law
and good governance, promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms — as inscribed in the ASEAN Charter — the APSC,
according to its blueprint, will “ensure the people and member states of
ASEAN live in peace with one another and with the world at large in a just,
democratic and harmonious environment”.
However, in a
recent interview with Channel News Asia, ASEAN’s newly-installed
secretary-general, Le Luong Minh, voiced concern over the slow progress
toward building an ASEAN Community, including the APSC, by 2015. “We are
not on track. A lot of work still needs to be done,” he said.
One of the
major problems impeding the progress of establishing the ASEAN Community
and the APSC is the slow pace of ratification and program implementation by
the AMS.
In addition to
the weak political commitment of the AMS, this slow progress may also be
attributed to the insufficient power of the ASEAN Secretariat to
coordinate, monitor and “direct” the policies, programs and activities of
the ASEAN and the AMS in achieving the APSC. With its inadequate
operational budget, the ASEAN Secretariat functions like an ASEAN post or
liaison office.
The ASEAN
Secretariat cannot correct and direct the AMS policies, programs and
activities from the proposed actions and programs planned in the APSC
Blueprint. The ASEAN Summit, as the highest decision-making body, is also
weak in enforcing and “punishing” the AMS to comply with the rules,
principles, and purposes contained in the ASEAN Charter.
Moreover, the
recent conflicts affecting the AMS show that the institutional framework of
the APSC is weak in resolving disputes and maintaining peace in the region.
The cases of the South China Sea and Cambodia-Thailand territorial
disputes, trans-boundary haze pollution and Rohingya human rights issues
demonstrate how such an institutional framework is not effective in
managing and resolving the problems.
“To maintain
and enhance peace, security and stability in the region”, as stipulated in
Article 1 of the ASEAN Charter, the institutional and legal framework of
the APSC should be strengthened. The ASEAN Charter should be reviewed to
give more power to the ASEAN secretary-general to act not only as a liaison
officer, but also as a coordinating “minister” for ASEAN Community and
foreign affairs. He or she and the ASEAN Secretariat would function as a
policy-coordinating and policy-making body. However, this Secretariat may
also propose new policies or revisions to the ASEAN Summit for approval.
As a “foreign
minister” of the ASEAN, the secretary-general may also act as an
intermediary to settle the conflicts and disputes among the AMS. For
instance, in the case of the ASEAN’s failure and disunity in making a joint
communiqué on the South China Sea dispute at the Phnom Penh Summit last
year, he should have done “shuttle diplomacy” to resolve the conflicts.
ASEAN cannot
rely on an AMS foreign minister to take the initiative for acting on such
preventive diplomacy. In such an event, what if the Indonesian Foreign
Minister Marty Natalegawa or other qualified high officials from the AMS
were not willing to take the initiative to settle the difference or other
forms of conflicting interests? The
secretary-general,
therefore, should be empowered to do the job.
To strengthen
democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law and protect human
rights and fundamental freedoms, the political and legal cooperation under
the APSC blueprint should be designed and directed to “integrate” the
political and legal systems of the AMS. For this purpose, ASEAN should
adopt strong conventions on anticorruption and good governance, maritime
disputes, environmental protection, human trafficking, illicit drug trade,
extradition and mutual legal assistance, money laundering and other forms of
transnational crimes.
To enforce
these conventions, ASEAN must have a court that has the power to adjudicate
disputes among the AMS and punish (transnational) crimes committed in
ASEAN’s jurisdiction. Therefore, to make this court work effectively, the
AMS should carefully and clearly redefine and reinterpret the scope and
definitions of “sovereignty”, “non-interference”, and “territorial
integrity” principles stipulated in the ASEAN Charter. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar