Established on August 8, 1967, ASEAN is a regional organization of Southeast Asian countries, consisting of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore, and Brunei. ASEAN emerged as a form of regional cooperation towards the ever-changing political and economic landscape of the Indo-Pacific. ASEAN emerged with principles of “security,” defining it comprehensively to include political, economic, military, and social factors that are intertwined and interact with each other at all levels of the analysis (Narine, 1998).
With this understanding, its member states aim for ASEAN to deliver three mutual and reinforcing security functions: building political and economic connections and mitigating the tensions between its members from the previous Konfrontasi from a few states to another. Second, ASEAN is beneficial to economic development between the member states and contributes to the political stability in the region through the alleviation of domestic social conditions from the aftermath of communist uprisings in the area. Third, promoting internal security of their own, independently, from outside powers and external threats. Contextually, ASEAN member states recognize that the role of outside powers and interventions is a major source of conflict (Narine, 1998).
Knowing this context, ASEAN stands as a unique regional organization like no other. ASEAN’s rich historical background and its influence on its fundamental values shape the way it executes its commitment to achieving “security” in the region. Aside from its uniqueness as a regional organization, ASEAN also differs in the way it was established. ASEAN has its own foundational principles that are accustomed to its regional ways. ASEAN’s foundational principles include mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference, consensus building for decision-making, peaceful dispute settlement, the renunciation of threats and use of force, and cooperation (ASEAN, 2020). These principles are largely discussed, bringing in critiques of their effectiveness and practicality in mitigating regional conflicts. However, despite this, these principles are still heavily rooted among the member states, as they are its foundational principles.
In 2017, ASEAN saw one of the biggest surges of violence against the Rohingya minorities in Myanmar in the region (BBC, 2020). The violence against the Rohingya people of Myanmar has been an ongoing issue from years earlier; however, it has not been thoroughly addressed and has not reached a resolution. The mass refuge of Rohingya to Myanmar’s neighboring states, and even South Asian states, primarily Bangladesh, has posed a big challenge for ASEAN to address. Furthermore, ASEAN has its own human rights commission, the AICHR, which stands for the promotion of human rights and cooperation (AICHR, n.d.).In 2021, when the military junta threw a coup on the democratic government of Myanmar and imprisoned the then-leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, there was an extreme increase in violence against the Rohingya by the military junta (OHCHR, 2023). This spiked discussions and questions regarding ASEAN’s role and responsibility in mitigating the crisis. Thus, this paper aims to analyze the ASEAN Way and how it impacts ASEAN’s mitigation process and the way it handles the Rohingya crisis.
The ASEAN Way, Principle of Non-interference, and its Historical Context
At the time of ASEAN’s establishment, many of its member states newly declared their independence. During the time, the Indo-Pacific witnessed strong influences of the two superpowers between the two blocs of the Cold War, the US and the USSR. There were instabilities from this, swaying or roping other smaller states into the war. Recognizing this geopolitical state of the world, there were incentives for nations of Southeast Asia to form cooperation with each other (Ramcharan, 2000). The Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Declaration of 1971 became its basis for forming regional cooperation and its right to lead free from external affairs and interferences, declaring the neutralization of Southeast Asia as its objective (Ramcharan, 2000). Through sharing many contextual backgrounds in culture and history, these diplomas were further built and formed, therefore forming ASEAN. ASEAN is built on unique ideas that are accustomed to its region.
These ideas became the pillar of its foundations. However, one particular ASEAN principle that has caused debates and questions over the years is the non-interference principle (Ramcharan, 2000). The principles of non-intervention are a pervasive aspect of ASEAN. The significance of this principle can be traced back to its historical context, where historically, ASEAN member states experienced significant foreign interferences from former colonial powers and superpower states interventions and influences during the Cold War (Ramcharan, 2000). There were also many post-colonial challenges that further enforced this principle. Therefore, ASEAN heavily ties and implements this principle in hopes of bringing stability to the region.
The Rohingya Crisis and ASEAN
Since the surge of violence against the Rohingya in 2017 (Amnesty International, 2024), there have been many debates raised regarding the protection and enforcement of human rights and humanitarian rights laws. The Myanmar military, Tatmadaw, has exercised violent military operations against the Rohingya after the attacks against police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) (Amnesty International, 2024). Reportedly, the military and its allies were involved in the mass killings of civilians and were responsible for the great numbers of sexual violence and mass displacement of the Rohingya (Amnesty Internationa, 2024). This caused the major refugee crisis of Rohingya leaving Myanmar to seek urgent help and safety from neighboring Southeast Asian and South Asian countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh (Amnesty International, 2024).
Furthermore, systematic violence against the Rohingya has existed since 2017 (BBC, 2020). The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group residing primarily in Rakhine State, Myanmar (BBC, 2020). Since the start, the Rohingya have been denied basic human rights, such as the right to vote, the restrictions of marriage, family planning, jobs, religious practices, etc. (BBC, 2020). They are also actively denied their citizenship (Human Rights Watch, 2022). The resistance group, ARSA’s attacks on police and army posts, and the Myanmar government declared them a terrorist organization (BBC, 2020). Furthermore, the violence extends to the destruction of hundreds of Rohingya villages, killing women, children, and elderly people (BBC, 2020). The UN described this crisis as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing” (United Nations, 2017).
ASEAN Responds: Limitations, Effectiveness, and Progress
Despite being a signatory of the 1948 Genocide Convention and being condemned and reported for genocide conduct and human rights violations by the international community and multiple countries, Myanmar has perpetually and excessively violated (Human Rights Watch, 2022). All the human rights violations documented and reported thus far in Myanmar show its violations of the United Nations Human Rights Charter and the ASEAN Charter, to which Myanmar is a signatory (Arifin, 2022). Conversely, ASEAN’s response has been indecisive and lacking in clarity and urgency in the measures they should take (Arifin, 2022). The AICHR, being in charge of enforcing human rights in the region, is not an independent authority and instead has been ultimately dependent on ASEAN (Rachminawati & Mokhtar, 2019). Thus, the AICHR is unable to ultimately enforce accountability on Myanmar.
The “ASEAN Way” refers to the informal procedure and norms that regulate the member states regarding their intergovernmental relations with each other within ASEAN (Arifin, 2022). This is argued to have heavily restricted ASEAN’s freedom to fully address this human rights issue (Arific, 2022). This norm includes non-interference and upholds state sovereignty and independence. This also allows member states to veto any decision or initiative (Arifin, 2022). The lack of response from ASEAN was justified by its adherence to its non-interference principle. Therefore, Myanmar’s human rights situation has shown the importance of sovereignty, even above the pursuit of human rights in the context of ASEAN.
The ASEAN Leaders Meeting was organized on April 21, 2024, in the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, Indonesia, to officially address the humanitarian crisis with its member states. The meeting resulted in 5 consensuses to be conducted by the Myanmar military junta. The 5 proposed consensuses include First, there must be an immediate halt to violence in Myanmar, and all parties must display the utmost caution. Second, all parties involved must engage in a constructive discourse to seek a peaceful resolution in the people’s best interests. Third, a special envoy of the ASEAN Chair shall facilitate the mediation of the dialogue process with the aid of the ASEAN Secretary-General. Fourth, ASEAN will give humanitarian aid via the AHA Center, and lastly, fifth, the special envoy and accompanying delegation will travel to Myanmar to meet with all relevant parties (ASEAN Secretariat, 2021). However, even after the consensus, the junta proceeds to violate them and conducts violence, from executions to bombings and mass arrests; thus, the violence and oppression against the Rohingya persists (Arifin, 2022).
Sovereignty vs. Humanity: Challenges Faced by ASEAN
Arifin (2022), quoting the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) versus the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stated sovereignty and human rights are equally regarded as fundamentally opposed: the rights of states versus the rights of individuals. According to Ramcharan (2000), the concept of sovereignty is elusive and hard to define. In Robert Klein’s 1974, Sovereign Equality Among States: The History of an Idea, he argued that sovereignty serves as a surrogate for complex realities (Prager, 1976). Historically, the concept of sovereignty used to represent the authority of rulers, such as a singular king or emperor; however, the concept evolved to represent the authority of “the people” as a whole (Ramcharan, 2000).
The transition to people-based sovereignty marked the shift toward legal and political equality, signifying that everyone has the same rights under the law, and the government is there to serve the entire population, instead of one specific elite class. State sovereignty is believed to be so through the collective and equal consensus of all of the citizens within. Subsequently, the principle of equality extends internationally and even forms the foundation for the sovereign equality of states, which was later established officially in the United Nations Charter (1934) (Ramcharan, 2000). Article 1(2) promotes equal rights and self-determination of peoples, while Article 2(1) declares that all UN member states are equal in sovereignty (Ramcharan, 2000).
Ramcharan (2000) argues, however, that the concept of sovereign equality is paradoxical. It protects the states from external threats and interferences, yet it can clash with human rights when states fail to protect their citizens. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) poses as a counter to this as it challenges absolute sovereignty, enforcing standards to human rights conduct—including the freedom of speech (Article 19), the right to peaceful assembly (Article 20), and the right to participate in government through elections (Article 21) (Ramcharan, 2000). These rights illustrate how sovereignty is not absolute and states are accountable to their citizens and the international community.
Ramcharan (2000) demonstrates here that the pursuit of sovereignty commonly clashes with the principles of human rights, as states can justify their actions without external interference in the pursuit of sovereignty. States that have violated human rights can protect their legal autonomy by justifying their sovereignty, which hinders the adjudication of its violations, especially from the interventions or meddling from external powers. Furthermore, Ramcharan (2000) argues that states should be accountable for the protection of human rights despite their rights to sovereignty. This can be presented through the various examples of powerful states intervening in the internal affairs of other states in pursuit of protecting human rights.
Conclusion
ASEAN’s response to the Rohingya crisis highlights the conflict between upholding its principle of non-interference and the urgent need to address human rights violations. The very principle of non-interference can be traced back to its historical context, subsequently causing ASEAN to prioritize sovereignty and regional stability. This has limited ASEAN’s capacity to act decisively against Myanmar’s military junta and their human rights crimes. Despite the Five-Point Consensus in 2021, Myanmar has continued to commit violations, which has posed challenges to ASEAN and its attempts to enforce accountability. Despite ensuring the autonomy of its member states, the principle of non-interference has been containing ASEAN’s ability to ultimately address crises effectively, especially when the pursuit of sovereignty clashes with human rights. Whilst being a core foundation of ASEAN, sovereignty serves as paradoxical, as it protects the member states from external interference, however, it enables impunity for human rights violations. In the future, ASEAN must find the balance through redefining its approach to sovereignty while integrating stronger enforcement mechanisms for addressing human rights issues.
