For many decades, the voices of the people living under authoritarian and military dictatorships – and even those political systems with democratic façades – have been silenced and suppressed. Today, throughout the Asia region, calls for justice, peace, human rights, and development are finally being heard. However, despite past atrocities committed in the region, such as the genocide in Cambodia and crimes against humanity in East Timor, there still remain no provisions to respond to even the most heinous of crimes. Apart from ASEAN in Southeast Asia, there remains the question of whether there are any effective regional mechanisms in Asia where RtoP could be invoked and implemented at this stage.

II. Regional Bodies  

Human rights are growing in importance within many Asian nations, and there is a need for regional mechanisms to reflect this evolution. Ensuring the capacity and will to implement RtoP should be part of a comprehensive strategy to promote human security through the advancement of democracy, the protection of human rights, good governance and economic stability. The following regional mechanisms are possibly entry points for RtoP: 

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967 and consisting of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam aims to: (1)  accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and (2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

ASEAN Charter
ASEAN adopted its Charter in November 2007. The drafting of the Charter initially was tasked to the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) in December 2005, who produced a report with recommendations in December 2006. In January 2007, however, a new High-Level Task Force was selected to draft the Charter. The new Charter was drafted within 10 months, and by October 2008, 10 member states of ASEAN had signed the Charter. Some countries, like Indonesia, however, would sign the new Charter with reservations. 

 

While the new Charter provided for the establishment of a Human Rights Body for the organizations members, the Charter remains without provisions for enforcing compliance with human rights standards and does not remove the strict policy of non-interference in internal affairs. Despite lobbying efforts by civil society to ensure that the ASEAN Charter defines the responsibilities of the State to protect, promote and fulfill its obligations to respect the rights of its citizens, and to include R2P concepts as suggested in the Eminent Persons Group Report, the final draft of the ASEAN Charter has fallen short of including either of these.

ASEAN Human Rights Body
Article 14 of the ASEAN Charter provides for the establishment of a human rights body, and on 21 July 2009 the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights were adopted during the 42^nd ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. The TOR mandate calls for the development of strategies to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms; however, as the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect notes, the fourteen articles of the mandate center more on promotion, resulting in a ‘promotion first, protection later’ approach. Furthermore, the AICHR is not equipped with any investigative, evaluative, or enforcement powers and does not include any early warning mechanisms. The Commission does not possess many communication functions, such as being able to hear cases from individuals, organizations, or groups of people. Although the establishment of the AICHR must be commended, it appears that the Commission was founded with a weak mandate that, as the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism states, is primarily a “political document formed out of negotiations and compromises.”

 

ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)
The ARF is the principal forum for security dialogue in Asia and complements the various bilateral alliances and dialogues in the region. Comprised of 27 participants, it provides a setting in which members can discuss current regional security issues and develop cooperative measures to enhance peace and security in the region. The ARF’s agenda aims to evolve in three broad stages, namely the promotion of confidence building, development of preventive diplomacy and elaboration of approaches to conflicts. However, the ARF has been criticized for being unable to deal with hard questions related to preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution. Much of this stems from the fact that the Forum remains an ASEAN centered body which is limited in resources needed to implement its projects. Decisions made in the ARF are not necessarily binding for states without the support of the national government.  While the ARF has not yet opened space for the promotion of RtoP at the regional level, it is possible however that intercessional groups may be established where this idea, couched in with humanitarian law and humanitarian crisis prevention terms, may be discussed. Still, most of the ASEAN members that are opposed to intervention, along with China, may not allow this to happen. The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific established a study group on RtoP that will present a final report to the ARF in June 2011 which will call for the Forum to play a greater role in the implementation of RtoP and provide proposals related to the role of regional organizations in mainstreaming the norm.

 

 

The crisis in Burma has recently caught the attention of the world, after the government’s violent crackdown on monks and other peaceful protesters in September 2007 and as the government obstructed international aid in the aftermath of cyclone Nargis in May 2008. The Burmese government has a long history of gross violations of human rights and violent suppression of ethnic minority communities in Burma which have led civil society to label Burma as an RtoP situation. Many countries have denounced the junta and are calling for an end to government-perpetrated human rights abuses. An increasing amounts of reports, analysis and calls have emerged denouncing the junta for its violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, based on the international norm of the Responsibility to Protect.  See our page: Crisis in Burma
 

Burma is not the only troubled country in the region; the April-May 2009 escalation of violence in Sri Lanka raised alarming concerns about the failure of the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to protect civilians from serious crimes under international law. On the part of the LTTE, reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch detail LTTE forces preventing civilians from fleeing the conflict zone, putting civilians at unnecessary risk, displacing civilians and forcibly recruiting child soldiers. According to the UN, the LTTE used civilians as a buffer against government forces, forcibly recruiting civilians and holding men, women and children as hostages and human shields. The government was reportedly using heavy artillery in indiscriminate attacks on civilians as well as against civilian infrastructure such as hospitals. Moreover, the government denied access to trapped civilians, humanitarian agencies, and aid workers. On 31 March 2011, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon released the report of the Panel of Experts on accountability in Sri Lanka commissioned in 2010. The Panel concluded that “a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law were committed by the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. The Sri Lankan government rejected the report, calling it “biased, baseless, and unilateral”. Its findings nonetheless confirm initial assessments made that crimes against humanity were committed in Sri Lanka with a clear failure from both sides to protect civilians.  For further information see our crisis page on Sri Lanka.

IV. Civil Society in Asia-Pacific

Garnering support for RtoP in Asia relies on a multilevel, multi-track approach to norm building and policy development. For Northeast and South Asia, there are currently no regional commitments, agendas or institutions related to the protection of populations from large scale human rights violations. In this regard, advocacy must focus on how to move individual states toward supporting RtoP and to ultimately build champions of RtoP within the region.  Civil society is supportive of discussing and mainstreaming RtoP into relevant networks, including Solidarity for Asian People’s Advocacy, Asia-Pacific Solidarity Coalition, Asian Circle 1325, ASEAN People’s Assembly, Burma Partnership, World Forum for Democratization in Asia and others.

WFM-IGP welcomed the launch of the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect on 20 February 2008 in Bangkok during the conference "Preventing Mass Atrocities: Asian Perspectives on R2P". You may also find the outcomes of the civil society roundtable, co-organized by WFM-IGP (host of the ICRtoP Secretariat) held the next day on February 21 here. 

See the outcomes of all global roundtables in our January 2009 publication Civil Society Perspectives and Recommendations for Action. 

 

Below also please find reports and statements by civil society, and information on forums, roundtables, and conferences held on RtoP, prevention, and operationalizing civilian components in regional bodies.

 

•The Stanley Foundation convened a conference on 11 May 2011 which focused on the theme, The Role of Regional and Sub-Regional Arrangements in Strengthening the Responsibility to Protect. The conference report published on 25 May 2011 included a paper by Noel M. Morada which focuses on ASEAN and the Asian Regional Forum (ARF). The paper examines the role of the regional organizations to strengthen RtoP in Asia and notes that although ASEAN and ARF have not formally adopted the language of RtoP both bodies have adopted principles and norms related to RtoP.

 

•The Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect released The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect: Opportunities and Constraints, the second of a two paper series on the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and RtoP, on 30 March 2011. The report assesses the potential opportunities to optimize the AICHR’s Terms of Reference (TOR) and asserts that ASEAN and the AICHR have a responsibility to play a major role in the protection of peoples in the region from mass atrocities.

 

•The Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect published a report on 30 November 2010 entitled The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and the Responsibility to Protect: Development and Potential, which is the first of two working papers on the AICHR and RtoP. This paper explores the role of regional organizations, such as ASEAN, in implementing R2P and discusses how the AICHR can facilitate the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.

 

•The Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, in cooperation with ICRtoP, conducted a series of seminars for academe, civil society groups, students, and government sector representatives in Manila, Philippines on 8-12 November 2010. The seminars provided an update on R2P developments, the role of the ICRtoP, and sharing of African experiences in promoting R2P in the continent.

 

•ICRtoP and the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect sponsored a training seminar conducted by the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide on 5 November 2010 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The seminar sought to raise awareness on the existing United Nations early warning mechanisms and the work and mandate of the OSAPG, as well as enhance understanding of the process and causes of mass atrocity crimes and the legal framework on genocide prevention.

 

•ICRtoP, the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Oxfam Australia co-hosted a conference held from 3-4 November 2010 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on Early Warning for Prevention: Technologies and Practice for the Prevention of Mass Atrocity Crimes. The conference explored how international and local actors can harness early warning to contribute to the prevention of mass atrocity crimes, as well as examined how to work effectively with communities once early warning has been raised.

 
•The EastWest Institute partnered with the ASEAN Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS) for two special sessions at the 24^th Asia Pacific Roundtable held from June 8-9, 2010. The first session brought together the heads of ASEAN-ISIS and of ASEAN think tanks, while the second engaged policymakers, government officials and experts from across Asia. The sessions focused on outlining the steps necessary to develop a regional conflict-prevention agenda.

•The Center on International Cooperation published a paper written by Elsina Wainwright in April 2010 entitled Conflict Prevention in South East Asia and the South Pacific. The paper examines regional crises and the role of actors, such as state governments and NGOs, to manage and respond to conflict. The author provides recommendations on how to enhance the effectiveness of regional measures used to prevent conflict.

•Oxfam Australia held a workshop entitled NGOs & the Prevention of Mass Atrocities from 23-24 November 2009, and released the outcome document from this event on 16 March 2010. The workshop focused on NGO engagement on RtoP in order to develop and share strategies in implementing the Responsibility to Protect throughout the Asia-Pacific Region. 

 

•The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) established a study group on the Responsibility to Protect in November 2009 with the goal of exploring the implications of RtoP for regional actors and organizations. A final report will be presented to the CSCAP Steering Committee in June 2011, which will focus on the role of regional organizations, such as the Asian Regional Forum, in the implementation of RtoP.

 

•The Initiatives for International Dialogue (IDD) participated in the ASEAN Civil Society Conference held in Cha-am, Thailand from 18-20 October 2009. IDD called on ASEAN to take a more proactive role in the prevention of internal state conflicts as the regional body has been largely absent in this area.

 

 

•Global Action to Prevent War in cooperation with Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney hosted a regional workshop on “Peacekeeping and Civilian Protection” in Jakarta, Indonesia on 11 June 2009. The workshop focused on the following: Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific perspectives on civilian protection and the possible role of a standing UN peacekeeping service; and the impact of Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific norms, language, politics and culture on proposals for UN peacekeeping reform. 

 

•The Consortium of Non-Traditional Security Studies in Asia released a brief on 1 April 2009 entitled The Responsibility to Protect: Conceptual Misunderstanding and Challenges of Application. The document examines the origin and principles of the norm and discusses regionalism and RtoP, specifically what lessons ASEAN can draw from the African Union.

•The Asian Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect released an update brief entitled The Responsibility to Protect and the Protection of Civilians: Asia-Pacific in the UN Security Council on 10 February 2009. The purpose of this update brief was to set out the positions taken by Asia-Pacific governments at the Security Council meeting on the protection of civilians and to examine their implications.

•The Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect released a report on 30 January 2009 entitled The Responsibility to Protect in Southeast Asia which focuses on the position of ASEAN Member States on RtoP and their policy priorities in areas related to implementing the norm.