Regional Cooperation Prospects: The Case of ASEAN

  In spite of border closures and efforts to isolate during the pandemic, we continue to live in an interdependent and connected world. Supply chains are globally intertwined, families transcend borders - even continents - and it remains the global imperative to continue communicating and collaborating in order to address the concerns of the pandemic. This is why regional organizations remain an important way to ensure cooperation and integration across borders. One such organization, ASEAN, was established on August 8th of 1967 in Bangkok by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, these countries were joined by Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia. As with most regional bodies, ASEAN’s formation was principally motivated by trade, but the mission goals of the group soon expanded to include regional integration, promotion of social growth, regional security, and sustainable development. The organization steadily grew to develop partnerships throughout East Asia, Oceania, as well as Western countries such as the EU, Canada, and the US through the ASEAN Regional Forum. 

            Overall, the organization has enjoyed a continuous and relatively stable existence ever since its formation and has come a long way since having a 5-article proclamation of its formation. Its terms of membership, mission statements, goals, and spheres of interest are increasingly complex and ever-expanding. However, this does not come without its limitations. The organization has also been criticized for being too loosely connected and not sufficiently involved in promoting equal growth, peace, and stability as it claims to be doing. These challenges to its mission are strong to this day. The pandemic and recent political developments throughout the world calling for a rise in authoritarianism and a halt in international cooperation only threaten to further destabilize and discredit ASEAN in spite of its great potential as a regional body. In order to maintain its credibility and success, as well as improve its future prospects, ASEAN should focus on political and socio-cultural collaboration more intensely, which it already has a basis for in its Charter as of 2008. Additionally, the body should look up to uphold the ASEAN Community ideals, and it should strive to increase and diversify its economic collaboration to include countries in other world regions, such as those in Africa and Latin America. Emphasizing the political and socio-cultural aspects of its mission will strengthen the currently fragile regional feelings of unity and trust in ASEAN as a regional organization and even an authority, while its expansion of economic interests to include those of other state actors and regional organizations throughout the Northern and Southern hemispheres would increase its trade and collaboration prospects, as well as help increase ASEAN’s independence from its traditional trading partners, allowing it more agency and choice.

Current Challenges

            ASEAN has enjoyed more than half a century of existence as an organization and a regional economic and somewhat socio-political body. Major challenges accompanied it throughout this period. After all, virtually all of its members are facing the complicated consequences of colonialism and have to operate within the post-colonial context in which they are left to struggle to model largely western model of a nation state. The region has suffered intrusion from the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish, and later on Imperial Japan. The Philippines also found itself under US occupation. The great socio-cultural diversity in the region was largely left unaccounted for in the colonial era and following decolonization efforts after WWII. This colonial heritage leaves Southeast Asian states to simultaneously navigate processes of state formation and regional cooperation through ASEAN. This is a very unique context and a unique situation; and given these postcolonial circumstances under which ASEAN was formed, it is a grand success that it remains as operational and effective as it is today. On one hand, colonial experience, as well as the threat and presence of foreign influence during the Cold War, can be attributed as major factors in the decision of original members to finally unite in 1967 and then also work towards regional security cooperation on top of economic collaboration. However, these very circumstances also raise many uncertainties and questions. 

The region has experienced increasing turmoil in the last century. Vietnam and Cambodia have seen major political upheaval during and after the Cold War, Indonesia has faced numerous man-made uncontrolled forest fires and other environmental catastrophes, and Myanmar remains in a contentious political situation following a coup in early February of this year. ASEAN has been criticized internationally for failing to address these concerns beyond merely mentioning or acknowledging them in its committee sessions throughout the years. This is due in part to its emphasis on respect for sovereignty and fear of disturbing the forces of nationalism that came out as a logical response to the state formation process in the post-colonial world. Disturbance of this delicate balance ASEAN is currently maintaining with sovereign and national governments would inevitably lead to its destruction. ASEAN did, however, manage to more comprehensively address the issues affecting the region through its Charter signed in 2007 that went into effect in 2008. The Charter is now emphasizing the organization’s commitment towards accountability, protection of human rights, and democratic freedoms throughout its member states. This is a legally binding agreement demanding the member states’ commitment to these ideals and there are serious repercussions were these not to be abided by, including suspension of member privileges, sanctions, and even expulsion from the organization. However, more serious advances have been criticized and largely opposed by some member states. As such, ASEAN remains limited in its ability to actually act on its stature and appropriately address deviation from the unanimous charter. Addressing nationalist concerns means the organization must be heavily dependent on consensus and consultation on every major decision. 

ASEAN Community 2015 is another way in which ASEAN is looking to increase its legitimacy. The idea of ASEAN Community is grounded in the foundational ideal of ASEAN to increase regional cooperation and a sense of community among Southeast Asian states. It contains three pillars being in order: Political-Security Community, Economic Community, and Socio-Cultural Community. The member states have agreed to increase its cooperation across the three sectors for the purpose of greater cooperation, but it is no coincidence that the pillars are listed in that order. The organization prioritized addressing mutual concern for sovereignty of the region and, most importantly, each nation state as the primary goal, with traditionally accepted economic or trade interests as the second goal, and the idea for a socio-cultural pillar was thrown in briefly afterwards at a suggestion by the Philippines. This illustrates a major organizational flaw which is a lack of concern for actual socio-cultural community building, even though precisely this pillar may have unique potential to address the nationalist sentiments and bring the change from bottom up instead of from top down, resulting in a more sustainable socio-political makeup of the region in the future. 

Prospects for the Future

            The organization remains exposed to various challenges. Just over the first few weeks of February, following the military coup in Myanmar on February 1st of 2021, there have been multiple calls to call emergency sessions to address the crisis and appropriately handle those in violation of the Charter in order to ensure bloc members abide by the principles of the ASEAN Charter “including the rule of law, good governance, democracy, human rights and constitutional government.” Concerns over environmental issues as well some trade questions, such as protections on the palm oil industry, remain important questions generating distrust and fueling the nationalist cause. 

However, ASEAN is not without any way to address these challenges. The Charter and the ideals of the ASEAN Community contain legally binding principles and mechanisms to ensure accountability, rule of law, and ultimately more cooperation and integration in the region. The idea to include more socio-cultural initiatives to go along with the plans for regional integration is also there, and only needs to be more acknowledged and given more attention and significance. After all, it must be seen as paramount to promote appreciation for diversity, but also recognition of tolerance and regional unity on a socio-cultural level as a way to move towards creation of a more comprehensive ASEAN member state, and even potential future ASEAN citizen identity. In case of the European Union, as important as trade prospects were to found and maintain the core of the union, cultural initiatives such as Eurovision, and student exchange programs such as Erasmus, were quite necessary to ensure creation of a European identity, and Europe still has a long way to go. ASEAN could greatly benefit from creating similar region-wide outreach initiatives in order to move forward from the current situation of largely disjointed, self-interested members. This would also strengthen the civil society and thus improve prospects for democracy and regional stability. 

            Lastly, the region remains dependent on its traditional trading patterns. Its unity here is very important in order to allow it to take full advantage of the rivalry seen amongst Japan, China, and the United States looking for trade partners within the region. However, the region could also benefit from looking further outwards and establishing more substantial economic ties with like-minded regional blocs across the globe, such as ECOWAS and Mercosur. In fact, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore was to implement its free trade agreement with Mercosur. This would exponentially increase cooperation between ASEAN and Mercosur, and drastically increase the already present $3.5 billion in trade exchange between the two. COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down this progress and potential for a sort of interregional cooperation, but developments in this area are interesting and it will be exciting to see what effect increased collaboration across these particular regional groups will bring. 

ASEAN has seen its share of successes and challenges, but it is undeniable that it has decades of experience in norm-building and community promotion within the region, and it remains the most comprehensive example of cooperation in the region. Its charters and proclamations, as challenged as they may be through continued political turmoil throughout the region, still remain proud examples of hope and potential for greater regional integration in Southeast Asia. For this reason, it is instrumental to continue looking forward and ensure the organization takes advantage of its strengths and improves upon its shortcomings to provide for a more united and strengthened Southeast Asia.

The Future of Filipino Freedoms: Addressing Democracy and Human Rights in the Philippines Halfway Through President Duterte’s Term

The Philippines, the oldest democracy in Southeast Asia, is continuing to move toward authoritarianism and populism under President Rodrigo Duterte. From attacks on press freedom to extrajudicial killings across the country that have left communities caught in the crossfire, actions taken by President Duterte and his administration have affected society on multiple levels. In putting forward a July 2019 resolution condemning the president’s actions against drugs and traffickers that has left thousands of citizens dead, the United Nations (UN) is sending a clear message opposing the “anti-drug campaign” currently taking place in the Philippines. Going into its third year, this campaign has evolved into a drug war that has affected all areas of the country and society. 

The passing of this resolution comes at a critical point in the Duterte administration, but without a clear plan to slow down or stop the drug war, there is still more work that could be done by the international community in order to turn their condemnation into effective action. By increasing pressure on the Duterte administration and empowering local politicians and organization working to end the gruesome drug war, the international community would ensure that the president can no longer repress criticism or avoid the many negative repercussions that his policies have brought.

Context to the Crisis: Threats to Freedoms under President Duterte

Several politicians and activists condemning the ongoing drug war have faced threats and/or actions that have brought the nation back into the spotlight. Attacks on the press and on freedom of speech have been some of the most notable and widely condemned. One of the most prominent cases of this involves Maria Ressa, editor of Rappler, an online news outlet that regularly publishes criticism of Duterte. 

President Duterte also clashes with opposition politicians, holding no restraint in retaliatory action for their criticism. Senator Leila de Lima was among the first to face this; a member of the opposition Liberal Party, she has criticized Duterte since his tenure as mayor of the southern city of Davao, prompting President Duterte’s administration bring forth dubious drug charges that led to her imprisonment. Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With this in mind, Senator de Lima, still actively involved in policy and political life from behind bars, has had this freedom stolen by a president unfazed by the consequences of his actions to his nation’s democratic foundation.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of the Philippines voted 8-6 to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on charges regarding her reporting of personal wealth. Sereno was one of the most prominent critics of Duterte and the constitutionality of his “drug war” since its beginnings in 2016. Seen as another politically motivated action against his opponents, this molding of the court system to favor the president is deeply concerning. 

The UN Resolution and Reactions

The resolution, put forward by Iceland and backed by 18 other nations, calls for the prevention of extrajudicial killings, UN oversight, and continued dialogue surrounding the issue once conclusions are made from the initial report to be presented at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 

President Duterte reacted swiftly and negatively to the results of the vote. He has gone so far as to question maintenance of relations with the signatories on the resolution, particularly Iceland. Other senators supported the president, either arguing that the resolution amounts to foreign interference in a domestic issue, or simply dismissing it. The drug war has enjoyed support from a large majority of Filipinos, and President Duterte maintains approval ratings that are some of the highest for any Filipino president. While the UNHRC has joined the growing number of foreign governments and international organizations openly criticizing the drug war, the majority of domestic politicians are dismissive and oblivious to their concerns.

Earlier in the year, Duterte ordered the withdrawal of the country from the International Criminal Court (ICC) over preliminary investigations and increased pressure from the institution regarding the extrajudicial killings and broader “drug war” he had initiated under his presidency. However, although the resolution calls for similar investigations regarding those same issues, withdrawal from the UNHRC is unlikely. According to a tweet by Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin, the Philippines is “in UNHRC as a pedagogical duty to teach Europeans moral manners.” 

Vice President Leni Robredo of the opposition party has supported the resolution and welcomed further action from the UN regarding the drug war. Manuelito Luna, the head of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission, countered the vice president, calling her support for the resolution a “betrayal of public trust” and advocating for her impeachment. But the vice president is right; the UN resolution is one of the most significant measures that the international community has taken in condemning the actions of President Duterte and the drug war he is leading. By passing the resolution, the 18 signatories showed their support not only for a comprehensive investigation on anti-drug practices, but for the safety and protection of all Filipinos.

What Could Come Next?

President Duterte has three more years until the end of his term, and sustained condemnation from governments, as well as international and non-governmental organizations, are the best courses of action in order to ensure lasting, effective resistance to his continuously dangerous policies. The outlook for those who continue to vocalize opposition to the president’s actions in the drug war is bleak, but the timing of the UNHRC resolution and its findings could become a catalyst for change. The Council must adopt more resolutions regarding different human rights issues currently faced by the Philippines as a result of actions taken by President Duterte in the time between now and June 2020. The vote on the July 2019 resolution was fairly spread out, with only 18 of the 47 members voting in favor of the resolution. With 15 abstentions and 14 votes against it, barely getting the votes required to pass the resolution isn’t enough with an escalating situation such as this. Increased discussion and awareness of the drug war on an influential platform like the UNHRC will be essential. 

Vice President Robredo has previously dismissed calls to run against Duterte during the next presidential elections in 2022, but she has proven fearless in criticizing the president on human rights issues in the past. As the second half of the Duterte administration begins, she and other opposition figures will need to galvanize their supporters and possible candidates if they stand a chance at defeating President Duterte and other leaders sympathetic to his policies and actions.The Liberal Party has already begun appealing to opposition candidates, including Vice President Robredo, who have been threatened or suppressed by the Duterte administration. Although it is early in the election season, activists and politicians vocal against the drug war are now able to strengthen their cases with the recent actions of the UNHRC and other international organizations that share their same argument: that the drug war and extrajudicial killings need to end, and a shift back to safety and the protection of democratic freedoms must begin. 

As the second half of President Duterte’s term begins, many uncertainties remain. His popularity is solid, and in the recent Senate elections, senators who aligned themselves with Dutere completely wiped out the main opposition coalition, Otso Diretso. The criticism from the UNHRC resolution has reflected larger issues in the Philippines regarding national sovereignty, moves away from relations with Western nations, and concerns around safety. Whether it be the threats to press freedom, the forced silencing of opposition leaders, or related issues, the UNHRC is in a place to take an even stronger stance against the Philippines, a member of the Council, albeit one moving further and further from its core values. Defending the rights of all Filipinos is an issue that goes beyond Philippine borders, and any future action taken must reflect that. 

Ending the drug war outright will be an uphill battle, especially when it enjoys the support from the public, and its effects are minimized by the government. However, this resolution is a major step toward holding the Philippine government accountable, and it shows that the international community is stepping in for all the right reasons.

Defining Duterte’s Impact in the Philippines

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has stood as a highly controversial figure. Some people see him as the savior, and others the destruction of the Republic of the Philippines. Former mayor of Davao and now in the Southeast Asian nation’s most powerful position, Duterte has received extreme scrutiny from other world leaders as well as the global public for not just his policy, but his language as well. A man of controversy and of much debated exultation and criticism, His infamous policy of Extra Judicial Killings (EJK), which are essentially killings without proper justice proceedings and usually in response to the belief of undesirable relationships with corrupted officials or individuals. In the case of the Philippines, the victims are often people believed to have had affiliations with drug dealers, regardless of whether or not those accusations were true. However, the controversy of Duterte’s presidency is more than just a question of policy, but also a symbol of what the people of the Philippines have been frustrated with for decades. Scoring a 35 on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), corruption is not of the past for the Philippines. Despite all that he is discriminated for, Duterte has an agenda in the Philippines, and many Filipinos believe he is exactly who deserves to be at the head of Filipino politics.

The revival of extrajudicial killings has led to polarized reactions. While this is not necessarily a new development on the global stage or in the Philippines, the resulting protests call for the end of unfair killings and for the return of due process. The policy was reinstated by the now president in an attempt to incite a war on drugs, as Duterte had even promised to kill his own children if they were commit the same crime he was punishing petty criminals and drug pushes for. Duterte has been compared to being “The Trump of the East”, both being known for their unruly and undiplomatic behavior. The former Davao mayor has been now associated with reformation and more popularly known for his populist course of action for the nation.

However, others have said that the two are entirely different. “The Philippines knows what it is getting. With Trump, America is looking at the unknown,” claims Charlie Campbell from Time. Amongst all the narratives surrounding Duterte, as a malicious dictator or a benevolent despot, in the shadows of colonial history an origin story of Philippines that goes unnoticed behind the curtains of modernity. With approximately a 78.4% voter turnout, Duterte won the majority vote with 16.6 million votes, 96.14% of the votes being processed. While not an overwhelming win, how does a man such as Duterte, who so outwardly made clear his unapologetic attitude towards sexual assault and his avowed hatred towards the drug dealers ravaging Philippine society win the vote of over 15 million people? Are the people of the Philippines the same way? He did not hide his agenda during his candidacy; he made it very clear that his intention was to eradicate drugs from the Philippines. And the people voted for him.

The path to independence for the Philippine islands is one wrought with blood and tribulation. Originally a territory of the Spanish empire, the United States took the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba in 1898. In a show of rebellion, anti-colonial Filipino nationalists fought back against United States’ imperial occupation in a bloody struggle that would come to be known as the Philippine-American War. During this time, the Americans ran a pacification campaign that led to the destruction of property and the torture and slaughter of Filipino civilians. Only after a bloody war between Filipino nationalists and American imperialists was the Philippines subjugated, eventually leading to the movement of Filipino labor abroad. During the course of this brief but brutal war lasting from 1899 to 1902, 4,200 American and 20,000 Filipino combatants died during the battles, while 200,000 Filipinos perished from famine, disease, and the ensuing violence.

Since the United States permitted Philippine independence in 1946, the Philippine still suffers from great poverty, and has yet to make significant progress economically and in terms of human rights. Despite having been a territory of the United State and, having their government modeled after American constitutional law, the islands are ravaged by poverty. The economy especially suffered during the time of President Ferdinand Marcos, and since has not recovered from his policies. According to the Asia Development Bank, 21.1% of the Philippines lives below the poverty line. Some people are unable to afford food to eat. Entire villages and cities are often poor, especially in the city of Manilla, so poor that they rely on food from the trash of the middle class for sustenance. In consequence to debilitating poverty comes the rampant crime. In the Philippines in Figures 2017 report from the Philippines Statistics Authority, the instances of known drug or substance only in rehabilitation figures is on the rise since 2012, starting at 2,744 cases in 2012 and rising to 4,392 in 2014. The crime in the Philippines gives rise to general discontent in Filipino citizens.

This historical deficiency, perpetuated by unstable oligarchies and frequent practice of cronyism was especially emphasized on September 22, 1972, when then President Ferdinand Marcos announced that the Philippines would be under martial law, which some viewed as a deviation from the American ideals and values that were taught so avidly by American colonizers. The reason for this sudden change is that the instances of crime in the city Manila had risen so high that it required military intervention to mitigate. The result however, was more abuses of human rights. Marcos used this power to suppress freedom of speech and expression. Military often abused their authority, and participated in bribery, unjust killing, and the like. President Duterte received extreme criticism when he allowed for Marco’s body to be honored as a war hero, some viewing it as a betrayal to all the sufferings their families suffered as a result of Marcos’ martial law. Even later, some even began to think that Duterte would become much like Marcos himself, in that he would respond with martial law with the rising unrest in southern Philippines, concerning the people of Mindanao and the Moro Islamist Liberation Front (MILF). Fears became reality when Duterte finally declared that the entire island of Mindanao would fall under martial law, in the hopes of capturing the Islamist terrorist leader Isnilon Hapilon.

However, the conflict reached its climax when, during the fighting in Marawi city, Hapilon and the main leaders of MILF were killed, and Duterte released Marawi city from martial law. While the fighting within the Philippines is not yet over, it is suffice to say that Duterte’s actions played a part in this culmination of events, regardless of whether one views the results of Duterte’s actions as a good or bad occurrence. Duterte represents the anger of the Philippines as a nation if not for his “war on drugs,” then for change in the Philippines. The narrative of the Philippines that stands so long forgotten is that the history of the Philippines is wrought with violence and inequality, resulting in frustrated population looking for change. Whether Duterte is, at the core, a good president or not is debatable. History may have the last word on that debate. But Duterte may not be the cause of the Philippine’s problems, but rather the answer of the people to a history of struggle and poverty.