Assessing the 31st ASEAN Summit
THE events of the last week put us in the global limelight. Whether the Summit fulfilled our expectations cannot be answered right now as many of the agreements would only bear fruit after sometime – a few years, a decade, or longer. And like in any democracy, there are varying opinions on whether the decisions made would redound to the benefit of the member countries and their people. Or whether the silence or failure to act on several urgent issues was the appropriate response at this critical period in our history.
My take on the Summit’s achievements. Let me start on what I consider positive gains. Overall, the emphasis on inclusivity, a creative response to the poorest sectors of society and the rights of labor, recognition of radical changes in the Asian environment, and the need to improve access to opportunities such as technology, shared economy, artificial intelligence, are laudable initiatives. Reaching a consensus on migrant rights, after 10 years of negotiation, could be described as a monumental achievement. This landmark document would provide rights such as visits by family members, right to hold passports, right to justice, etc. However, Migrante notes that the agreement is not legally binding, and that employers have the ultimate say on most matters.
The business summits’ focus on strengthening the capacities of the poor and marginalized sectors of society through a mentoring network for entrepreneurs; policy support for training, technology, and resources support to micro, small, and medium enterprises are among the noteworthy agreements.
Joey Concepcion, chair of the business summit, defended his choice of Vice President Leni Robredo as speaker at the closing ceremonies, saying that the fight against poverty should not have any political color. VP Leni underscored the need to address poverty and inequality through inclusivity; that in the final analysis, better lives should be the metrics of success.
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau certainly stole the show with his good looks and eloquence. His first field visit was at a Tondo maternal health center, where he met with women who had come to the clinic for check-up. Later, he stopped at a Jollibee branch for a Chicken Joy, which he said he used to enjoy back home where the food chain operates. A large percentage of Canada’s assistance to the country is currently channeled to projects on poverty alleviation, gender, health, and human rights concerns. More than anything else, he will be remembered for his candor, for speaking out on controversial issues which others had faced with silence. One is human rights (he brought up this issue with the President who regarded it as an insult); another is the Rohingya crisis which called for a sustained and just solution; the nuclear weapons build-up by North Korea; and finally, the women’s issue, which was not taken up as a separate concern but merely integrated in the agenda of the other summits. Women, Trudeau noted, are the prime economic drivers; feminism is recognizing the equality of men and women.”
The more noteworthy achievements were agreements made during the bilateral meetings. I was particularly impressed with the Japan-ASEAN Environmental Initiative for building recycling-oriented society so that sustainable development goals are attained in disaster risk reduction, health, science and technology, and in dealing with challenges such as aging. The same can be said about ASEAN Plus Three initiative to address food security, and the MOU on Cooperation in Mass Communication, and Education, among others.
Now on the negatives and missed opportunities.
ASEAN’s policy on non-interference, and the collective agreement that solutions should be based on consensus and compromise, proved to be the main hurdle in its decision-making. For instance, while talks had been ongoing regarding the need for an ASEAN Code of Conduct, this Summit postponed discussion, saying they would have committees working on it for discussion during the next summit. There was silence on the conflict brewing in our own West Philippine Sea. There was no statement against militarization or the arbitral ruling. As De la Salle University professor Renato de Castro said, the policy response was that of flattery, of appeasing China. Although the Rohingya issue was identified in the plenary as critical, and needing urgent response, there was no concrete agreement on the issue. The only statement was to further look into the problem affecting the Rohingyas in their own province. UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres’ statement at the ASEAN-UN summit summarized the UN response to the importance of ensuring “access, safe, dignified, voluntary, and sustained returns, as well as true reconciliation between communities.”
Civil society and opposition groups were disappointed that the ASEAN statement failed to mention the alleged genocide of Rohingya Muslims . Although the joint statement between the US and the Philippines underscored that “human rights and the dignity of human life are essential, US President Trump did not raise the issue of extrajudicial killings. Both Trudeau and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinta Arden who raised the issue of human rights and drug killings with the President, were thanked by Senator Francis Pangilinan, Liberal Party president.
Finally, the lack of participation of our vibrant nongovernment organizations in the recent as well as past summits had been deplored by several groups.
Except for the street protests and the burning of effigies which were expected in events like these, and the cancelled concert at the end of the summit, we can say it was a successful venture. We congratulate the Summit organizers and those in charge of security.
Nonetheless, we hope that ASEAN would seriously examine its decisionmaking practice of non-interference, consensus, and compromise, and that its goal of inclusivity would translate into action so that it could become a more responsive regional group.