When it comes to protecting human rights in the ASEAN, remember the adage: Watch what they do, not what they say. In this part of the world, words work differently. Elsewhere you must ?say what you mean and mean what you say.? Hereabouts words are merely one of many props in talking, and the true message has to be divined from within the tangle of symbols, sometimes overt, sometimes subtle, that are the true bearers of meaning.

Assume that mindset when you read the ASEAN?s grand declarations on human rights. Only then can you reconcile the paper declarations with the brutal fact that the ASEAN way is to look the other way. How could the ASEAN ministers reject the Philippine civil society representative during their ?interface? with civil society? Sr. Cres Lucero of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Conception leads Task Force Detainees, a group that during the dark years of martial law saw the Church?s ?prophetic mission? in keeping the flame alive. Yet at 11:30 p.m., on the eve of the dialogue, she was roused from her sleep with the urgent message that the ASEAN ministers, including the Philippines? own, had voted to block her and four others from the dialogue.

In that context, let me tell you why the proposed ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) looks good on paper. Its seven members will sit ?in a personal capacity??lawyer mumbo-jumbo to say that they should be independent of their state of nationality.

Though some powers may seem too soft for the feisty activists gunning for a showdown, the AICHR is not entirely toothless either: ?to investigate [violation] on its own initiative?; to act on complaints a.k.a. ?petitions and communications,? which significantly can be filed by individuals or even by NGOs. Finally, states may not enter ?reservations??literally ?no ifs or buts,? no ?opting-out??when they sign up.

But the AICHR has a dark, devious side. One, the HRC can in the end only make recommendations. The ?naming and shaming? process may have worked elsewhere, but how do you shame the shameless? How does one appeal to conscience when the other has none?

Two, the name itself is wishy-washy. As a ?Commission,? it would have supervisory power of the states. But they now insert ?Intergovernmental? just to make sure we don?t forget who?s boss and who?s paying, exactly what the governments were doing when they barred the civil society representatives.

Three, and most important, look at the innocuous Article 2, the knockout punch against the AICHR. It states the ?sources of law? that identify exactly which human rights the AICHR is empowered to watch out for. Read it verbatim: ?Inspiration shall be drawn from international law on human rights [and] universally recognized human rights standards and principles ?. The relevant instruments of international law include the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights [1948 UDHR], the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development, the 1993 Vienna Declaration, ? and the treaties to which the Contracting States have acceded.?

One, if this treaty is meant to be a binding instrument, why the sudden shift to soft language like ?Inspiration shall be drawn from ??? Either the rights are binding or they?re not. Don?t give me any ?inspiration? stuff here, guys, and spare me the passive ?shall be drawn from.? I tell you, this kind of draftsmanship bears the telltales of someone trying to avoid something. Article 2 says how the AICHR will be inspired, but says nothing on what it can actually enforce. When Article 2 was adopted, I can imagine the ASEAN torturers smiling like the cat that ate the canary.

Two, another case of fudging is the term ?relevant instruments.? Why not ?applicable? or ?enforceable?? Worse, the list is spotty to say the least. It starts with a 1948 document and then jumps to 1986. It skips the two landmark documents, the 1966 International Covenants, one on Civil and Political Rights, the other on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And it leaves hanging the ?brooding omnipresence? of customary law, like the ban on torture that should apply even in the absence of any treaty.

Instead, it lists non-binding instruments, starting with the 1948 UDHR that the Philippine Supreme Court has pooh-poohed as a mere motherhood statement (in a case where a Chinese trader invoked its non-discrimination clause). Next, it lists two non-binding documents that actually lay the basis to say that civil rights can be postponed in exchange for economic growth: the Right to Development declaration and the Vienna declaration. Their code words are ?all human rights [political and economic] are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated??innocent words that have been twisted at immense human cost.

The coup de grace to this human rights instrument is the catch-all clause: ?and the treaties to which the Contracting States have acceded.? So you think this open-ended formula will open the door to encompass more rights? Think again. It means that the AICHR can enforce only such human rights treaties that individual states will first accept.

In contrast, the Inter-American and the African human rights mechanisms are bound by a stand-alone, self-contained charter of rights. The AICHR has no human rights charter to enforce, but merely cross-references the enforcement regime to a pick-and-choose menu of treaties. If a state doesn?t sign any human rights treaty, you will have a human rights commission with no human rights to advance vis-à-vis that state. It?s like telling Hitler: Watch out, you Nazi butcher! But first, please tell us what rules we can enforce against you.

* * *

Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com