INDEX

CIVIL SOCIETY
ENGAGEMENT: ASEAN
AND WOMENS RIGHTS

1. Introduction
2. Key Findings
3. ASEAN
a. Institutional
b. Cultural
4. Womens Rights
a. Human Trafficking
b. Violence
5. Civil Society Engagement
a. Top Down Engagement
b. Bottom Up Engagement
c. To Engage or Not to
Engage?
d. Moving Forward
6. Conclusion

AN INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL

EXPLORATION

Marianne Dutkiewicz
East-West Center

1. INTRODUCTION
The question posed for the research
fellowship (Project) was: How do
ASEAN human rights mechanisms
interact with civil society organizations
to protect and promote womens rights?
Accordingly, this report outlines my
findings in three key areas:
!

Civil society engagement;

ASEAN; and

Womens Rights.

The flexible nature of the Project

allowed me the space to the scratch
the surface on a number of interesting
topics. The Project makes various
generalisations and assumptions and is
in no way a comprehensive analysis of
the topics discussed. The identities of
people have been intentionally left
vague.
While the Project may not be as focused
as traditional research, it has given me
the opportunity to engage with a range
of individuals from journalists and
genocide survivors to members of the
ASEAN Secretariat and an
Ambassador. The generosity and
openness of the people I have engaged
with has been astounding and I treasure
the network and relationships that I
have built.

The chart below attempts to visually explain the wide scope of the Project
and how the three key areas interrelate.
Key points to note:
!

Civil society engagement is the core element of the Project. ASEAN (as
a body) and Womens Rights (as an issue) are used as two case
studies to look at civil society engagement.

Civil society engagement is not exclusively for civil society organisations

(CSOs) citizens outside an organisational capacity can engage where
circumstances permit. The Project focuses on CSOs because, for
practical reasons, they are the most common vehicles for engagement.

The double arrows between civil society engagement and the two case
studies indicate the reciprocal nature of engagement (top down initiated
or bottom up initiated).

CIVIL SOCIETY
ENGAGEMENT

MULITNATIONAL
BODIES

ASEAN

United Nations

WOMENS RIGHTS

Human
Trafficking

Violence

DATA

2. KEY FINDINGS

Field time:
25/01/16 03/05/16

ASEAN

Locations:
Thailand
Cambodia
Indonesia

!
!

Institutional limitations on human rights bodies inherently impact on civil

society engagement: mandate, political influence, funding etc; and
Some cultural elements of ASEAN do not provide a favourable context for
civil society engagement: The ASEAN Way, lack of ASEAN identity etc.

Womens Rights

Organisations/individuals:
International: 6
Regional: 15
National: 10
Interviewees gender:
Females: 20
Males: 16

!
!

Human trafficking is a regional, crosscutting issue that requires a

response from various levels (civil society, national, regional); and
Both human trafficking and violence against women have deep root
causes, some of which derive from cultural norms.

Civil Society Engagement

!

Conferences/meetings:
UN hosted: 3
ASEAN hosted: 2

!
!
!

Engagement is more forthcoming on less contentious issues: womens

rights vs. human rights;
In terms of engagement behaviour, there appears to be reciprocal fault on
behalf of both ASEAN and CSOs;
There are balanced arguments both for and against the value of civil
society engagement with ASEAN but ultimately it is better to be sitting at
the table; and
Cohesive civil society strategies are needed for effective and ongoing
engagement.

3. ASEAN
Established in August 1967, The Association of Southeast Asia Nations
(ASEAN) is a regional grouping in Southeast Asia. In 2003, ASEAN leaders
agreed to transform the organisation into an ASEAN Community. The
ASEAN Community was formally established on 31 December 2015 and
comprises of three pillars: Political-Security, Economic and Socio-Cultural.
a. Institutional
i. ACWC

ACWC is just a small

sectorial body without
teeth... We are just
mobilisers and legally
we cannot do anything
all the things we do
are voluntary and
without resources.
ACWC Member

Established in 2010 under the Socio-Cultural pillar, the ASEAN Commission

on the Promotion and the Protection of the Rights of Women and Children
(ACWC) was designed to promote and protect the human rights of women
and children in ASEAN. The (non-exhaustive) institutional aspects I
discovered that impact on civil society engagement are:
!

Mandate: ACWC is only required to hold two meetings per year. ACWC
representatives are not engaged in a full time capacity and must
undertake the ACWC role in additional to their job at home. As such, one
member of civil society commented that ACWC is symbolic.

Funding: The ACWC receives very little funding from the ASEAN
Secretariat and member states. However, some CSOs have collaborated
with and provided funding to ACWC to assist in its activities (e.g. FORUMASIA). The openness of ACWC to collaboration and funding assistance is
a good sign of a consultative relationship moving forward.

Influence: ACWC representatives are picked by their respective

governments to serve three-year terms they may be removed or
replaced at the will of their governments. ACWC representatives have
been a mix of civil society and government affiliates, which results in
varying levels of influence within their governments.

ii. AICHR
Established in 2009 under the Political-Security pillar,
the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human
Rights (AICHR) was designed to promote and protect
the human rights of people in ASEAN. The (nonexhaustive) institutional aspects I discovered that
impact on civil society engagement are:
!

The recognition of human rights: The existence

of AICHR has allowed human rights to be put on
the agenda at the national and regional levels.
Largely seen as a taboo word by many
governments, a member of the ASEAN Secretariat
commented that the very existence of AICHR
means that governments are duty bound to
acknowledge the existence of human rights.
Without the acknowledgement of an issue there can
be no civil society engagement.
Independence: A common criticism of AICHR is
that it lacks the status of an independent human
rights institution like its other regional equivalents.
This has caused many to argue that AICHR is too
political in nature to meaningfully discuss human
rights and engage with CSOs. As an example, I
was informed by a regional NGO that AICHR is yet
to release any statements on human rights in the
region. A member of an international NGO noted
that AICHR has been designed to to keep human
rights safely behind bars.

Decision-making: AICHRs adoption of consensus

decision-making and veto power (discussed more
below) supports the independence concern above.
A member of an international NGO commented the
real decisions get made in the national capitals.
Decision-making processes impact on civil society
engagement independent decision-making
capacity allows space for CSOs views to be
meaningfully considered.

Appointments: Some expressed concern around

the failure of some governments to adopt open and
transparent processes of selection. Due to this,
some question whether selected AICHR
representatives have the necessary expertise for
their position. Similarly to ACWC, AICHR
representatives have come from both government
and civil society backgrounds.

the word Intergovernmental in

AICHR means that the Commission
is only the extension of the states
power.
Regional Academic
3

b. Cultural
i. The ASEAN way
The ASEAN way is a colloquial but commonly know term
that refers to the ASEAN style of diplomacy. The Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, signed by
ASEAN members states in 1976, sets out the fundamental
principles of ASEAN diplomacy, namely Mutual respect
for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial
integrity, and national identity of all nations.
!

Non-interference: The ASEAN way emphasises an

unwillingness to interfere in matters that are personal
or unique to member states. Strict adoption of the noninterference mentality has the prospect of restricting
civil society engagement. It is arguable that if ASEAN
states are not willing to let other states, or even
ASEAN itself, engage in internal affairs then it is
unlikely that engagement space for civil society will be
provided, particularly for those CSOs critical of their
governments.

Decision-making: ASEANs consensus-based

decision-making requires all ASEAN initiatives to have
full member state agreement and support. Both AICHR
and ACWC utilise consensus decision-making. A
member of an international NGO described the
consensus rule for ASEAN as a safety blanket in that
it is happy to talk about contentious issues but if things
ever go too far then member states can veto. If
consensus decision-making is indeed a safety
blanket then it is arguable that any civil society
engagement that does occur will not be meaningful.
Members, armed with the knowledge that action on
contentious issues will almost certainly be blocked,
may just be seen to be paying lip service when
engaging with CSOs.

ii. ASEAN Awareness and Identity

!

Awareness: A study conducted in 2013 by the

ASEAN Secretariat revealed that 76% of those
surveyed lacked a basic understanding of what
ASEAN is and what it is trying to do. If people,
especially CSOs, are not aware of ASEAN then it will
only serve a minority of people. Most, if not all, of the
people and organisations talked to during the Project
were aware of ASEAN but only a handful were actively
attempting to engage. A regional development
specialist has suggested the introduction of an
ASEAN Identity and Sense of Awareness Index to
tangibly measure awareness of and participation in
ASEAN.

Identity: The building of an ASEAN identity is a key part

of the ASEAN Community. The creation and adoption
of an ASEAN identity involves ASEAN citizens being
both aware of ASEAN and feeling that they are part of
ASEAN. Various initiatives are in the pipeline or have
been concluded to raise this sense of identity, for
example loosening of travel visa requirements. Civil
society engagement is one such way to build an ASEAN
identity. Where CSOs have the space for their voices to
be heard, even if only symbolically, this may increase
ASEAN sentiment and therefore identity.

iii. People-centred vs. People-oriented

The ASEAN 2025 Vision aspires to: A rules-based, peopleoriented, people-centred ASEAN in a region of peace,
stability and prosperity. The definition and significance of
people-oriented vs. people centered came up during the
Project. At a basic level, the two can be differentiated as
follows:
!
!

UN Women: http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/endingviolence-against-women/facts-and-figures

i. Institutional
!

ASEAN: In November 2015 ASEAN leaders signed a

legally binding agreement The ASEAN Convention
Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women
and Children. To date, Cambodia, Singapore and
Thailand have ratified the document. The Senior
Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime (SOMTC)
drafted the Trafficking Convention. A member of a
regional development project informed me that the
drafting of the Convention was solely done by
SOMTC and they chose not to involve AICHR or
ACWC. This is an example of the silo criticism that
some direct at the work of ASEAN. More positively, I
am aware of two regional development groups that
were loosely involved in the Trafficking Convention
process. While these groups are not CSOs, it is
encouraging to see the influence of external parties in
this process.

United Nations: The United Nations Action for

Cooperation Against Trafficking in Persons (UN-ACT)
is the UN coordination body for human trafficking in
the region. Trafficking cross cuts many UN agencies
(UN Women, UNICEF, ILO etc.) therefore it is
necessary to have a coordination body. A member of
a regional NGO praised UN-ACT, commenting that
they work tirelessly to engage governments.
Despite this, the Project revealed a feeling of
disconnect between policy and grassroots level on
this issue i.e. what is being said at the top does not
translate or connect to whats happening on the
ground. A member of an international NGO stated
that multinational meetings need to be inclusive with
civil society being empowered to be involved and the
voices of victims/survivors heard.

People-oriented = outcome focus, delivering FOR the

people; and
People-centered = action focused, delivering WITH the
people.

The two concepts are complimentary however some people

believe that ASEAN member states are preferring and
implementing one over the other. A senior ASEAN official
from Thailand commented that the Thai approach is very
much people-centered. A people-centered approach lends
itself to increased civil society engagement.

ASEAN has come to realise that it

cannot evolve as it has an elite
organisation utilising a top down
approachThe key themes that
underpin the Community are: rules
based, people centeredness and
inclusivity.

4. WOMENS RIGHTS
a. Human Trafficking
Human trafficking occurs for a range of exploitative
purposes (sex: forced prostitution, child marriage etc.
and labour: debt bondage, forced labour etc.). Human
trafficking victimises women, men and children. The
Project focused on sex trafficking of girls/women.

ii. Cultural
The cultural aspects outlined below are not all directly
linked to issues concerning civil society engagement.
However, the points below derived from some of the most
interesting conversations of the Project and I feel it is
important to at least outline them.

The views expressed are those of the people I

spoke with and usually represent their
impressions from working in the field rather than
stemming from legitimate research. Some of the
issues outlined are contentious and are not in
anyway intended to offend.

Cultural karma: A member of a national

NGO commented that she had come across a
belief that if you are born a girl then you have
done something bad in your past life shame
is automatically bestowed on your family. As
such, a devaluation of girls/women may be an
inherent part of the cultural fabric of some
societies.

Family debt: The Project revealed that in

some instances, girls/women are sold by their
parents to human traffickers. A member of a
national NGO commented that in Cambodia
some girls/women hold a mentality that the
family has made a great sacrifice to raise her
and now it is her turn to repay the debt.
Similarly, a member of a regional NGO
commented that in some parts of traditional
Thai culture the oldest girl has a duty to look
after her family. As such, girls who are
rescued often want to return home to their
families.

Rape shame: A member of a national NGO

commented that in Cambodia great shame is
cast on a girl/women if she raped people
may say, it was her fault she was raped.
This shame is also cast on the family and
may lead to the girl fleeing her home.
Migration into unfamiliar territory makes
girls/women particularly vulnerable to being
trafficked.

Sexual boundaries: A member of a national

NGO commented that she has observed a
lack of sexual boundaries and autonomy in
some parts of Southeast Asia. For example, it
used to be common practice for new mothers
to be taught by hospital staff to calm their
babies by sexually stimulating them. The
member noted that this practice is no longer
being taught in Thai cities but is still common
rurally and among family teaching.

The cycle: A member of a regional NGO

commented that girls/women who have been
trafficked are often the best recruiters. The
member noted that girls who have been
trafficked sometimes return to their villages
and flout their wealth and material
possessions gained during their ordeal.
Girls/women in the village aspire to have this
same kind of wealth and, either consciously
or unconsciously, the trafficked become the
traffickers.

b. Violence
The Project revealed that violence against women is a
significant concern in the region.
i. Institutional
!

ASEAN: Violence against women has been addressed at

the ASEAN level with the recent release of the Regional
Plan Of Action on the Elimination Of Violence Against
Women (RPA-EVAW). The RPA-EVAW underwent several
consultations with the member states and CSOs. Inputs into
the document were shared before it was finalized and
adopted. After its adoption, CSOs were again consulted on
the implementation of RPA-EVAW (which I was present at
and will discuss more below). The continuity of consultation
taken during RPA-EVAW demonstrates active and
meaningful civil society engagement on this initiative.

United Nations: UN Women is the UN agency in charge of

ending violence against women. A member of a regional
organisation commented that UN Women is extremely
territorial. The Commission on the Status of Women
(CSW) is the intergoverntal body tasked with promoting
gender equality and the empowerment of women. The
CSWs review theme for 2016 is The elimination and
prevention of all forms of violence against women and
girls. The Project allowed me the opportunity to sit in on
th
the Asia-Pacific Regional seminar in preparation for the 60
session of the Commission on the Status of Women:
Transformative financing for the achievement of gender
equality. While the seminar was not specifically on violence
against women, this was a useful experience to observe
civil society involvement in an intergovernmental arena.

UN Women: http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/endingviolence-against-women/facts-and-figures

ii. Cultural
Again, the cultural aspects outlined here are not all directly
linked to issues around civil society engagement. This
discussion solely focuses on violence against women in the
context of Cambodia.

Religion: A former Cambodian political leader

commented that he believed violence against
women to be the biggest issue facing women in
Cambodia. Among other things, he saw this as a
failure of the Buddhist community in placing a Nuns
role as secondary to a Monks role. Positively, he
explained how in Cambodia women are traditionally
the most persistent and resilient in the face of
adversity. As an example, he citied the significant
number of women activists leading protests around
land rights.
Activism and domestic violence: Interestingly, a
member of a national NGO drew the connection
between women activism and domestic violence.
The member explained a study she had conducted
which found women activists either began suffering
from or experienced an increase in domestic
violence following their entry into activism. Among
other things, this was attributed to the fact that
these women were no longer viewed as good
wives as their activism distracted them from their
household duties. The connection between activism
and domestic violence is concerning for civil society
groups. If women leaders face adversity at home
this may hinder their continued participation in
activism.

violence against women is a

violation of human rights, it is a
manifestation of historically
unequal power relations between
women and men which prevail in all
countries and impact all aspects of
the victims private and public life.
ACWC Member

5. CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT

a. Top Down Engagement
Top down engagement refers to civil society engagement
that is either initiated or driven by regional or state bodies.
i. ASEAN
The 2012 ASEAN Guidelines on Accreditation for Civil
Society Organizations requires CSOs to be accreddited in
order to engage with ASEAN. In practice, different ASEAN
bodies adopt their own accredation for CSO enagement.
In general, it is evident that top down engagement between
ASEAN and civil society is ad hoc. Engagement occurs on
an issue-by-issue basis rather than being an institutionalised
aspect of the bodies. Although engagement exists, the
project revealed a common criticism around the selectivity of
organisations asked to engage.
6

Regional organisations are wrapped

up in the regional tethercountries
are self-selecting NGOs who they
want to deal withIts a dialogue
where one side talks, the other side
pretends to listen.
Member of International NGO
ii. ACWC
!

Progressive: The Project revealed a general attitude

that ACWC is more progressive and open in its civil
society engagement than AICHR. A member of a
regional NGO commented that ACWCs engagement
with CSOs started right from its inception and that
although they do not discuss hardcore human rights
issues they are open to talking about many womens
and childrens issues. A number of people attributed
ACWCs openness to the fact that womens and
childrens rights are not seen as being a contentious
issue in ASEAN everyone can agree on womens
and childrens issues.

Guidelines: Unlike AICHR, ACWC does not have

formal guidelines dictating its engagement with CSOs.
A member of a regional NGO explained that the
rationale for this is a belief that guidelines would just
limit interaction with CSOs. While this rationale is
positive, an engagement structure that lacks a solid
base is vulnerable to sudden changes should the
attitude of ACWC change in the future. An example of
an issue that flexibility can create was revealed during
a discussion with a member from an international
NGO. The member was invited by one of its donors to
present at an ACWC workshop at the last minute the
member felt that their presence there did not make
sense and was not useful as they were not involved in
the planning and strategic direction of the topic ACWC
was pursuing.

The Project afforded me the opportunity to witness ACWC

engagement with CSOs first hand during the Regional
Consultation of the ACWC on the Implementation of the
Regional Plans Of Action (RPAs) on the Elimination Of
Violence Against Women and the Elimination Of Violence
Against Children: 29 30 March 2016. As mentioned
above, the formation of the RPAs involved CSOs from
inception through to implementation. A few comments and
observations from the consultation follows:
!

Collaboration is valued: A member of ACWC

encouragingly commented: The foundation of making
this RPA succeed is the partnership and collaboration
with CSOs as well as communities and education
institutions.

Communication is possible: A member of regional

NGO commented: This consultation has finally
opened Pandoras box of how organisations are
meant to directly communicate with ASEAN.

A lack of basic understanding: The comments from

some CSOs revealed that there might be a lack of
understanding around the mandate of ACWC and
what it can actually implement and achieve.

Government Organised NGOs (GONGOs): Some

questioned the nature of some of the invited CSOs. A
member of a regional NGO commented that some
real CSOs from [country] were too afraid to attend

This consultation has finally opened

Pandoras box of how organisations are
meant to directly communicate with ASEAN.
Member of Regional NGO
iii. AICHR
The project revealed that civil society engagement with
AICHR has largely been limited to involvement in various
workshops. A few comments and observations follows:
!

Consultative relationship: In early 2016, AICHR

adopted guidelines for CSOs to apply to have a
consultative relationship. This is a promising step
forward for civil society engagement however concerns
have been raised around the wording of the guidelines,
for example a lack of clear, transparent and nondiscriminatory processes of selection. The practical
benefits of being afforded this consultative
relationship are yet to be clearly defined. This
relationship is a positive step towards a more
institutionalised form of civil society engagement. The
Project revealed that a consultative relationship has
been afforded to five CSOs with at least three CSOs
having their application rejected. A few relevant
comments around this:

A member of the ASEAN Secretariat expressed

concern around some of the applications coming
in. The member stated that some CSOs have
failed to give all required documentation and that a
lot of toing and froing has occurred. More
critically, the member stated that some CSOs had
failed to explain why they want this relationships
and what they will do with the relationship.

A member of a regional organisation commented

that some CSOs have been rejected for superficial
reasons because AICHR is afraid of them.

Positivity: The project revealed a sense of positivity

with the new wave of incoming AICHR reps. A member
of a regional organisation commented that the outgoing
representatives (many of the original AICHR members)
grew into the role under the cloud of human rights
being seen as dangerous territory. As such, liberal
members of AICHR were a minority. The member
commented that the new representatives will provide a
balance shift to liberal representatives now being the
majority. This point highlights the inherent difficulty in
talking about AICHR as an entity because the differing
personalities and stances of its representatives can
have an impact on AICHRs work.
iv. UNITED NATIONS
UN processes usually always involve some kind of civil
society engagement. The project allowed me to attend
two UN intergovernmental forums that involved CSOs.
Firstly, the Project allowed me to attend Asia-Pacific
Forum on Sustainable Development: 3 5 April 2016.
Some observations relevant to civil society engagement
include:
!

Timing: Civil society had designated seats and

times for their comments. Unfortunately their slot
allocation was always last and due to timing issues
often have time deducted for their comments.

Youth: The Forum opened with two speeches by

teenagers from the region (Myanmar and India).
These were the most interesting and thoughtful
remarks during the whole Forum. It is positive to see
youth involvement at this level.

Symbolic: A member of a regional organisation

commented that often at regional level, everything is
a done deal before the actual forum. If this is the
case, civil society engagement is unlikely to
meaningfully influence the outcome.

Secondly, the Project also allowed me the opportunity to

sit in on the Asia-Pacific Regional seminar in preparation
th
for the 60 session of the Commission on the Status of
Women: Transformative financing for the achievement of
gender equality. Some observations relevant to civil
society engagement include:
!

Involvement: I estimate that civil society (both

CSOs and individuals) made up around half the
participants. The floor was open to civil society at all
times for questions and many civil society experts
spoke on various panels.

Expertise: A member of an international

organisation expressed some concerns around the
status of country representatives present. The
member noted that its not compulsory for
governments to attend and it is up to each
government to decide who will attend. As a result,
there is no continuity of representatives and some
representatives have little or no knowledge of
womens issues. Civil society engagement in these
forums is likely to be less meaningful where state
representatives are unfamiliar with the subject
matter.

A key feature of APF is the Leaders Interface (Interface)

whereby ASEAN Leaders engage in a discussion with the
APF. The Interface is a unique opportunity for CSOs to
engage directly with leaders, however this activity has
been shrouded in controversy over the years. The Project
revealed the following observations around the Interface:
!

Decreasing space: The existence of the Interface has

not been consistent throughout the years. The
sentiment from CSOs is that the existence of the
interface largely depends on the attitude of the
government chairing ASEAN for that year. While the
sentiment from ASEAN appears to be that it has been
the behaviour of CSOs that dictates the existence of
the Interface. The project did not delve into the history
of the Interface but from my discussions it appears that
the time for Interface has decreased over the years
from 2 hours to 15 minutes and the scope of issues
allowed to be discussed has been similarly narrowed.

Behaviour: As mentioned above, some concerns

have been raised around the behaviour of CSOs
during the Interface and the impact this has had on the
willingness of leaders to engage. A member of the
ASEAN Secretariat commented that on a number of
occasions CSOs have embarrassed the Chairmanship.
The example given by the member was when CSOs
boycotted the Interface in 2014. Concern was also
raised with what is seen as CSOs aggressive, fingerpointing strategy. A senior ASEAN official commented
that the approach of dragging leaders into the
woodshed has caused many leaders to become afraid
of CSOs. Interestingly, a member of the ASEAN
Secretariat commented that some donors encourage
CSOs to be adversarial and that if they are not being
this way then they are not being true to their cause.
The Project did not reveal comments around ASEAN
Leaders behaviour during the Interface however I
anticipate that such examples exist and these have
similarly impacted on CSOs willingness to engage.

Disagreements: Civil society presented strong

voices when two countries raised issues with the use
of human rights instead of womens rights in the
outcome document. The outcome document was not
binding and only intended to provide an overview of
the discussion during the forum. Despite the strong,
well-evidenced arguments of civil society that
womens rights are human rights, the term was
removed from the document.

b. Bottom Up Engagement
Bottom up engagement refers to civil society engagement that
is either initiated or driven by civil society itself.

Many leaders are afraid of NGOs

NGOs have been quite
assertive and aggressive and
this is a different language than
what leaders are used to.
Senior Thai ASEAN official

i. ASEAN
The primary bottom up engagement mechanism is the
ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN Peoples Forum
(APF). The APF is the civil society organised meeting that is
held as a parallel to the ASEAN Summit each year. The APF
allows CSOs to discuss issues of concern, which is then
translated into a joint statement and recommendations for
ASEAN leaders to consider at the ASEAN Summit.
8

ii. UNITED NATIONS

In terms of human trafficking, the Project revealed a feeling
of disconnect between the policy and grassroots levels i.e.
what is being said at the top does not translate or connect
to whats happening on the ground.

A member of an international NGO commented that

multinational meetings needed to be inclusive with CSOs
being empowered to be involved and the voices of
victims/survivors heard. I explored this further and one
member of a national NGO commented that it is
challenging to bring the voices of victims/survivors up to
the policy level. A member of a regional organisation
outlined some specific points on this issue:
!

Do victims/survivors really want to be there or do they

just feel indebted to the organisation who asked them
to speak? The member explained one situation where
two victims/survivors wanted to start doing advocacy
work so they viewed this as a learning experience and
genuinely wanted to be involved.

Is speaking about highly traumatic experiences

appropriate in this type of forum? If the victim/survivor
breaks down and cannot communicate their point is
this useful for either side? The member contrasted two
situations whereby victim/survivor voices were more
effective when the speakers did not break down.

In terms of violence against women, the Project similarly

looked at the involvement of victims/survivors of violence at
the multinational meeting level. A member of a national
NGO stated that many of their donors had encouraged this
but that in practice it has been a lot of work and cost a lot
of money. Nevertheless, the member stated that the
women were extremely empowered by the experience and
learnt more about the process. Inspiringly, the member
commented that seeing the confidence and resilience of
these women in this setting is what gets her through
difficult moments of her work.

c. To Engage or Not to Engage?

As the bulk of the Project focused on ASEAN engagement,
this section will outline attitudes and arguments both for and
against engagement and the importance of strategy moving
forward.

Persistence: The Project revealed a common

attitude that the race for meaningful engagement is
a marathon not a sprint. An AICHR member has
commented that the best way to advocate for
change is to push slowly and deliberately. Further,
a member of the ASEAN Secretariat noted that
discussing and negotiating contentious issues such
as human rights at the regional level is a different
ball game to the national level. As such, CSOs
need to accept that sometimes it is only possible to
take the low hanging fruit and that some issues
may take time.

A Sense of Duty: One regional NGO I spoke to

recognised the challenges in engagement but stated
that it is CSOs right and therefore duty to continue
trying to engage, specifically: Civil society are the
real owners of peoples issues and therefore it is out
right to keep asking ASEAN to look after the rights of
people

Being Present: Despite criticisms of current

engagement mechanisms, there was recognition
among some that criticising and not engaging will not
improve the situation. A member of the ASEAN
Secretariat noted that: If civil society says that
AICHR is not working then it will never improve
AICHR needs civil society just as much as civil
society needs AICHRyou have to try and work with
the system to change the system Further, one
regional academic commented you cannot change
anything without sitting with ASEAN.

i. For
!

Relative Success: The Project revealed that a number

of people saw tangible successes resulting from civil
society engagement. A regional academic outlined three
key successes that can be attributed to advocacy by and
engagement with CSOs:
!
!
!

The recognition and importance of a people

centered, people oriented ASEAN;
The recognition and uptake of human rights as an
issue; and
The openness and acceptance of ASEAN member
states to international humanitarian assistance. The
academic noted that this success is less discussed
among CSOs.

If civil society says that AICHR

is not working then it will never
improve AICHR needs civil
society just as much as civil
society needs AICHRyou have
to try and work with the system to
change the system
Member of ASEAN Secretariat

ii. Against
!

National Level: Some CSOs believe it is more

beneficial to work at the national level as this is where
they see that real change can occur. A member of a
regional NGO commented, the real work on human
rights is being done at the national level. A member of
ACWC recognised the frustrations that can occur at the
ASEAN level and commented: Don't be discouraged
if you want to do things then do it, it can be difficult to
get things done at the ASEAN level.
International Obligations: The Project revealed a
concern by some organisations around ASEANs
disregard and undermining of well-established
international human rights principles, specifically
through the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD).
An example is the juxtaposed language of Article 7 of
AHRD, which undermines the principle of universality
(the duty of States to promote and protect all human
rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their
political, economic and cultural systems). The
undermining of international human rights principles has
led some CSOs to refuse to be involved with anything
that mentions the AHRD described as an informal
picket line this has an obvious impact on civil society
engagement.

Progress and Funding: In the challenging and uncertain

funding environments that CSOs commonly find
themselves, it has been hard for some CSOs to justify
continued advocacy and engagement where results are
not apparent. A member of an international NGO
commented that CSOs can only bang their head on the
wall so much until it hurts. More specifically, that same
member stated: Were not getting closer to real
participation with ASEAN instead, its becoming more
fleeting, more illusory, more mired in happy talk rhetoric
that has little to do with the human rights struggles faced
by ordinary people in the region. As a result of such
perceptions, some believe that CSOs have lost their
momentum in engaging with ASEAN. A member of a
regional organisation commented that people are getting
tired of not being heard and fears that fatigue/frustration
is setting in.

CSOs can only bang their head on

the wall so much until it hurts.
Member of International NGO

10

d. Moving Forward
The Project revealed two suggestions to enhance civil
society engagement.
!

Independent institutions: As outlined above, there

is a concern around the independence from, and
reliance on, governments among the ASEAN human
rights institutions particularly AICHR. If human
rights institutions are independent in their operations
it follows that they can be more open to and
reciprocal of CSOs without fear of redress. However,
given the cultural aspects of ASEAN outlined above
(e.g. the ASEAN way), it seems unlikely that any
meaningful change in this area will occur in the near
future.

Institutionalised engagement: As outlined above,

most civil society engagement with ASEAN human
rights institutions occurs on an ad hoc basis. As
such, some people called for engagement to be
solidified through institutionalisation.

The Project revealed the following strategy points for

CSOs to consider moving forward:
Prioritise: The resource and mandate issues of
ASEAN human rights institutions and the limited time
that CSOs get to speak with Leaders means that
overloading them with issues is unlikely to be
productive. As such, it has been suggested that
CSOs get together to pursue a common agenda and
priortise key issues. It is evident that the platform for
this already exists through the APF.

dont call human rights human rights

Diplomat

Language/Narrative: It has been suggested that

CSOs and leaders learn to speak each others
language. Leaders need to be more open and CSOs
need to be more respectful. The Project revealed one
suggestion for CSOs on how they frame contentious
issues. A member of a diplomatic community stressed
the importance of creating the right narrative to get
things done, for example dont call human rights
human rights. Where possible, CSOs could attempt
to creatively frame their advocacy and engagement
around less contentious issues while making inroads
into more contentious areas (e.g. framing migrant
issues which are highly contentious around human
trafficking issues which are less contentious but a
significant contributor to migrant problems).

Youth: Youth are an important part of CSOs as they

are the future leaders and change makers. One
younger member of a regional CSO expressed
concern in that: some older CSO members are not
letting younger people come through with new ideas
and approaches they are stuck in the finger-pointing
approach which has not proven to be effective or
successful. My limited experience observing the APF
revealed good presence and input from younger CSOs
members however I am not unsure how this translates
from a strategy point of view.

some older CSO members are not

letting younger people come through
with new ideas and approaches they
are stuck in the finger-pointing
approach which has not proven to be
effective or successful.

6. CONCLUSION
It is clear that civil society engagement is an important
component of both ASEAN and womens rights issues.
While problems and challenges do exist, it is important that
engagement continues and is strengthened. Meaningful
change does not stem from the top (i.e. policy) or the
bottom (i.e. grassroots) it requires a collaboration of all
levels. For a harmonious and productive relationship to
exist both sides need to have a sense that they are
working towards a common goal.
This wide scope of the Project has allowed me to gain a
unique view of civil society engagement in ASEAN and
womens rights. My hope for this project was that it would
allow me to explore topics of interest one of which would
provide the basis for a PhD one day. The project has
exceeded my expectations however, unsurprisingly, I have
been left with more questions than answers.

Member of Regional NGO

!

Technical engagement: As outlined above, the

Leaders Interface has been a point of focus for
CSOs in its ASEAN engagement. A regional
academic commented to me that this is actually the
least important form of engagement for CSOs. The
academic stressed that CSOs should strive to
engage with ASEAN on technical aspects, such as
being involved in specific working groups, as this is
where engagement can produce tangible outputs.

Proactive: It is important that CSOs are proactive in

their engagement with ASEAN. As outlined above,
this is inherently difficult due to the fact that ASEAN
predominately sets the engagement agenda.
Nevertheless, advocacy can occur at the will of
CSOs. A member of a regional NGO commented in
relation to the APF that CSOs should not wait to
engage only at official meeting of ASEAN as
everything is concluded by this point.

Understanding: The Project revealed that some

feel there to be a lack of understanding by CSOs on
the mandates of ASEAN and its human rights
institutions. A senior ASEAN official from Thailand
noted that it must be understood that some
constraints are necessary evils to keep ASEAN
together. It is important here to note the usefulness
of regional networks that are bridge builders
between the grassroots and policy level. It is these
organisations who can (and currently are) help to
translate the complexities of ASEAN to grassroots
CSOs.

11

Marianne Dutkiewicz
East-West Center
mj.dutk@gmail.com
m: +01 808 387 1804
s: mariannedutkiewicz