CONCEPT PAPER 

2^nd EAST ASIA HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM

Democratization and Security Sector Reform in East Asia: 

Challenges, Opportunities and Way Forwards for Human Rights Protection 

11-13 May 2009, Taipei, Taiwan 

Jointly organized by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) 
 

The Background & Objectives 

1. This East Asian Human Rights Forum (EAHRF) 2008 is the second joint meeting of the two sub-regions – Northeast and Southeast Asia in the context of East Asia sub-region which aims to promote solidarity and cooperation among human rights defenders and organizations in East Asia with the following specific objectives to:
   1. Build critical understanding and perspectives on issues related to democracy, human rights and security reform in East Asia region
   2. Asses the issues, and solutions that have already been identified or are currently in development, including asses its challenges, opportunities and gaps,
   3. Develop a common platform for action in the sub-region to address interlinked issues in democracy, human rights and security reform in East Asia region.

 

1. The main outputs of the forum are:
   1. Improved knowledge on the interlinked issues in democracy, human rights and security reform in East Asia region within the FORUM-ASIA members,
   2. A common plan of action to address challenges, opportunities and gaps of democracy, human rights and security reform in East Asia region.

 

1. This forum is part of an ongoing process to update and develop common strategies to address emerging issues in human rights and democracy as part of the implementation of the action plans adopted at the various forums namely:
   1. The 1^st East Asia Human Rights Forum (South Korea, 15-18 May 2007) under the theme “Promoting Asian solidarity for Democracy and Rule of Law”,
   2. The 1^st Northeast Asia HRDs’ Forum (Mongolia, 16-20 August 2006) under the theme “Promoting ESC Rights and Human Development - Strengthening the Role of Human Rights Defenders in Northeast Asia”;
   3. The 1^st Southeast Asia HRDs’ Forum (Cambodia, 15-18 November 2006) under the theme “Promoting People-Centered Regional Cooperation - Strengthening the Role of Human Rights Defenders in Southeast Asia”;
   4. The 2^nd Regional HRDs’ Forum (Bangkok, 28-29 November 2006) under the theme “Toward the Full Implementation of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in Asia – Strengthening the Role of Human Rights Defenders”.

 
 

The Context:  

1. Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia

 

1. The last two decades have shown a dramatic rise in political and civil rights transition from authoritarian rule in Asia. The major transitions to democracy began with the popular uprising against the Marcos regime in the Philippines in 1986 and the negotiated transitions from military rule to multi-party democracy in Korea and Taiwan in 1987, the UN intervention in Cambodia in 1993, the fall of Indonesia’s Suharto regime in 1998, Bhutan’s recent democratic transition from above, recent ongoing democratic transition in Nepal after a long decade of conflict and internal turmoil. More governments today are elected through competitive and free election than before.

 

1. Nevertheless, the so-called democratic governments apply minimalist discourses and practices of democracy. The “global war on terror” and the consequent global environment of power play, domination and competition has enabled “democratic states” to institute draconian laws not only militarizing states but also the societies. Democratic states obviously can regulate and redefine military role to ensure the protection of their people. However, the way in which such legislation has been formulated in recent times has tended to violate the principles of human rights and due legal process.

 

1. Countries in East Asia region had demonstrated the setbacks of human rights situation in the process of democratization for the last two years - from the 1^st East Asia Human Rights Forum in South Korea, 15-18 May 2007. The process of democratization and trust building to democratic institutions continue to face a lot of difficulties to operate in East Asian countries. The fundamental rights and freedoms as well as the right to adequate living and the pursuit of peace continue to be challenged by the governments and non-government actors. Impunity persists in breaching the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

 

1. Fundamental human rights to life, liberty and security are still the major issues in human rights protection in East Asia. Arbitrary arrest and detention cases have been increasingly evident in the last two years in Burma, China, Indonesia, South Korea, Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines. Especially in Burma, the number of arbitrary detention cases has been reported continuously. Freedom of association which is one of the most important standards to measure a society’s level of democracy, along with freedom of expression and assembly, has been constantly violated by the governments in the region.

 

1. Furthermore, the application of State’s rights to declare the state under emergency tends to be normalized nowadays as a function of state sovereignty. In Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, on the night of July 1, 2008 following the election protests that been taking place, the government declared the State of Emergency which lasted for 4 days. Under the decree, no public gatherings are permitted in Ulaanbataar, and police will be allowed to use force. Furthermore, the government had ordered the shutdown of public access to information such as television, radio and print media. In fact, human rights are violated due to this situation such as:  rights of freedom of opinion and expression, rights to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media, rights to protest, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

 

1. Democracy rests on the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought, and consequently, the freedom to seek information. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights links all these aspects in an unbreakable manner in Article 19: “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”.

 

1. Broadly speaking, countries in East Asia had integrated the protection and promotion of freedom of expression in their constitutional, legal and procedural system as an important factor for democracy to function. Nevertheless, there are differences in the political processes and public discourses that have lead to the continuing definition and redefinition of its bounds. Moreover, the differences also exist between the word of the law and what is practiced in reality. The main debate of freedom of expression, therefore, is not about its principle, but the challenges of implementing this freedom in effective ways within East Asia countries.

 

1. Contradictions and efforts of states to control the exercise of this freedom become visible when it comes to free speech and freedom of information, thereby affecting media freedom. Indeed, the rapid development of communications technology has exponentially enlarged access to and creation of all sorts of information, resulting in a struggle to regulate content by the state and corporations.

 

1. Human Rights and Security Reforms

 

1. While acknowledging that democratization is an ever-evolving process that requires full commitment, engagement, shared responsibility and empowerment of all citizens, the relationships between civil society and governments and parliaments respectively should be transformed into a genuine partnership at the same time. However, the great concern in the process of democratization is that the behavior and the use of intimidating tactics by the national army and police forces. The countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines demonstrate this fact that the legacy of authoritarian rule remains in deferent degrees.

 

1. The unregulated behavior of the security forces which results from the slow nature of security sector reform and lack of capacity to monitor, has led to bullying tactics and allegations of human rights violations. As monitored and reported by PSPD and KHIS, South Korea government has used excessive forces from June to August 2008 against the demonstrators who were critical of the US beef imports in the country. There were hundreds of cases of riot police rounding people up and arbitrary peaceful protesters, bystanders, and passerby.

 

1. In Malaysia, a report released in July had disclosed that the police and the armed forces were carrying out joint security exercises at the Police College in Cheras. The report stated that such joint security exercises focused on a possible deployment in the Klang Valley in response to demonstrations in the event of an emergency having to be declared. The civil society groups, including SUARAM called on the Government to firmly reject any proposal to deploy the armed forces to assist the police in maintaining order during any public rally. In Indonesia, as reported by YLBHI, Police barged into the ground of National University campus, chased and attacked students who were rallying against the government’s decision to raise the prices of fuel.

 

1. The use of tactics of violence and intimidation towards the local people by the state security forces is a worrying indication of the type of security sector that could be evolving in the country. A question remains on how the population perceives this behavior and whether the tactics utilized by state forces are considered to be an acceptable balance between their efforts to maintain security and the infringement of civil liberties. This balance is difficult to strike, especially in the context of post-conflict country like Timor Leste, yet the impact of violent state security forces can have dramatic implication on the development of societal attitudes towards the acceptability or necessity of different levels of state violence.

 

1. Similar with the problem analysis in the 1^st EAHRF in 2007, utilizing internal or national security act or other law to regulate NGO activities is still used as one of the approaches to maintain the “harmony of public peace”. This is a case in South Korea, Taiwan, Southern Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia. In June 2008, three MPs were among six peoples arrested for protesting against the detention of Hindu Rights Action Force leaders under the Internal Security Act. As of 30^th June 2008, SUARAM reported that there were 64 detainees in the Kamunting Detention Camp, Malaysia. In October 2008, Cambodian government submitted a bill to regulate NGOs which drafted earlier by the Ministry of Interior in 2006. This bill tightens regulations on NGOs and violates the fundamental rights of citizens in a democratic country such as freedom of expression and freedom of association.

 

1. The country presentations in the 1^st EAHRF in 2007 also showed that security actors such as intelligent police forces, armed forces, military, paramilitary; justice and rule of law institutions such as justice ministries, prisons, criminal investigation and prosecution services, and; non-states actors like transnational corporations, private security companies are the security actors that had been violated human rights and contributed to the retaining of impunity as culture. Lack of accountability mechanism of the security actors is also identified as one of the analysis of the problem.

 

1. Participants in the 1^st EAHRF identified that the poor, leaders and relatives of progressive groups, members of peoples’ organizations, civil society and human rights defenders are the target as well as the victims of the intimidation of the security actors. The forum suggested that reforming the security actors is one of the necessities to maintain the process of democratization and the protection of human rights. In this 2^nd EAHRF of 2009, the forum will discuss further on how human rights protection and democratization can be restored through putting some efforts to reform the security actors and its systems.

 

1. In line with the above, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/147, 21 March 2006 on the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of the International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law stipulated that the full and effective reparation should include the forms of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. To guarantee the non-repetition, the form of remedy and reparation should include, among other things:

1. Ensuring effective civilian control of military and security forces;

1. Ensuring that all civilian and military proceedings abide by international standards of due process, fairness and impartiality;
2. Strengthening the independence of the judiciary;
3. Protecting persons in the legal, medical and health-care professions, the media and other related professions, and human rights defenders;
4. Providing, on a priority and continued basis, human rights and international humanitarian law education to all sectors of society and training for law enforcement officials as well as military and security forces;
5. Promoting the observance of codes of conduct and ethical norms, in particular international standards, by public servants, including law enforcement, correctional, media, medical, psychological, social service and military personnel, as well as by economic enterprises;

 

1. Security Sectors/Systems Reforms and the Role of Civil Society

 

1. The experience of more than 10 years of democratization process in Indonesia so-called “reformasi’ suggests that amending a number of laws at national and municipal levels, the formation of extra-judicial institutions to strengthen control over the government, as well as a more open space for public ‘participation’ to influence and supervise decision making at executive and legislative levels only result to a normative reform of democratic institutions. The political interest, however, still dominates the public interest. As a consequences, for ‘the real’ transition country, a political status quo and impunity¹ impeded the transition to democracy. The ‘reformasi’ had resulted to a number of administration mechanisms on normative policies, and not necessarily on the structure and culture of governance. 

 

1. Generally, in all Asian countries, the issues of reforming security sectors² is not widely discussed regionally, even the status of unreformed security sector acknowledged as main problems and challenges of promotion and protection of human rights. Whether there are discussion and debates on this issue, the matter arising will be on how to strengthen the capacity of defense and security forces against the threat or terrorism or internal resistant. The other discourse on defense and security institutional role and mandate, budgetary policy, curriculum development for the military and the police on human rights, or even on accountability of them still as a minor issues.

 

1. The Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defined the Security Sector Reform (SSR) as “transforming the security sectors/ system, which includes all the actors, their roles, responsibilities and actions – working together to manage and operate the system in a manner that is more consistent with democratic norms and sound principles of good governance, and thus contribute to a well-functioning security framework”. (For more information regarding this topic can be read in the Background Paper as accompanied document to the concept paper and the provisional program)

 

1. Taking the above definition, Security Sector Reform (SSR) refers to all efforts that have been and are being done by any actor with the purpose of transforming state security policies and institutions from the old, authoritarian system to a new system that is democratic, professional, subject to civilian rule, accountable and respectful of human rights. The desire for a responsible and accountable security sector, which is the goal of SSR, is important to reduce the risk of conflict emergence, protecting all citizens, and creating a positive climate for sustainable development, especially for nations facing a political transition in Asia.

 

1. SSR processes are designed to address a variety of problems within the security actors such as police brutality corruption, lack of technical capacity of the security actors, human rights violations, lack of transparency and oversights. It covers: the strengthening the civilian control and oversight of the security sector, professionalization of the security forces, demilitarization and peace building and strengthening rule of law.

 

1. Although the SSR processes may vary from one country to country, and each SSR context offers different situation and approaches, the SSR shall have the essential principles such as: a) people-centered, locally owned and based on democratic norms and human rights principles and rule of law, seeking to provide freedom from fear and measurable reductions in armed violence and crime, b) seen as a framework to address diverse security challenges facing states and their populations, through more integrated development and security policies and through greater civilian involvement and oversight, c) founded on activities with multi-sectoral strategies, d) adhering the basic governance principles such as transparency and accountability, and e) implemented through clear process.

 

1. Civil society has important role to oversight the process of SSR which can be done both internally and externally. External oversight of the sector can be exercised in two main ways. First, by the security sector being answerable to the population, and second by the politicians and bureaucrats within any country’s government being held accountable for the actions of the security sector. Some of the most typical external oversight bodies are parliaments, constitutional courts, anti-corruption and public accountability bodies and ombudspersons.

 

1. The main ways in which civil society participates in security sector oversight are (as suggested by Barnes and Albrecht, Civil Society Oversight of the Security Sector and Gender, 2003):

1. As a source of policy advice and technical expertise which can inform policymakers and provide insight into community need s and interests related to security issues,

1. By enhancing local ownership and inclusion through the involvement of diverse groups in discussions around security-related issues,
2. As a watchdog to hold authorities accountable for their actions through lobbying, public awareness campaigns, or direct pressure from the population,
3. By facilitating dialogue and negotiation between policymakers, security sectors institutions and officials and the population,
4. Through advocacy campaign that raise awareness of key security concerns and issues, human rights abuses, misappropriation of funds, or other such violations,
5. Though service delivery and the provision of alternate source of security and justice in cases where state is unable and/or unwilling to take on these roles, or where civil society is better-placed to provide such services.

 
 

Opportunities for Engagement – Intergovernmental and civil society processes 

1. There are various intergovernmental and civil society processes on democracy nowadays both at sub-regional and international levels that can be used as a venue to influence the importance of pushing the security reform agenda to restore democracy and uphold the human rights protection in Asia. It is then a question to FORUM-ASIA’s members on how to use the available intergovernmental and civil society processes and what would be the strategic goal and method of engagement.

 

1. At the international level, for instance there is an intergovernmental process which opens to all UN members States - The International Conference on New or Restored Democracies (ICNRD). To date, a total of six International Conferences on New or Restored Democracies have been held in Manila, the Philippines (1988); Managua, Nicaragua (1994); Bucharest, Romania (1997); Cotonou, Benin (2000), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia (2003) and the latest in Qatar (2006). The ICNRD movement recognizes that new or restored democracies face multiple challenges brought about by both national and international forces. ICNRD represents a forum to discuss and exchange views on democratic governance and developmental issues. ICRND meets periodically on a global basis and reports regularly to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

 

1. Along with the ICNRD, there is an International Civil Society Forum for Democracy (ICSFD), as a global network for civil society movement to promote democratic governance reforms. It works through strengthening the civil society collaboration nationally, regionally and internationally.

 

1. ICSFD aims to a) foster, strengthen, expand civil society's role at the national, regional and international level in promoting democratic reforms and their consolidation; b) examine the strengths and weaknesses of the democratization processes at all levels from the perspective of civil society; c) identify challenges to and opportunities for democracy-building at various levels, particularly strengthening civil society’s role in the processes of democratic institutionalization and consolidation; support democracies facing threats or assaults on democracy; d) participate in, establish minimum standards for, and monitor the implementation of, the relevant decisions of the ICNRD-led processes; e) develop effective strategies for collective action to advance democratic processes, regionally and internationally, including by providing support and advice to regional and national civil society organizations in establishing democracy watch mechanisms that take into consideration the social dimension; and f) promote cooperation and partnership relations with parliaments, governmental organizations, United Nations bodies, international processes, as well as with civil society organizations and social movements, in the pursuit of democratic reforms, transformations and promotion of democratic values and their consolidation.

 

1. While at the sub-regional levels, there is ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Community on Political and Security. The Northeast Asia forum, however, is yet to be explored by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy in the 2^nd EAHRF in Taiwan in 2009.

 

1. The ASEAN Political-Security Community Council will soon appoint their personnel within the ASEAN states officials which will open up the participation of civil society to strengthen ASEAN to deal with non-traditional security issues as stated in the Chairman’s Statement of the 14th ASEAN Summit, Cha-am, 28 February - 1 March 2009, “… the result of the 3rd ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) convened in Pattaya, Thailand on 25-27 February 2009 which contributed towards the strengthening of the ASEAN Political-Security Community, reinforced ASEAN’s ability to deal with non-traditional security challenges such as disasters, including in cooperation with civil society organizations, and strengthened the framework for future dialogue and cooperation with ASEAN Dialogue Partners and friends”.

 

1. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Government of Indonesia, supported by Australian and New Zealand’s governments, initiated and launched the Inter-governmental process on democracy, Bali Democracy Forum in December 2008. This Bali Democracy Forum aims to develop democracy in reaching peacefully, throughout sharing experiences in politic and democracy to have best practices and toward Center of Excellence. Along with the launch, the Indonesian government also established a Peace and Democracy Institute based in Bali State’s University to execute idea, initiatives, programs which are decided by Bali Democratic Forum, Udayana University. Further, the institute will perform analysis, investigations, and dialogue among expertise, researches, seminars, road show, and publications of political and democratic inventions.

 

1. There has been an oral invitation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia to FORUM-ASIA’s secretariat and members to engage and take a part within the process and have civil society events along with the inter-government process. This invitation needs to be responded strategically together with the implication of engaging such a mechanism by FORUM-ASIA and its members.