Mr. Jamie D. Stacey EU Centre/ Swansea University, UK Email: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mr. Jamie D. Stacey EU Centre/ Swansea University, UK Email: 523682@swansea.ac.uk

Why another thesis on ASEAN, on human rights? - - Asking what the “post-norm” era might look like - - Asking what change, and how, is taking place in ASEAN - Structure - - Literature Review; what has been said, and what has not. - - Theory; from norms to language, from diffusion to contestation - - Model; Representational Force - - Empirical Research; ‘Universalism’ versus ‘Asian Values’ - Conclusion- 3 Key Points - 1/ Theoretical; Power of Language and the ability to change - 2/ Analytical; Two ‘Legitimate’ Alternatives to Community and - Human Rights 3/ Empirical; ‘Thick description’ of ASEAN Community -

1/ Realism - What is it? - - Power based on Anarchy, States, Materialistic. - Research Directions? - The ASEAN ‘Talkshop’ (Jones and Smith 2007) - ‘Eastphalia’ (Friedrich 2012) - Implications - Power defined rather narrowly in terms of physical possessions (military, economic) - Does ASEAN (and the EU) qualify as international actor? - Little recognition of ASEAN - The “Identity Turn”

2/ Constructivism - What is it? - The ‘social construct’ and interests - Norms and identity - Research Directions? - ASEAN and the ‘Security Community’ Thesis (Acharya 2009) - Implications? - Recognition of ASEAN, as well as other actors (such as the EU). - Redefining power; from material possessions (military, economy) to norms - A more holistic worldview?

New Challenges - ASEAN, “Crisis” and “Re-Invention” - - “Clarifying” and “judging” appropriate norms - - Finnemore (1997) and Risse (1997) ‘Spiral Model’ of human rights. - Normative Power Europe - - Diffusion Studies- NPE (Manners 2002; 2009), (Jetske 2012) - Limitations of Norm Research - - Emphasis on structure, neglect of actors. - - Norms dominate; they regulate behaviour, actors have little scope - to resist or re-interpret - Little scope for change - - EU Bias -

“What constructivism do we want?” - - “Two Directions”/ Conventional versus Critical - Language Theory - - Returning to Constructivist Origins - - Language Power- From ‘Truth’ to ‘Power’ - - Postmodernism and ‘Reality’ - - Narrative defines the realm of the possible. - Implications? - - Focus on the “actor”; ability to resist - - Scope for change; interpretation and re-interpretation of identity - - A new ASEAN-EU understanding- Two alternative communities -

Language Power, Actors, Narrative - The Family Dilemma - Mother’s Narrative - If you go with him you are abandoning me like he did, and you show that you love - him but not me. Appeals to a contradiction in the child’s identity - Aims to coerce the child to take a particular action (not to go) - - Child’s Narrative I love you both equally, but I have a right to my father just as much as you had a right - to yours, whom you loved. Appeals to a contradiction in the mother’s identity - Aims to coerce the mother to accept a new reality; two definitions for a father. - (Ongoing) Result - A new legitimate reality accepted by both actors; the boy can see his father, whom the - mother accepts was a bad husband, but may be a good father. The boy accepts that it may cause his mother harm, but reaffirms his love for his - mother.

Model - - Narrative- The most fundamental type of “reality”-creating - representation. - Phrases-In-Dispute - Words or word sequences defined by an author to - threaten a particular narrative/ reality - Link - The logical connections an actor makes between phrases. - - Tactics - - Terror – Force an actor to succumb to a re-definition of a phrase- in-dispute so that it supports the dominant narrative. ‘Trap’. ‘Non-choice’. - Tolerance - An instance of when an actor accepts and perpetuates an existing narrative.

1/ Study of Historical Processes - Why did dissent from the narrative of human rights become a collective possibility and desire among author- members? Breaking from Tolerance - Pre 1990’s, relationship largely economic and passive - Main concerns were trade and regional security - As long that order remained settled, neither side had any trouble legitimating the ‘reality’ of the other - Early 1990’s, latent conflict of identity to emerge - The end of the cold war, the (re) emergence of human rights, ASEAN expansion and the growing importance of regional community unsettled the ‘reality’ of the community as purely about security, in particular military security - ASEAN Self and the ‘ASEAN Way’ and EU Self and ‘Supranationalism’ - Clash of identities - 1991-3 Two narratives on human rights - Human Rights and community; why could one tolerate and the other could not? - Human Rights as a threat to nation-states; ASEAN depended on nation-states for its existence, defending it was paramount to its narrative - EU tied to Western narrative; depended on human rights and democracy for its new existence

2/ Trace the historical political manifestations of dissent - Isolating the ‘phrases-in-dispute’ - Demonstrating the links between these and the overall dissident narrative Narrating EU’s “Guardianship” Narrating ASEAN’s “Exceptionalism” Phrase-in-dispute; - - Phrase-in-dispute’; ‘Asian Values’ ‘Universalism’ - 1/ Critique of Universalism 1/ Importance of Individual - - EU ignored the needs of the developing and liberal democracy world (development/ nation-building) - ASEAN ignoring its people - 2/ Importance of ‘socio-economic’ - 2/ Critique of ‘Asian Values’ - rights and community values - ASEAN defending - authoritarian regimes 3/ Need for independence from - - 3/ Need for ‘universal’ Europe approval - Neo-Colonialism and the rights of - - A new world morality - nations. - Appeal to the UN - Declaration and the UN as a “moral source”

3/ Relevant authors used RP to quell dissenting narratives - Why force change? To survive. ASEAN Campaign EU Campaign De-legitimising ‘Asian Values’ - ‘The Right to Development’ - - Contradictions, 1997/8 - -2 versions - financial crisis - Did not express ASEAN - - Narrowing the - particularism, only isolated Development Gap ASEAN - Poverty reduction and - EU as ‘a friend’ - MDG - Looking out for ASEAN - - Human rights as crucial in ‘The Right to Peace’ - - today’s world, and, through ‘re- - Protecting people, invention’, ASEAN was - remaining purposeful in the protecting government. new post-cold war world. - Security and Rights - - Removal of the UN as a focus - point

Which Texts, Which Speeches? ASEAN- Historical Processes Leading to Dissent “…In the ASEAN experience, member countries have learnt that both at the national and regional levels, peace and security, democracy and freedom, as well as stability are possible and sustainable only when the people are free from economic deprivation and have a stake in national life …however… democracy (does not have) only one definition ….Therefore, when the issue of human rights is linked to trade, investment and finance , ASEAN cannot but view it as added conditionality and protectionism by other means …it is from a strong ASEAN base that we should approach the question of peace and security of the immediate…environment in the Asia-Pacific region”(bold added for emphasis). Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhamed (1991)

Which Texts, Which Speeches? EU- Historical Processes Leading to Dissent “However, disagreement on the implementation of human rights in ASEAN member countries has hindered progress in negotiations with the Community thus far…The universalist approach to human rights by the Community as expressed in ‘conditionality’ clause in its agreement with third countries, is challenged by ASEAN states. They feel that these principles should be interpreted and applied in the light of regional and cultural characteristics specific to each country and region. The Community rejects this point of view . It believes that universally recognised principles in this field as laid down by the United Nations should be respected and form the basis and source of all progress for all nations” (1993: 5) (bold added for emphasis). EU Parliamentary Research Paper (1991/3)

Which Texts, Which Speeches? Narrative “The Foreign Ministers agreed that ASEAN should coordinate a common approach on human rights …[they] stressed that development is an inalienable right and that the use of human rights as a conditionality for economic cooperation and development assistance is detrimental to international cooperation and could undermine an international consensus on human rights . They emphasized… respect for national sovereignty , territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. They were convinced that freedom, progress and national stability are promoted by a balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community, through which many individual rights are realized , as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (1993 ASEAN 26 th AMM Joint Communique).