• 
• 
• 

All these approaches have been used to a certain extent at the universal peer reviews on human rights at the UN Human Rights Council over the past two years. The four-year cycle allows UN members to present and defend their human rights records among their peers or foes. Obviously, non-democratic countries would try every possible way to shield their governments from criticism citing local conditions, domestic laws and practices. Further questions from non-democratic regimes are not expected. How can a pot call a kettle black on an international stage?

Comments and questions could be raised from UN members—most of them mainly from countries respecting the fundamental rights of their citizens. Quite often just as visible at the past six sessions, the non-democratic regimes often questioned and criticised the human rights records of developed countries to highlight what they claimed as double standards and hypocrisy of the West. For instance, Iran ferociously attacked Norway's racial discrimination at the peer reviews early this month.

Changes in global human rights approaches also impacted on similar policies among major powers. Recently, US State Secretary Hilary Rodham Clinton spoke in detail about the new direction of US policy on human rights. It was clear that from now on this sensitive issue would be dealt with in more discreet ways, especially when it could be detrimental to other more immediate priorities and cooperation.

Long-term outcomes would be the main aim, not publicity stunts as before. Clinton was frank in acknowledging the limits of US influence on human rights in countries around the world, especially with the major powers such as Russia or China. Indeed, even with a small country, such as Burma, the US influence is limited.

To remain agile on human rights, Clinton said the US would work with local democracy groups, multilateral organisations and socially responsible corporations in targeted countries. This strategy would fit in better, especially in the Asian environment. If the absence of US public criticism could increase overall resources in capacity building in this area, it would be a laudable policy.

The new US human rights agenda, it is hoped, would not affect the annual human rights report put out by the US State Department. Since 1979, assessment of the human rights situation around the world has been used by Congress to evaluate US aid programmes to these recipients. Developing countries would normally lash out at the annual report as biased and brand it an act of interference in internal affairs. Albeit its controversial nature, the report has been used as a human rights index by many countries, including Thailand.

In 2007, the first human rights report by the Thai National Human Rights Commission was released with numerous detailed cases of human rights violations the government needs to pay attention to and resolve. Lack of resources, especially rights investigators, has delayed a subsequent report, which was supposed to be issued annually.

Within the Southeast Asian region, Thailand is not the only nation trying to improve human rights conditions. Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines are also very candid about their human rights records. These four countries, despite existing national human rights commissions, have not done a good job in protecting the individual political and civil rights of their peoples. Their work has been marred by bureaucratic inertia and lack of cooperation from concerned authorities on enquiries. In Thailand, investigations involved police or soldiers on rights abuses were frequently interrupted by no shows or follow-ups.

When it was set up in 1997, the public viewed the Thai rights commission as a key mechanism to defend growing state-sponsored abuses and guarantee a fair administration of justice. Somehow, that has not worked out effectively to mitigate the abuses. During 2003-2005, for instance, extra-judicial killings were the norm that have wrecked Thailand's long existing moderate rights records. Human rights abuses continue unabated in the troubled southern provinces even though the current government has a pretty good record of respecting human rights in general.

As Thailand is preparing its human rights report for the 12th peer review session at the end of 2011, it has to be straightforward in jotting down the whole truth on the country's human rights conditions. In the previous report to the UN Human Rights Commission in 2005, Thai representatives were nervous fearing the UN would have additional information to rebut their positions, especially on the numbers of deaths resulting from the notorious programme of extra-judicial killings of drug suspects.

Should the Asean countries mentioned above manage to ameliorate their human rights records in years to come, they could provide best practice for other members to emulate. As a starter, Indonesia and Thailand set good examples in selecting independent candidates to join the Asean Intergovernmental Commission of Human Rights (AICHR). The commission will have a tough task to protect and promote human rights across the board in the region, due to some members' unyielding attitudes to certain rights issues. Asean-based civil society groups are important stakeholders to ensure that AICHR fulfil its objectives.

It would probably take decades for all the Asean members, beyond the 2015 Asean Community deadline, to follow the AICHR terms of reference. After all, an Asean Community without a common approach and commitment to human rights and human dignity is not worth building.