Viet Nam Human Rights
Consensus principle: Democracy is hurting ASEAN?
27/7/16
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to
support, a decision in the best interest of the whole. Consensus may be defined
professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if
not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is
defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or
sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together. It is used to describe both the
decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is
thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and
the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of using this
process.
But, that consensus principle is hurting a unity of
one of the biggest regional organizations, ASEAN. ASEAN deeply divided on how
to deal with China's territorial expansion in the South China Sea that has
impacted some of its members and whipped up an increasing diplomatic quagmire.
ASEAN's cardinal principle is decisions by consensus, which means any country
can veto a proposal. This time, it appears to be Cambodia, China's close ally.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration found
that China had no basis for its expansive claims to territorial waters around
the Philippines. China has similar claims against other ASEAN nations,
including Vietnam and Malaysia, and the ruling should have emboldened ASEAN to
challenge Beijing more forcibly.
But that's being prevented by Cambodia,
said diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss the matter with the media. They said the draft statement
to be issued by the ministers on Tuesday left blank spaces under the heading
"South China Sea" until a consensus can be reached.
In 2012, Cambodia also blocked a reference to the
dispute, which ended with the ministers failing to issue a statement for the
first time in the bloc's history.
This political and diplomatic incident revealed a deep
crack in ASEAN, and the challenge now is how to reconcile the interests of
particular member states and those of the whole bloc.
Only when a multilateral agreement is reached can
bilateral solutions become feasible. Even those ASEAN countries without a
direct interest in the disputes should keep in mind the benefits they gain from
regional stability, and the cohesion and unity of ASEAN. Moreover, each of
these countries has already committed to build an ASEAN community by 2015. This
community must be built upon a common foundation, and develop with common goals
and directions. The territorial disputes over the South China Sea are shaking this foundation, threatening the goals and security of the region.
Hence, the territorial disputes in the South China Sea are not merely a
bilateral matter, but should be a great concern for the whole of ASEAN.
There are two sides to ASEAN’s failure to issue a joint communiqué in Phnom Penh. On the positive side,
it showed that ASEAN persistently seeks consensus, which is often regarded as a
sign of unity within the organisation. Any action or statement delivered in the
name of ASEAN has signified to outsiders that a consensus has been achieved
within the group. The diversity of political structure, culture, ethnicity,
religion and economic development within and among ASEAN member states, and the
divergence of views over the South China Sea disputes, show that this principle
will likely remain significant in the coming years if cohesion and unity are to
be maintained and the dream of creating an economic community by 2015 is to
become reality.
However, the other side of this principle might damage
the dream. What occurred in Phnom Penh has led many to question the practicability of
pursuing ‘one community with one fate’, and even the likely efficacy of the
organisation’s performance after 2015 when this community is in place. It is
also useful to ask why the consensus principle has been maintained. Apart from
the positive significance, it seems the consensus principle has been maintained
by some member states to prevent ASEAN from interfering in their internal
affairs — almost all members have problems of human rights violations and
ethnic conflict. Ironically, the consensus principle is now threatening the
unity of the group when the national interests of one member state prevail at
the expense of others. Cambodian diplomats made use of this weak point to
prevent the group from raising a common concern about regional security in a
document that was supposed to showcase ASEAN’s unity. To bypass a similar
incident in the future, it is time for ASEAN to reconsider the meaning of the
consensus principle.
Consensus is still necessary to maintain ASEAN’s
unity, but it need not always be absolute. In any situation, consensus means
that all members of the group can come to an agreement, so long as it satisfies
the needs or interests of one party and does not harm those of other members.
For a consensus to be absolute, however, all parties must share the same
concerns and be willing to sacrifice part or all of their interests for the
common cause. Many strands of international relations theory, borne out by much
practical experience, would argue that absolute consensus rarely occurs when
national interests are a critical factor. Instead, many now look toward to an
approach based on compromise, or a non-absolute consensus. In this situation,
consensus does not mean that everyone has to accept a decision; consensus
should be understood as having everyone’s ideas heard equally and stated in the
final document in an objective and unbiased manner.
Cambodia’s rather crude pro-China manoeuvre
created a crack in ASEAN’s unity. Yet the recent failure to issue a joint
communiqué at the 45th Ministerial Meeting should not be considered a hopeless
experience; it should be seen as an opportunity to rewrite the consensus
principle, which, to date, has been undermining ASEAN’s credibility in the
world arena./.
Popular Posts
-
Religion is a part of the spiritual life in society, this phenomenon of the superstructure has been strongly changed with economic - social... -
Vietnam has just done well for the second cycle of Universal Periodical Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. So, what’s the UPR? an... -
Thai people in Shutdown Bangkok protests Not until this crisis, we have realized the ne... -
Representatives from foreign countries congratulate Viet Nam on its election to the Human Rights Council for the first time on November ... -
A street flowers vendor in Hanoi Another new spring has come to Vietnam, bring... -
If nothing changes, there will be a preferential credit program with hundreds of thousands billion of capital for agriculture and r... -
Recently, several anti-governmental individuals have established series of illegal groups and organizations in the name of civil soci... -
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting agency of the United States government that broadcasts and...
All comments [ 0 ]
Your comments