Furthermore, FIDH calls upon the ASEM Summit to address the issue of Burma, where the human rights situation is dramatically deteriorating, and to reiterate that the participation of Burma in the ASEM process must be subject to significant improvements on human rights.
Abolition of the death penalty
FIDH strongly welcomes the recent abolition of the death penalty by the Philippines. However, despite the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty, of all the Asian ASEM countries, only two have abolished the death penalty (Cambodia, in 1989 and Philippines, in 2006). Indeed, the South-East Asian group of countries is one of the main regions in the world in which the death penalty remains entrenched. Furthermore, when the death penalty is used, it is rarely carried out in conformity with the UN Safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.
In 2005 and 2006, executions were recorded in 5 ASEM countries: China, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam. In the same period, in Burma, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea, death sentences continued to be issued, but no executions have been recorded. Brunei is considered a de facto abolitionist state, since death sentences have not been pronounced since 1957.
Until now, the issue of the death penalty has never been addressed in the context of the ASEM Summits. FIDH considers that, 10 years after the creation of ASEM, the time has come for ASEM members to formally raise this issue. FIDH stresses that the abolition of the death penalty forms a core part of the European Union’s foreign policy. Therefore, in order to demonstrate a true commitment to the universal abolition of the death penalty, and in accordance with EU Policy Guidelines on the death penalty, adopted in 1998, EU Member States must use this opportunity to further dialogue on abolition and encourage ASEM states on the road to abolition.
FIDH calls on ASEM members to include the objective of the abolition of the death penalty in the final declaration of the Summit.
Freedom of expression and human rights defenders
Throughout 2005 and 2006, human rights defenders in many Asian ASEM states have been subjected to increasing repression. Restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly have be
en tightened, frequently in the name of national security.
In the Philippines, extra-judicial killings, perpetrated by the military, police, and other security forces, have become a recurrent means of repression against human rights defenders and others considered opponents of the regime. The failure of the authorities to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators creates a climate of impunity, which further fuels violations.
In China, the government has launched another round of crackdowns on freedom of expression, suspending publications, closing internet sites, censoring content, and targeting journalists, cyber-dissidents, and web-loggers with arbitrary arrests and prosecutions. Lawyers, particularly those involved in the defence of human rights and who speak out against repressive government policies, and trade unionists are also frequent targets: legislative measures have been tightened and lawyers and trade unionists have increasingly been subjected to harassment, including physical assaults, prosecutions and imprisonment.
In Vietnam, the authorities have intensified attacks on freedom of expression and religion, arresting cyber-dissidents, harassing Buddhist monks and other civil society activists. House arrest, police surveillance, suppression of communications, interrogations and physical assaults are amongst the methods used to isolate and silence human rights defenders and other political and religious critics. New legislation has been introduced to curb press freedom and use of the internet, restrict the right to demonstrate and authorise "administrative detention" without trial.
In Malaysia, whilst it is possible to speak out in favour of human rights, FIDH is deeply concerned about the situation of human rights defenders involved in the promotion of freedom of religion. Indeed the government has issued strict instructions not to speak openly about religious freedom, and defenders have recently been subjected to attacks on the part of fundamentalist groups.
More generally, human rights defenders have increasingly been victims of harassment and intimidation, for example, in Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand.
Finally, in Laos and Burma it remains completely impossible speak out in favour of democracy and human rights and to carry out any organised human rights activity.
With the adoption of the EU Guidelines on human rights defenders in June 2004, the EU confirmed that the situation of human rights defenders is a key priority of EU foreign policy. FIDH therefore calls upon the EU to demonstrate this commitment by ensuring that the issues of freedom of expression and the repression of human rights defenders are raised in the context of the ASEM Summit.
FIDH calls on ASEM members to stress the importance of the role of human rights defenders in the final declaration of the Summit.
Burma’s participation in the ASEM process must be subject to improvements in human rights
The human rights situation in Burma has deteriorated dramatically in the last year. The military junta has significantly intensified its attacks on civilians, mostly targeting the Karen minority in East Burma. Since December 2005, over 16,000 civilians have been forced to flee their homes and have sought refuge in neighbouring Thailand, adding to the million that had already been forced to leave Burma as a result of systematic attacks by the military. In addition, the regime has increased political repression, in particular towards members of the National League for Democracy. Although the regime had undertaken to release Aung San Suu Kyi in May 2006, it has decided to prolong her detention for yet another year.
FIDH calls on ASEM members to include the issue of Burma in the final declaration of the Summit, reiterating that the participation of Burma in the ASEM process cannot take place without significant improvements in human rights. In particular, the military junta in Burma must not be permitted to benefit from foreign investment, which could only strengthen a regime that commits systematic violations against its civilian population on a massive scale.