Awzar Thi’s original post was inaccurate in some respects, which makes the subsequent debate with Danthong Breen and Thongchai Winichakul somewhat confused, since it is not clear that they are talking of the same event.

The rejection by of 5 civil society representatives (out of 10) by their governments from an interface with the 15th ASEAN Summit was not directly related to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. These representatives were selected by the ASEAN People’s Forum (APF), which took place before the Summit, and were tasked with presenting, at the interface with ASEAN leaders, the consensus views of that Forum, arrived at by open consultation and contained in a statement drafted at the Forum. It was decided by the Forum that the persons selected as representatives of the Forum would be exactly that and not act as representatives of their organizations.

The transparent and inclusive process for selecting these representatives had been made clear to ASEAN through the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs in advance. The Thai MFA had raised no objections.

What was not revealed to the APF organizers was that ASEAN Foreign Affairs Ministers had earlier agreed in secret that each ASEAN government could select its own civil society representative. When the APF selected its own representatives, and these were not the same as those pre-selected by some ASEAN governments, the APF representatives from those countries were barred.

When it was further made clear on the day of the interface (at the Dusit Cha-am, not the MFA) that that by a unilateral decision by ASEAN leaders, APF representatives would not be allowed to speak, 3 of the ‘unbarred’ representatives chose to withdraw participation.

[to be continued]