
In 2025, both ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and the United States will undergo leadership changes. Malaysia will take over as chair of the multilateral group, an economic and political union of 10 nations, and the United States will have a new president. As these entities prepare for leadership transitions – and following the ASEAN-US Summit earlier this month – the U.S. has an opportunity to reassess its strategy toward ASEAN with a focus on advancing human rights in the region.
As a political actor, ASEAN has faced challenges on various fronts, including its inability to address the human rights crisis in Myanmar. Coordination has been hindered by language barriers and inequalities among ASEAN countries, as well as the consensus-based decision-making process.
Despite these challenges, ASEAN provides an important forum for regional economic coordination. The group has been effective in facilitating cross-border payments and retail. The bloc remains valuable to its member states and should be reinforced where possible. During my trip to Malaysia this summer, I spoke with various civil society actors about how Malaysia and the U.S. can strengthen ASEAN as a positive human rights force.
Human Rights under a New ASEAN Chair
As Malaysia assumes the role of ASEAN Chair, it will inherit a host of pressing human rights issues and must consider how to prioritize them under its leadership. Malaysian civil society appears ready to engage on a range of issues, including the right to development, advancing a regional instrument on environmental rights, and strengthening ASEAN human rights mechanisms.
The right to development is included in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, and the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) has previously held consultations with various actors, including civil society, to address these provisions. As chair, Malaysia could continue these conversations to advance the implementation of this right across the region.
ASEAN has been developing a non-binding declaration to promote and protect environmental rights and advance the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. While work on the draft is ongoing, some human rights groups have expressed concerns including the limited opportunities for the public and civil society to provide input. They have also pointed out deficiencies in the declaration, related to corporate accountability, climate-related mobility, and protections for Indigenous peoples. As chair, Malaysia could commit to engaging human rights groups and exploring how to address criticism of the declaration.
Established in 2009, the AICHR is the focal point for ASEAN’s human rights work. However, the Commission has limited powers – it cannot investigate, consider cases, or conduct fact-finding. As chair, Malaysia could advance efforts to strengthen ASEAN’s work on human rights by bolstering the AICHR and other bodies that address human rights, such as the ASEAN Committee on the Implementation of the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (ACMW) and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC).
The ongoing human rights crisis in Myanmar will likely remain a prominent topic during Malaysia’s tenure as chair. Views on the group’s ability to address the issue are not optimistic, but Malaysia should not be deterred by how fractured ASEAN countries are on this issue or by the limitations of its consensus-based decision-making structure. Instead, Malaysia should pursue action.
U.S.-ASEAN Relations
In 2022, the U.S. and ASEAN expanded 47 years of political relations by establishing the U.S.-ASEAN Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. U.S. cooperation with ASEAN includes political and security issues, economic matters, socio-cultural themes, and development. However, U.S. engagement with the group has been somewhat inconsistent over the years. Therefore, the United States should examine how its strategy can more effectively bolster ASEAN’s efforts to advance human rights in the region.
The United States should ensure its engagement with ASEAN on human rights is consistent and provides strategic support that accounts for regional dynamics.
The U.S. is a “Dialogue Partner” with ASEAN, which some view as a “surface-level” involvement, particularly regarding human rights issues. By some accounts, U.S. and ASEAN engagement on human rights is a box-checking exercise for both sides – checking off “talking points” – without a deeper commitment to advancing human rights in the region. Thus, a more sustained approach to engaging with ASEAN on these matters is needed. U.S. diplomatic engagement with ASEAN could, for example, prioritize dialogue around the advancement of human rights in the region and urge its ASEAN partners to expand space for civil society engagement with the group.
The U.S. can support Malaysia as chair, in a way that is strategic and cognizant of regional wariness of U.S. involvement. It could offer support to bolster existing mechanisms to advance rights. Some in Malayasia think the U.S. could do more to support the AICHR’s work. How it could do so is seen as more complex. One individual noted that “the U.S. is only good for funding,” while other suggestions were that the United States should perhaps be less visible in supporting the AICHR. Current strong criticism of the United States and the West could mean that those actors’ support for ASEAN’s human rights work – and the ASEAN and AICHR officials carrying out that work – are met with skepticism.
U.S. Credibility on Human Rights
One issue that emerged repeatedly in conversations with Malaysian civil society was the diminished U.S. credibility on human rights due to its role in the Gaza conflict. This frustration is prevalent in many ASEAN nations, particularly in Malaysia, which may complicate U.S. efforts to engage in human rights in Southeast Asia. More broadly, frustration with U.S. policy in the Gaza conflict, including supplying arms to Israel that have been used in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, may contribute to a larger loss of U.S. influence in the region. Therefore, the future of the U.S. relationship with ASEAN, especially on human rights matters, must consider the extent to which U.S. standing has been damaged by its role in the conflict.
Moving forward, the United States should collaborate thoughtfully and strategically with ASEAN to address the complex human rights crises in the region, but it must navigate the relationship carefully, focusing on bolstering ASEAN’s work on human rights while addressing criticisms of its own human rights record.