The first draft will be completed for vetting by Asean foreign ministers in July, before their annual conference in Manila. 

Whatever the drafters intend to accomplish, they must not produce an illiberal charter.

The 10-member drafting panel comprises five senior officials, two Asean directors-general, two ambassadors at large and one retired ambassador. It is natural that one should not expect any bold initiatives from them, unless clear instructions have been given from their capitals to push certain viewpoints and issues. After all, these drafters are products of their societies, reflecting the values and norms practised in their daily lives. They also have to take into account the views and interests of other ministries.

Sometimes, in the absence of directives from the top, the drafters have to rely on personal rapport and relationships - the so-called "Asean camaraderie" - to work out differences or find the appropriate wording. This kind of rapport characterised the discussion focusing on the concept of human security in the preamble. It is no secret that for years Asean policy-makers have avoided using this term altogether, even though it is used officially the world over in UN-related documents.

While the drafters from Laos, Vietnam and Burma were not supportive of using the term human security, they backed its general principles and intention to protect the well-being of their citizens. Their fear, imaginary or real, is that the protective and preventive measures to ensure human security could clash with domestic policies and practices, leading to outside intervention. No wonder that concepts such as freedom from fear and freedom from want - widely discussed under UN auspices over the past few years - have yet to make inroads into Asean's mindset. To some members, these concepts are too radical to adopt or embed in the charter.

The charter drafters, who begin their second meeting on economic integration in Rangoon today, have already sidelined some of the recommendations in the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report. They feel that building Asean community, rather than working towards a union as proposed by the EPG, should remain the top priority. The drafters are also true believers in the principles of consensus and non-interference, which remain sacrosanct as decision-making tools.

Even so, during the first drafting session last month it took time to convince Asean members of the necessity of sustained and enhanced consultation on issues of common concern. This is almost a decade after a Thai initiative for flexible engagement in an open Asean that would be willing to frankly discuss transnational issues affecting the region was shot down.

When it comes to change, Asean prefers the slow-but-sure approach.

In Manila, the charter drafters were flabbergasted by the proposal from representatives of Asean-based civil society organisations (CSOs) to add environment protection as an additional pillar. Asean adopted security, economic and socio-cultural matters as the three pillars of the community at the Bali summit in 2003. Environmental community in Asean would entail cross-border engagement and collective sovereignty - something Asean members refuse to discuss or even mention. Asean's failure to cope with the recent haze problem in Indonesia is a case in point. When it comes to issues of sovereignty, Asean members guard theirs like Rottweilers.

When retired ambassador Rosario Manalo, chairperson of the drafting committee, met representatives of Asean CSOs at the end of March, she reminded them repeatedly that only "bold and pragmatic" proposals would be considered. Obviously, the drafters have the prerogative to determine which initiatives are acceptable.

To ensure that there is sufficient input from the CSOs, Asean members that respect non-government actors are conducting their own brainstorming sessions to come up with more initiatives as part of their nation's input. The Philippines and Thailand are among them. The Surayud government is trying extremely hard to ensure that the Asean charter is really people-centred and people-friendly. Coming as it does now, the Thai enthusiasm has not escaped scepticism.

Some view the Thai initiatives as a sign that the Kingdom has an extra axe to grind. As a government installed by a military coup, Bangkok's moral authority to push for liberal or universal values in the charter has been greatly undermined. It was already quite awkward for Thailand to back the EPG report's recommendation for the rejection of unconstitutional and undemocratic changes of government.

In private, others even point to Thailand's current constitution drafting, which has generated widespread debate. Media reports of hypocrisy and trickery in the process have been cited to weaken Bangkok's effort to promote an open and outward-looking Asean charter. At this juncture, support from Indonesia, the Philippines and especially Cambodia, which has become a new liberal force, are imperative to push through Thai initiatives.

Ultimately, the Asean charter will be the sum total of all views, some stronger than others, which are the least objectionable to the 10 member countries. Therefore, directives from Asean's top leaders, particularly from the core members, are essential to push the envelope and avoid the "illiberal" trap.

Kavi Chongkittavorn