ASEAN should delay Myanmar membership
Myanmar's entry into ASEAN is being questioned, even by member nations. Dewi Fortuna Anwar explores this issue.
JAKARTA (JP): While Cambodia and Laos are fully expected to become ASEAN members in July 1997, such is not the case for Myanmar. Although most people in the region, and supporters outside the region, adhere to the long-term ideal of a united Southeast Asia under ASEAN, questions remain about the appropriateness of Myanmar's immediate entry into the association. The political and human rights situations in Myanmar are detrimental to ASEAN's interests, particularly in terms of dealing with its western dialog partners.
ASEAN's opposition to western criticisms of the constructive engagement of Myanmar is understandable and defensible. Given ASEAN's ultimate aim to bring all 10 Southeast Asian countries within its fold, the gradual inclusion of Myanmar in various regional activities is clearly important.
Myanmar's self-imposed isolation had led to economic stagnation which does not promote greater political openness and better respect for human rights. In this light, it is hard to justify how further sanctions, as most western countries propose, would speed up political progress in Myanmar and improve the living standard of its people. Moreover, it is consistent with ASEAN's objective to establish an autonomous regional order free from external interference that the association refuses to bow to outside pressure about which nations are eligible for membership.
Nevertheless, while fully acknowledging the importance of continuing ASEAN's constructive engagement of Myanmar, there are at least four compelling reasons for delaying Yangon's full entry into ASEAN for a few years. These are:
* the more immediate need of facilitating entry of Cambodia and Laos into ASEAN.
* the lack of unanimity within and among ASEAN countries regarding Myanmar's membership.
* Myanmar's attitudes towards ASEAN.
* the possible implications of precipitating Myanmar's membership on ASEAN's extra-regional relations.
The most important consideration for delaying Myanmar's full membership into ASEAN is clearly the immediate need to devote our attention and resources to facilitate Cambodia's and Laos' entry into the association and to integrate them fully into ASEAN's activities. There is no doubt that these two countries are now fully committed to joining ASEAN next year, and ASEAN has long awaited the participation of Cambodia and Laos. But the challenges will be enormous.
ASEAN did not have to do too much to integrate Brunei, which though tiny, is very rich. Once the political obstacle was overcome, the integration of Vietnam was relatively easy because of its relatively trained manpower and economic potential. However, incorporating Cambodia and Laos, two of the world's least developed countries, into a vibrant regional body with relatively affluent membership, is clearly another matter. Within the space of 10 months these two countries have to overcome such basic problems as the lack of English-speaking officials who can take part in ASEAN activities, the lack of relevant institutions, a severe shortage of financial capabilities and other technical facilities necessary to carry out intensive regional cooperation.
It is to be expected that both Laos and Cambodia will look to ASEAN for help in overcoming these basic problems. In the next two to three years ASEAN will have its hands full trying to mobilize resources, from within the region as well as from friends outside the region, to assist in the regional integration of Cambodia and Laos.
Without active help from ASEAN, the new members may feel marginalized and soon disillusioned. If Myanmar, a country that is also categorized as one of the world's least developed, and also carries a political stigma, is to be included in the membership package at the same time, ASEAN resources will be stretched very thin. It is also possible that including Myanmar may make it more difficult for ASEAN to mobilize international assistance for its efforts to ease the new members into the association.
The second important consideration is the lack of agreement among the ASEAN countries themselves, as well as within the various ASEAN countries, concerning Myanmar's immediate entry. On important issues ASEAN has always based its decisions on consensus, and one leader, Philippine President Fidel Ramos, has gone on record that he prefers to postpone Myanmar's full membership. That important groups of people within the ASEAN countries are opposed to Myanmar's membership should also be considered, particularly since ASEAN wishes to make itself into a more popular organization that is no longer the monopoly of bureaucrats.
Myanmar's attitude toward ASEAN also raises questions. The opposition under Aung San Suu Kyi is vehemently opposed to Myanmar's membership in ASEAN, fearing that such a membership would only legitimize SLORC. The SLORC leaders' commitment to the idea of regional cooperation in general and ASEAN in particular is not unequivocal.
Only one and a half years ago, SLORC still considered ASEAN a western colonial tool, membership in which would compromise Myanmar's long-held neutrality. There is clearly a need for Myanmar to spell out its commitment to the ideals of ASEAN more definitively. Without such a declaration, one might wonder whether the Myanmar government is trying to use ASEAN as a public relations vehicle to improve its international image. In such a case ASEAN is open for vilification from a substantial part of Myanmar population, a situation that would be detrimental to ASEAN's image as the harbinger of peace and prosperity in the region.
Finally, while recognizing that ASEAN's strength depends on its internal cohesiveness, the association's effectiveness in the international arena owes much to its support from other countries, particularly from its dialog partners. Without bowing to external pressure, ASEAN, nevertheless, needs to be sensitive to the views of its dialog partners. ASEAN's ability to play an important role in the wider regional and international forums will depend a great deal on how it manages its relations with the world's major political and economic powers.
Given these four main considerations, it would clearly be wiser for ASEAN to wait another two or three years to complete the unification of Southeast Asia. Once Cambodia and Laos are fully integrated into ASEAN, the ASEAN-9 will be in a much better position to receive the full membership of Myanmar. Perhaps by that time, Myanmar's own commitment to ASEAN will become more unified and unequivocally clear, signifying a reconciliation or at least a compromise between SLORC and the opposition group.
The writer is Head of the Regional and International Affairs Division at the Center for Political and Regional Studies of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.