ASEAN's problem with Myanmar

Jusuf Wanandi, Jakarta

Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN has had a dream -- the One Southeast Asia. In 1984, its original five members invited Brunei to join the grouping. Then Vietnam joined in 1995. At the 30th anniversary of ASEAN in 1997 in Kuala Lumpur, Laos and Myanmar were welcomed in. Cambodia's entrance was delayed by a year due to its internal problems.

Expansions of ASEAN's membership always happened when countries were ready to join. The body extended the invitation to join without the need for any preconditions or negotiations.

The One Southeast Asia project was completed in an exuberant mood. Unfortunately, this was followed by the 1997 financial crisis that affected several of its members. Since then, ASEAN development has been lackluster. Indonesia, ASEAN's informal leader and the anchor, was hardest hit by the crisis and was in political turmoil. Gradually, Indonesia has come back, and in the chairmanship in 2003 it provided leadership in shaping the vision of an ASEAN Community that encompasses economic, security and socio-cultural aspects. However, what later became apparent was the growing divide within ASEAN between the older members and the newer ones. The emergence of a two-tier ASEAN could not be prevented.

The biggest problem for ASEAN is Myanmar. The usurpation of power by the military after the general elections of 1990, when the NLD (National League of Democracy) party led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won overwhelmingly, has become a problem for the entire region. It has constrained ASEAN's role because the international community could not work with an illegitimate regime that continues to drag up excuses for its existence. In the past 15 years, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been detained for most of the time under all kinds of charges.

The abuses by the military regime of the populace in general, and towards the minorities in particular, are totally unacceptable. In addition, the government has done little to develop the country and to lessen the plight of the people. The regime cannot hide from world attention and criticism and its behavior also affects its neighbors. Its inability to take responsibility to protect its people creates great stresses and strains along the border with Thailand. It has made declarations to eliminate the drug production and trade in the country, but Myanmar is still one of the world's biggest sources of illicit drugs.

In dealing with Myanmar, ASEAN has not achieved much because of its outmoded principle of non-intervention into member nations' affairs. This is also due to the split in ASEAN about the attitude, the assessment of and the policies on Myanmar.

Thailand, Myanmar's closest neighbor and at one time the champion of the so-called "constructive engagement" with the country, has become more-or-less a defender of the regime due to the vested interests of some of its leaders. With the growing instability in southern Thailand, the Thai government has become more reluctant to intervene into Myanmese affairs.

Malaysia, meanwhile, which earlier championed Myanmar's membership of ASEAN, is now at the forefront in pushing for change in Myanmar and in opposing its upcoming ASEAN chairmanship.

A democratic Indonesia can no longer be close to the Myanmar military as Soeharto's Indonesia was. It has tried to convince the regime of the need for political change for the country's own good and also for the sake of the region. It does not want to see a further weakening of ASEAN due to Myanmar's chairmanship. Even Vietnam, although it is not willing to intervene, does see the need for Myanmar to change and to begin to implement its road map for political development. It has also tried to persuade Myanmar to forego its chairmanship.

Singapore has also been visible in its attempt to persuade the military regime to realize the problems it causes for ASEAN. Both Singapore and Malaysia have substantial investments in Myanmar and want to see country opening up rather than increasingly isolate itself. The Philippines, another Southeast Asian democracy, is prepared to put some pressure on Myanmar, but its own domestic political and economic problems have hampered Philippine efforts.

Civil society groups and parliamentarians in ASEAN have been much more vocal and are willing to push the issue of change in Myanmar further. The ASEAN People's Assembly (APA) and the ASEAN Parliamentary Caucus on Myanmar have been actively addressing the "Myanmar problem."

There are two sides to this problem. One is Myanmar's chairmanship of ASEAN, which it is schedule to assume in 2006. It does not make sense for Myanmar to take the chairmanship post if this results in the boycotting of ASEAN's international and regional meetings by the EU and the United States. Myanmar should take up the chairmanship when it is able to implement its plan for political development in a credible and consistent manner.

The other problem is this plan for political development in accordance with Myanmar's road map for change. How can ASEAN be assured that these positive changes will happen? ASEAN has offered to assist and to provide advice to the Myanmar regime on this matter, making the process easier, more credible and more acceptable to the international community.

ASEAN ISIS has had many engagements with Myanmese politicians those still living in the country and those in exile. Contact with the military ended with the arrests of Khin Nyunt's group.

Parliamentarians, civil society groups and the media must now put pressure on ASEAN's governments, its political leaders and its business elite to maximize their efforts to encourage political change in Myanmar. This means including the NLD in the political development process and freeing leader Suu Kyi from house arrest.

Arguing that Suu Kyi and the NLD are passe is not credible. The issue of change in Myanmar should be given serious attention by ASEAN and should not be left to the rest of the international community.

The writer is co-founder and senior fellow of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).