Bending 'non-interference'

Bending 'non-interference'

Kornelius Purba, Staff Writer, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

korpur@yahoo.com

A tempting reply to what might be the most important result of
last week's ASEAN summit in Bali would likely be the
disappointing response of the leaders over the detention of
Myanmar's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Of course there were more impressive achievements at the
summit, especially in terms of the economy and better relations
with Asian regional economic superpowers like China, Japan and
then South Korea. But the issue of Suu Kyi seemed to overshadow
any hint of success at the gathering.

The 10 leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
failed to pressure the junta to free Suu Kyi at the Bali summit
despite their appeals expressed since her detention in May last
year. Their statements have nevertheless conveyed a concern for
the growth of democracy and for more respect of human rights in
the region, although they may also realize later their decision
can backfire against themselves one day.

And like it or not, Myanmar's junta deserves gratitude because
their prolonged repression against Suu Kyi inspired the change.

It is rather strange for many that Indonesia -- the champion
of ASEAN's cardinal principle of non-interference for decades --
is acting pioneer to end its rigid implementation.

The proposal was raised at the summit and the result, as
expected, was a failure, as the principal remains in the Bali
Concord II document issued after the meeting. The concord
strongly reiterates the obligation by the members to abide by the
magic words, non-interference.

Bending the principal would imply that while retiring
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad loudly scolded
Myanmar's junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi, he might have to
brace for his neighbors shouting the same thing for the release
of the jailed former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Singapore's Goh Chok Tong has also strongly acted in favor of
Suu Kyi. But if others call on him to soften his government's
repressive practices -- through legal lawsuits -- against its
outspoken antigovernment critics, the prime minister would find
himself shouting back in defense, just like Myanmar's junta.

Apart from Indonesia, only Thailand and the Philippines so far
are prepared to share their dirty linen with others, along with
the development of democracy in these countries.

However, although ASEAN leaders have pledged to continue to
refrain from sticking their noses in their friends' affairs,
Mahathir and Goh along with other leaders have, though perhaps
unwittingly, set a far-reaching precedent for the regional group
through their separate calls to free Suu Kyi.

Agreeing to "flexible non-interference" would imply that one
day, in the face of a petition from a neighboring country urging
Malaysia to free Anwar Ibrahim, or strong appeals for Singapore
to relax the Internal Security Act, the two countries could no
longer tell such governments to mind their own business.

At least they would have to provide some response.

But why is Indonesia, led by Minister of Foreign Affairs
Hassan Wirayuda, so eager to relax the non-interference
principal?

Conversations with Indonesian diplomats like Hassan and
Ministry of Foreign Affairs' spokesman Marty Natalegawa and some
Cabinet members may give some insight.

Since the fall of Soeharto in May 1998, Indonesia switched
from being ASEAN's main source of power to its main source of
anxiety. Since then Indonesian officials attending regional
meetings, from the level of senior officials and ministers to the
heads of governments, had to brief counterparts on clashes
between Christians and Muslims in Maluku and other issues of
endless domestic turbulence. In time, the usually sensitive
officials no longer felt embarrassed when asked about domestic
chaos in regional meetings.

"We have lost our sense of shame," an official joked.

The most shocking experience for Indonesia and ASEAN was
during the post-referendum mayhem in East Timor in 1999. At that
time ASEAN could not do much to support the Indonesian
government, because for decades they had pretended not to hear
and not to know anything about East Timor. After all, by ASEAN
standards, it was strictly Indonesia's domestic affair.

"If ASEAN from the beginning was well informed about East
Timor, we might not have needed the presence of Australian troops
there at that time," an Indonesian official recalled.

Officially the ASEAN leaders have rejected Indonesia's
proposal to adopt a more flexible non-interference principle.
Mahathir has less to lose as he retires this month. But other
leaders would surely have to expect neighbors calling for the
release of their jailed political prisoners, and many other
embarrassing issues.