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.