Engaging Myanmar

Within the space of only four days, Myanmar was admitted first to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as an observer and later as a full member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). The first is a regional organization with a strong international reputation, and the other is an emerging elite forum, involving the United States, China, Russia and the European Union, among others, for which membership is difficult to come by.

Myanmar assumed its seats at these two organizations during the series of the ASEAN ministerial meetings in Jakarta this week in spite of the growing pressure from western countries and from dissidents in Myanmar to isolate Yangon and impose economic sanctions because of its continued suppression of democracy.

There were no real objections to Myanmar's entry into the ARF from the United States, Canada, Australia and the European Union -- whose governments have been at the forefront in demanding isolation. The grumbling and tough talking heard before the ARF meeting on Tuesday receded when the 21 participating ministers sat down and began talking.

ASEAN's policy of "constructive engagement" with Myanmar has prevailed, and the western countries have accepted it, at least for the time being. The West realizes that isolation and sanctions will not work without the support of Myanmar's immediate neighbors. By sitting down together in one room with Myanmar's representative, the ministers who were calling for isolation were themselves involved in the process of engagement. Pro-isolationists have to wait for their moment, and pro- engagement advocates have been given more time to prove that their approach is the correct one. Even the U.S. Senate this week watered down a bill that originally called for tough sanctions against Myanmar and companies doing business with the Yangon regime.

The international concerns about the situation in Myanmar have not been entirely swept under the carpet at the ASEAN meetings. Although the issue was not mentioned in the ARF's closing statement, it was raised at the forum at the insistence of U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Myanmar Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw used the occasion to brief the forum about his government's policies. Obviously Secretary Christopher and the other ministers present did not have to completely accept the explanation, but at least they had the first-hand opportunity to hear Yangon's intentions.

Representatives from the EU and Canada also used their presence to meet separately with minister Gyaw and raise their concerns directly with him.

This is exactly what engagement is all about. At the very least they are talking with Myanmar, rather than keeping it at bay. Whether or not change in Myanmar can be produced from these talks remains to be seen. Certainly one or two ideas that are more constructive than the call for isolation surfaced in Jakarta this week, like the Canadian suggestion for the establishment of a UN-sponsored multilateral contact group on Myanmar.

The ASEAN ministers also used the meeting to engage Myanmar in what they call "quite diplomacy". By allowing Yangon to take an observer seat, ASEAN knew that it was risking the wrath of the international community.

But ASEAN cannot keep its constructive engagement policy forever, without risking its reputation and integrity that it has painfully built over the last 29 years.

The rest of the world is watching the ASEAN approach and will demand results. ASEAN's job now is to convince the Yangon regime that sooner or later it will have to make concessions to the pro- democracy activists led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who has the sympathy and support of the international community.

There are still a few years before Myanmar will be allowed to become a full-fledged member of ASEAN. This period should be used by ASEAN members to pursue their approach of quite diplomacy and to come up with some positive results.