In defense of constructive engagement

Now that Myanmar is an ASEAN observer, with the promise of full membership in two years, it is possible to look back with some amusement on the hype and the hysterics, and the postures struck by some Western spokesmen. Not for a moment is this to suggest that ASEAN should -- or did -- turn a blind eye to what Philippine Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon rightly described as a common commitment to "participatory democracy and respect for human rights". But the controversy that was quite unnecessarily created might recommend the need for a review of relations with a European Union (EU) whose agenda on a number of issues may not synchronize with ASEAN's priorities. Dissent may be the essence of debate, but there are situations, and this was one of them, when it can only distract attention and energy from more important matters at hand.

This summit and post-ministerial conference were path-breaking events. The inclusion of China and Russia as full dialogue partners recognized an Asia-Pacific reality; extension of the same status to India indicated formal acknowledgement of the beginnings of a synergistic partnership. Myanmar's eventual full membership, to be preceded by Laos and Cambodia, underscored the long-term vision of the ASEAN 10. Hardly could such a concept, of vital importance to millions of Asians, be allowed to be disrupted because the European Parliament had passed a resolution calling for sanctions against Myanmar. Strict adherence to the demand would have deprived even EU chairman Dick Spring of what he admitted was a "useful opportunity" for exchanging views with Myanmar Foreign Minister Ohn Gyaw.

Nothing, in fact, summed up the choice better than this episode. Either there is a dialogue, with its inherent scope of influencing attitudes and actions, or there is a boycott, which amounts to disclaiming all responsibility for present and future conditions. The latter course is hardly advisable for neighbors with so much at stake.

-- The Straits Times, Singapore