Myanmar, a long-standing thorn in ASEAN's flesh

Myanmar, a long-standing thorn in ASEAN's flesh

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta

From the outset, even before its entry into the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Myanmar has continued to be an
issue of debate in various ASEAN fora, at the formal as well as
informal (track-two) level. However, ASEAN heads of states and
governments had made the commitment to admit Myanmar, Laos and
Cambodia jointly into the association. It would have been
unthinkable for them to reverse their decision. It would create
the impression of kowtowing to Western pressure. This would be
something ASEAN member states most probably could not afford.

Too much prestige was at stake. The stakes would be double for
Malaysia, which was to host the occasion.

Indeed, Myanmar -- once named Burma - had been isolated or had
isolated itself for decades, as though proving to the world that
it was the only truly nonaligned nation. When asked to join
ASEAN before its establishment in 1967, Burma turned down the
offer because it would run contrary to its nonaligned foreign
policy. Then, however, there was the risk that if it failed to
join ASEAN soon for reasons not of its own making, Myanmar might
never wish to join, again for considerations of prestige.

Moreover, if that had been the case, the dream of a united
Southeast Asia would be shattered. Though not yet in the "ASEAN-
10" formula, the relevant provision in the Bangkok Declaration of
1967 that the association was open for membership to other
countries of the region would express that aspiration. Moreover,
such an aspiration would justify the reference to Southeast Asia
in the association.

To be sure, there were likely to be a certain price for ASEAN
in admitting Myanmar in 1997. For one thing, it might be regarded
as a boost to the legitimacy of the much-criticized military
junta governing in Yangon. It might somehow adversely affect
ASEAN's relations with its dialog partners, particularly the
United States, which had imposed new economic sanctions on
Myanmar.

In any event, it would be difficult to imagine a discussion
between ASEAN and its dialog partners, particularly the United
States, where representatives of Myanmar were present and sitting
at the same table. It would be an awkward situation. It would be
worse should Myanmar take the chair. Yet, if this could have
been foreseen long before (Soedjati, Should ASEAN accept Myanmar
this year, The Jakarta Post, May 19, 1997), how could anyone have
regarded U.S. Foreign Secretary Rice failing to attend this
year's meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers, and sending her deputy
instead as a snub" or a decreasing interest in the problems of
security of Southeast Asia by refraining from participating in
the recent ARF meeting?

Unfortunately, other ASEAN member states have been too slow
and too subtle in their efforts to persuade the ruling junta of
Myanmar to consider skipping its turn as chair in the next ASEAN
meeting with its dialog partners next year. They have been
constrained by their reluctance somehow to help bring pressure to
bear on Myanmar to seriously consider that option. ASEAN member
countries, especially Indonesia, may hide such a reluctance
behind the facade of the "cardinal principle" of not interfering
in one another's domestic affairs.

For one thing, such a policy has been expressed in changing
formulas such as "constructive engagement" and others, each of
which does not really make much sense, and defies practical
application. In addition, in the current system of globalization,
nations are increasingly interdependent. Nations are also
increasingly open to one another.

Thus it is not always easy in this era to make a distinction
between the strictly "domestic affairs" of a country, and what is
becoming the concern of humanity. These are problems related to
such increasingly universal values as individual liberties,
democracy marked by pluralism, equality and justice for everyone,
and respect for basic human rights -- hence the concept of human
security and of human intervention.

Indeed, to sustain such values, the promotion of good
governance and the establishment of a civil society, which often
relates to domestic stability or instability, are problems that
are common to all ASEAN member states. Could it be, then, that
some of us, particularly Indonesia, the largest member-state, but
at the moment among the least successful in putting our own house
in order, wonder to ourselves, "Who are we, then, after all, to
pressure Myanmar toward democratic reform? " hat their military
junta did in 1990 to Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD under her
leadership, was worse that what one normally understands to be a
coup d'etat. What was reported on Tuesday by this newspaper, that
Myanmar may well skip its turn as chair, to be replaced by the
Philippines, may hopefully be right.