Myanmar may embarrass ASEAN

Myanmar may embarrass ASEAN

By Meidyatama Suryodiningrat

JAKARTA (JP): While Myanmar's eventual admission into the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a forgone
conclusion, Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi's recent
announcement that Yangon has formally applied for membership
brings the reality closer to home.

This means that in less than a year Myanmar could be a full
member of ASEAN. With that member states are faced with the
immediate reality of having one of the world's most unsavory
regimes in its ranks.

The questions are, will ASEAN adopt a care-free business-as-
usual attitude, and who will truly benefit, at least in the short
run, from Myanmar's entry.

Officials display an upbeat attitude to Myanmar's membership,
saying it accomplishes the dream of an ASEAN 10. But academics
have been more doubtful.

Analysts, both from inside and outside the region, have been
counting the benefits and costs. Either way it is a close call.

British academic and Asian expert Michael Leifer in Jakarta
recently expressed skepticism and concern.

"It is a matter that could cause ASEAN considerable
international embarrassment," he told The Jakarta Post.

"I think the benefits of membership of Myanmar in ASEAN are
much greater for Myanmar than they are for ASEAN," said Leifer, a
professor at the London School of Economics and Political
Science.

What are the gains for ASEAN? The first is of course symbolic
-- realizing the 30-year-old dream of encompassing all 10
Southeast Asian states.

The second is of a strategic nature. ASEAN is worried that if
Myanmar does not come into the fore soon it will become aligned
with China.

Thus far the seven ASEAN members -- Brunei, Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam --
have maintained a policy of "constructive engagement". They argue
that engaging Myanmar will help promote a more open and
democratic government.

While ASEAN's refusal to follow the West in isolating Myanmar
is understandable, its continued refusal to criticize Yangon has
left many exasperated and angry.

"They (ASEAN) may find themselves put into a position of
justifying the unjustifiable," Leifer remarked, pointing to
possible repetitions of the events in 1988 during which some
1,000 demonstrators were reportedly gunned down during pro-
democracy rallies.

During a visit here to the ASEAN Secretariat in July, Myanmar
Foreign Minister Ohn Gyaw rebutted questions from journalists and
maintained that based on Myanmar's values, the definition human
rights consisted merely of food, clothing and shelter.

Projecting a strong sense of self-confidence, Ohn Gyaw argued
that a strong government was needed to satisfy these basic
necessities.

Warning of the consequences, Leifer was scathing in his
assessment of those who defended such self-serving values: "While
it's possible to make arguments of Asian values and strong
government, ASEAN I think will be embarrassed by a strong
government with too much blood on its hands."

Indonesian political scientist Soedjati Djiwandono of the
Jakarta-based Center for Strategic and International Studies
argued that while the policy of non-interference has its merits,
ASEAN should be more selective in its application.

"How long can we maintain that? We have to review what kind of
domestic affairs we don't interfere in," he argued.

While admitting that Jakarta is probably "no better" in its
human rights record, Soedjati expressed exasperation with ASEAN's
habit of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.

ASEAN values or the colloquial "ASEAN way" conceal and even
justify human rights abuses and authoritarian regimes.

Supporters of the "constructive engagement" policy say that it
may be part of a "carrot and stick" strategy.

As Western states wield the "stick", ASEAN is dangling the
"carrot" by showing Yangon the benefits of opening up further.

Yet the question remains: How can ASEAN be constructive and
improve democracy and human rights when it has never officially
expressed any such concerns to Myanmar.

So can constructive engagement improve the situation in
Myanmar?

"The simple answer is: No. I don't think constructive
engagement will change it," Leifer replied.

The outcome may be the exact opposite. "There's a danger that
membership of ASEAN will be used as an additional basis of
legitimacy and perpetuation of a military regime," he warned.