'Non-interference would abdicate responsibility'

'Non-interference would abdicate responsibility'

Myanmar is to take over the rotational chairmanship of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) next year. This
has become a source of great concern within the region while the
country's leading figure of dissent, Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of
the popular National League for Democracy, is still under house
arrest. On Wednesday in Jakarta, legislators from seven member
countries of ASEAN launched the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Caucus
on Myanmar. Following are excerpts of an interview with the
caucus president Datuk Zaid Ibrahim of Malaysia's ruling UMNO
party, who talked to The Jakarta Post's Ivy Susanti and Ati
Nurbaiti.

Question: What is the strategy of the caucus given that it is
relatively small and comprises only a few individual legislators?

Answer: Numbers are not that important, (our grouping) is just
a start. What's important is that all the legislators must convey
(caucus) views to their governments. If Myanmar isn't going to
change (regarding efforts towards democratization and the release
of Aung San Suu Kyi) then we should not give them the
chairmanship of ASEAN.

I told my foreign minister (Syed Hamid Albar) that we would
look ridiculous. We fought for democracy. Having ASEAN chaired by
this kind of leadership, even though it's only a rotation (of
leadership among the member countries), would not be acceptable.

I will try to raise a motion in my parliament's next sitting
(to have Malaysia reject Myanmar's chairmanship of ASEAN) and
hope that other (Southeast Asian) countries will follow suit.

But governments of ASEAN still adhere to the principle of non-
interference ...

We've actually always interfered (in various matters) through
expressions of views. And "constructive engagement" (a principle
developed in ASEAN in relation to Myanmar) has not worked.

There are times when we have no other choice (than to
interfere) -- like when a conduct of a nation affects the
interests of others in a fundamental way, we must speak up for
our common beliefs.

In such cases "non-interference" would be an abdication of
responsibility regarding violations of human rights.
So why has it taken so long for lawmakers in ASEAN to take up
this issue together?

I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing. But you must remember
that before there were fewer members in ASEAN (now there are 10
members including Myanmar). As you get bigger there are more
complex issues. We have to change.

We must express our views as members of the United Nations;
civilized countries must stand up against gross violations (of
human rights). Look at Cambodia (during the period of the Khmer
Rouge). If we hadn't done anything would that have been a good
thing?

Do you support the idea of Indonesia's deputy of the
interparliamentary caucus, Ade Nasution, that the caucus should
use the services of the current chairman of the Human Rights
Commission at the UN, Indonesia's Makarim Wibisono?

We support that idea. Indonesia is the largest democracy in
the region, so it must lead (regarding the issue of Myanmar) and
it has all the credentials to do so. What's needed is continuous,
concerted pressure from the global community; (especially) now
that the Burma (Myanmar) issue is being sidetracked by the issue
of Iraq and others.

(Ibrahim earlier told a limited gathering: "Look at Europe.
Some 50 years after World War II the countries managed to come
together. We also want to have something like that, to prosper
together ...")