Time for tough love

Time for tough love

There are times when protocol and diplomatic doublespeak will not
do, and there are times when soft persuasion and quiet engagement
needs to be reinforced with strong words and benign intimidation.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been
one of the most loyal and patient partners of the military regime
in Myanmar. The other nine members of the regional grouping have
endured censure and international scolding for its persistence in
sticking to the "constructive engagement" approach with Myanmar.
At a time when Yangon is a pariah in the eyes of many around
world, ASEAN members have not only acted neighborly, but
brotherly toward a regime that remains mired in repressive dogma.

ASEAN has maintained that it has no right to interfere with
domestic politics in Myanmar, and that it is better to engage
Yangon, while quietly prodding its military regime toward
political reform rather than completely isolating them. Economic
cooperation, it is believed, will lead to social development,
which in turn, will help ease political suppression.

An argument has also made that human rights were not a
prerequisite for membership during Myanmar's admittance to ASEAN
in 1997, therefore the organization cannot make such demands now
on the ruling regime.

Under the deft rhetoric of ASEAN foreign ministers, these
opinions seemed persuasive at the time. After eight years of
political lethargy in Myanmar these arguments are no longer
convincing. Neither are the constituents of ASEAN, who acquiesce
to such (il)logic.

The fate of nations are not restricted to the physical
boundaries that define their citizenship. Humanity cannot be
bound by nationality or ideology. Our strategic negligence of
events in Myanmar has not proved beneficial or encouraged
fundamental change.

In other words, the political fate of the people of Myanmar
has not improved as ASEAN has looked the other way.

It can be likened to the next door neighbor that is physically
abusive toward his family. We acknowledge the privacy of each
individual family -- chauvinistically speaking, "a man's home is
his castle". But as civilized beings we have a moral obligation
that overrides misrepresented notions of good neighborliness
(sovereignty).

If abuse persists despite soft reminders, then tough words
should be used. When all else fails then its time to take action.

We believe that all else has failed.

If Yangon wishes to continue its belligerence then it should
do so on its own terms, by itself. It should not continue to
taint the good name of ASEAN and its members' relationships with
respective dialog partners.

During the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Cebu, the Philippines,
which began on Sunday, Myanmar officials displayed a complete
lack of consideration for the anxiety and stresses that the other
nine members have had to endure.

Yangon will take over the rotating ASEAN chair, and in 2006,
it will host the annual ASEAN meeting, which is customarily
attended by its dialog partners. Both the European Union and the
United States have, understandably, said they would boycott such
a meeting.

ASEAN should not prostrate itself to hegemonic powers, but it
should also carefully consider which causes are worth fighting
for. Myanmar, simply put, is not worth it! By thumbing its nose
at demands for political openness, Yangon is jeopardizing the
whole of ASEAN. The irony is that most of the demands made by the
EU and the U.S. are actually the same values which Indonesia
aspires to.

The start of a "tough love" policy should begin with an
ultimatum for immediate political change as a condition of the
ASEAN chairmanship. Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have as much to
lose by Myanmar's chairmanship as Yangon itself does.

Finally, it may be good to ask Indonesian Minister of Foreign
Affairs Hassan Wirayuda to remind his Myanmar counterpart, U Nyan
Win, that being a member of a team means putting the greater good
of that team ahead of individual interests. If the latter
responds negatively, then it can only be perceived as
confirmation that Yangon is simply using ASEAN as a shield to
perpetuate its military regime.

Thus, ASEAN should be encouraged to say "no" to Myanmar's
recalcitrance, the way youngsters are encouraged to say "no" to
drugs. If "no" is not chosen, in both cases, there will be
negative consequences.