[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
ASEAN has no choice but to ignore U
- Subject: ASEAN has no choice but to ignore U
- From: ausgeo@xxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 18:29:00
Subject: ASEAN has no choice but to ignore US on Burma
Asia Times News
ASEAN has no choice but to ignore US on Myanmar
Stephen Brookes, 30th May 1997
Just after daybreak on May 9, 18,000 identically-clad people assembled in the
Kantarawaday stadium in the northern Burma's town of Loikaw. Sitting
cross-legged on the ground in evenly-spaced rows, they waited patiently in the
early morning sun as the threat to their existence was explained to them.
"As all the comrades are aware, ASEAN is extending welcome to Burma's
integration," a speaker intoned sternly to the crowd.
"But neocolonialists have resorted to all means to prevent Burma's integration
into ASEAN. Neocolonialists outside the country and their stooges inside
colluded in their ruthless schemes to jeopardize Myanmar's relations with
Southeast Asian nations, cause social and religious conflicts and incite riots
and unrest!"
The rhetoric may have been clumsy, but the message was clear. And the
pro-ASEAN, anti-United States rally was only one of dozens staged recently by
the Union Solidarity and Development Association, the political wing of
Burma's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), as ASEAN
foreign ministers prepare to meet on Saturday to settle the date for Burma's
admission to the association.
The issue has generated an international squabble, and the battle lines have
been drawn for more than a year. SLORC has made admission a top priority,
while opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is dead-set against it. The ASEAN
leaders, saying they want to promote stability and economic development in the
region, are in favor, while the US has been energetically lobbying ASEAN to
delay, saying it should put more pressure on Burma's junta to improve its
human rights record.
"I would very much like to slow down the possibility of Burma [Myanmar] coming
into the ASEAN," US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told a Senate
committee hearing last week. "We have tried very hard to get the ASEAN
countries to follow our steps, but they don't seem to be interested."
In fact, the bickering is a sham. Everyone knows that Burma's membership this
year is a sure thing, whether it happens in July (which looks like a sure bet)
or in December, and a five month wait makes no real difference to anyone in
the region.
But the timing issue has presented an opportunity for political posturing on
all sides. The US has used it to pretend it is tough on authoritarian regimes.
SLORC has used it to attack Suu Kyi as a neocolonialist and an enemy of the
state. And ASEAN has used it to show that it is an assertive body that has its
own mind and makes its own decisions - and is not afraid to stand up to the
West.
Most of Asia will be relieved when the decision is finally announced and the
snarling is over. Nevertheless, the debate over Burma has done one important
thing: It has brought both the romanticism of the West and the pragmatism of
Southeast Asia into sharp relief.
Washington's policy, as exemplified by the economic sanctions it announced
last month, is to isolate SLORC diplomatically and undermine the e Burma
conomy. This is supposed to bring about democratic change, though no one in
Washington has explained exactly how, and most analysts agreed that unilateral
sanctions have almost no significant economic impact.
The truth is, the US sanctions were never meant to be a realistic tactic for
promoting democracy. Rather, they were merely a gesture to express disapproval
of Myanmar's military junta . "There are times when the United States needs to
stand up and say a situation in a country is so reprehensible and human rights
are being violated by such a broad degree that we have to do something about
it," sniffed a State Department spokesman when the sanctions were announced.
But to many Asian eyes, the sanctions appear foolish and irresponsible - the
act of a country that doesn't have to live with the consequences of its
actions. "America acts tough on Myanmar, because they don't have to worry
about what happens," a Japanese businessman in Yangon said after the
announcement. "If Myanmar becomes unstable, they don't care. It doesn't affect
the United States in any way. But they're afraid to put sanctions on China,
because they know they will have to pay a price."
This lack of responsibility lends a curious irony to the moral stance taken by
Suu Kyi and the US. Both are careful to avoid saying sanctions are designed to
create economic instability and social unrest, but privately they admit that
is exactly what they are supposed to do.
But who picks up the pieces if the US policy is successful and Myanmar's
economy does collapse? The US has been conveniently silent on this. If
Washington can successfully weaken SLORC's grip on power, is it prepared to
send in the marines if the country starts to fall apart? Here too, Washington
has been silent. Would it be prepared to prop up the National League for
Democracy with money and military support until it could form a government?
Again, more silence.
So if the US is not prepared to guarantee Myanmar's stability, is it
responsible - or even moral - for Washington to actively undermine it, just
because it doesn't approve of the government?
ASEAN, on the other hand, cannot afford to act so casually. Its members know
it is not really important whether or not they approve of SLORC. What matters
is the reality: SLORC is running the country and is probably going to be
running it for some time to come. ASEAN cannot indulge in the self-righteous
posturing of the US - it knows that if Myanmar's economy collapses or the
country becomes unstable, the entire region will suffer the consequences. And
that is something against which, as responsible leaders, they must defend.
"We have all agreed not to leave Myanmar behind," Malaysian Foreign Minister
Abdullah Badawi said earlier this month. "Otherwise, the situation may
deteriorate to a point that will jeopardize the stability of the region."
Moreover, if Western sanctions generate instability in Myanmar, it is ASEAN
that will have to clean up the damage. As Philippine Foreign Minister Domingo
Siazon suggested on May 1, "Those who are far away, if this particular case
should not turn out to be successful, they do not really suffer the strategic
consequences. We are involved, we are very near. You cannot leave Myanmar to
collapse or to have an internal revolution."
Is it really any wonder, then, that ASEAN, as Albright complained, does "not
seem to be interested" in following the US lead?