SHAMEFUL FOR ASEAN TO EMBRACE BURMA (r)

[ausgeo@xxxxxxx]

01 Jun 1997 

Section: Local 
Shameful for Asean to embrace Burma 

Asean will never be the same again. By embracing Burma as a member it has 
itself become a pariah organisation. Coming as it does on the eve of the 30th 
anniversary of the founding of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the 
decision yesterday will have repercussions far beyond whatever Asean leaders 
may envisage. It has indeed irreversibly damaged the organisation's integrity 
and setback some three decades of achievement. 

We firmly believe the applications for membership by Burma, Laos and Cambodia 
should be judged on their individual merits and readiness, just as it has 
always been in other regional organisations. But still, these qualifications 
are secondary to their peoples' desire for freedom and democracy. 

To accept Burma without any conditions is to ignore the aspirations of the 
Burmese people, who voted for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy 
(NLD) in 1990. Why bless a regime that is clearly not legitimate? A regime 
that is willing to go back on its word. 

>From the beginning, the Burmese junta's motive in bidding for membership of 
Asean was obvious ­ a regional aegis to prolong its own repressive rule and to 
fight against Western pressure for openness. By exploiting Asean's strengths 
and weaknesses the junta leaders have been able to turn the membership issue 
into an East-West divide ­ Asean against the West. 

In the two years Burma has sought a closer rapport with Asean it has never 
lived up to regional or international norms of conduct and behaviour. Now, 
Asean would like us and the world to believe that as a member of Asean, the 
Slorc leaders will be more enlightened, open-minded and less oppressive. 

The Asean leaders' decision yesterday was a triumph of evil over humanity. 
There is a Thai saying that one rotten fish can spoil the whole basket of 
fish. 

The biggest disappointment must be those Thai leaders who failed to play 
appropriate roles in leading Asean. Partisan politics and self-interest on the 
part of various authorities completely destroyed the unanimity of Thailand's 
positions and policies. They will have to bear responsibility for the future 
of the Burmese people. 

Nonetheless, we welcome the decision to take in Laos and Cambodia, despite the 
political uncertainty in Phnom Penh. Laos has been preparing for this 
eventuality the longest, knowing full well their inadequacies. The Laotian and 
Cambodian peoples are supportive of their governments' desire to join Asean. 

The only tangible benefit of Burma's admission is perhaps the fulfilment of an 
Asean dream to encompass all 10 countries, as outlined in the Bangkok 
Declaration of 1967. It is doubtful whether the attainment of an Asean 10 
under such circumstances will add to the influence that Asean has come to 
expect. 

Then again, the decision should not come as a surprise to anyone. 

Most Asean leaders have much in common with the State Law and Order 
Restoration Council in Rangoon. The decision is very much in line with their 
domestic politics ­ the ostensibly one-party rule in Malaysia, Indonesia, 
Vietnam and Singapore, and the vote-buying and political patronage which 
victimises the people of Thailand. 

In the final analysis, it is not the international pressure against Slorc that 
really matters. What matters is the burning desire of the people in all Asean 
member states to incorporate democracy and human rights as part of their 
national development. 

These aspirations, like Burma, are being ignored and quashed by current Asean 
leaders. 

Thus, it is not that Asean has embraced Burma, but that Slorc has joined a 
club whose members are very much like themselves. And with Burma being a 
member of the regional grouping, we are seeing a ''Slorcisation" of Asean. 
That, sadly, does not portend well for the people of the region.