[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
THE NATION: Uncertainty in post-Suh
- Subject: THE NATION: Uncertainty in post-Suh
- From: suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 01:48:00
Editorial & Opinion
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE:
Uncertainty in post-Suharto Asean
What will be the future of the post-Suharto Asean? This
question has been raised with increased frequency these
days in academic and diplomatic circles. So far there is
no clear answer.
When Indonesia, the most important and populous
member of Asean, goes through an unprecedented
transition, both the short- and long-term impact on the
grouping and the region as a whole can be far-reaching.
Indonesia's swift changes in the past weeks have raised
hopes that the bedrock of Asean is beginning to loosen up
and is in the process becoming more open and
democratic. Although the various economic and political
reforms promised by new President Jusuf Habibie remain
an open question, it has nevertheless brought a breath of
fresh air into the troubled region.
Regardless of the final outcome of the drastic
transformation in Indonesia, Jakarta's role in Asean in the
post-Suharto era will never be the same again. Coupled
with the ongoing economic crisis, Asean members have
now been forced to re-examine some of their fundamental
beliefs relating to the grouping's philosophy,
decision-making, multi-faceted cooperation and future
vision.
Without Suharto, the reign of other long-time Asean
leaders doesn't look too solid either. Within Asean,
seniority rules when it comes to decision-making despite
its being based on consensus. And with a new corp of
leaders, especially in the Philippines and Thailand, who
unlike the older generation have no institutional hangovers,
Asean could become an organisation that is more gentle,
less elitist and more people-based.
As reform takes shape in Indonesia, optimism prevails
that the post-Suharto Asean will be more receptive to
sensitive issues such as human rights and democracy. It is
expected that new Indonesian leaders at future Asean
meetings will no longer be able to behave like their
predecessors. With demands from the masses on the rise
within the region, the top-down decision-making process
of the past three decades in Asean has to be changed. In
order to remain relevant to the lives of ordinary people, a
bottom-up process could become a reality within the
forum.
For instance, the long-rejected proposal to establish a
people's council in Asean to engage citizens from all
walks of life, including non-government organisations, so
that they can be involved in the Asean projects could
materialise in the future. If such a trend can be sustained, it
would tip the balance of power among Asean members
away from the dominant authoritarianism to the
democratic pole. The core of Asean might shift from the
group comprising Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to a
new group consisting of Indonesia, the Philippines and
Thailand. New members such as Vietnam, Laos and
Burma would find it increasingly difficult to accommodate
themselves to this new group and its democratic political
orientation.
At present an immediate question repeatedly being
discussed is the future of Asean's non-interference
principle. Already new problems such as financial
turbulence, haze, regional migration, Aids and drug
trafficking already beg new approaches. If joint action on
these issues were to be taken seriously by Asean, the
non-intervention principle that the grouping has been
familiar with will have to go.
In addition internal problems in one Asean country can
sometimes affect the whole region. For example the
region's financial crisis was triggered by Thailand, and the
haze problem in Indonesia caused climatic chaos in
neighbouring countries. Without early and closer
consultations and collaboration that go beyond the
tradition non-interference norm, coping with future crises
will be difficult.
Another pressing issue for the post-Suharto Asean is
Burma. It is well known that Burma has looked at
Indonesia as the model for economic and political
development. Therefore the resignation of Suharto came
as a shock to the military junta. It is thus understandable
that during the turmoil in Indonesia that led to Suharto's
demise, the mass media in Burma had blacked out
reports on this historic event. Only when Habibie was
inaugurated as the new president did the Burmese TV lift
the blackout.
Last July Asean staked its reputation in admitting the
military regime. Since Asean deployed its constructive
engagement policy back in 1991 nothing much has
improved. Indeed recent developments inside Burma
indicate that things have worsened. Some
Burma-watchers feared a backlash in which the Rangoon
leaders could decide to go back to the ''Burmese Way'' of
development, the isolationist policy that it had adopted in
the past.
Since Burma joined Asean, overall relations between
Asean and its Western dialogue partners have suffered.
With its interests hinging on good ties with the West,
Asean has been trying hard to use quiet diplomacy and
peer pressure to bring about positive changes in Burma
and encourage dialogue between the regime's leaders
and the opposition, but these efforts have yet to produce
results.
If they fail and Burma remains a thorn in European
Union-Asean ties, suggestions have been made by
Southeast Asian scholars that ways must be found to
punish Burma, such as suspension of membership.
Although it is far-fetched for a post-Suharto Asean to
boycott Burma, it is not impossible, and when push comes
to shove, Asean would prefer to maintain its ties with the
West and sacrifice Burma.
After all, Asean needs Western support in overcoming its
current economic crisis at a time when its bargaining
power is on the wane. If that is the scenario, Burma could
see itself out of Asean in the near future.
BY KAVI CHONGKITTAVORN
The Nation