[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

The Nation (17/6/98)



News headlines

------------------------------------

1:) Better try constructive intervention

----------------------------------------


<bold>Better try constructive intervention

</bold>

- To successfully bring Burma into the international community, Asean
needs the help of its Western friends, <italic>writes Amitav
Acharya</italic>.


It is clear that a year of Asean membership has done litter to improve
Burma's international image, particularly its standing with Asean's
Western "friends". Neither has it produced any recognisable domestic
political change in that country.

	Ironically, much of the pressure for political change in the region
today concerns not Burma, but the older Asean member states where regime
legitimacy has been undermined by the recent economic downturn. The
latter also challenges the credibility of Asean's "constructive
engagement" policy towards Burma. In the meantime, there has been no
change in Burma's security links with china, the lessening of which was
one of the ostensible reasons for bringing it into the Asean fold.

	The "policy" (for the lack of a better term) of constructive engagement
was conceived by Asean under circumstances that were vastly different
from what it faces today. Then, it was a self-confident Asean enjoying
impressive growth rates and basking in international limelight gained
from its diplomatic efforts to settle the Cambodia conflict, which
insisted that the way to deal with Burma was not through sanctions or
isolation, but through "gentle" persuasion that would presumably convince
the Rangoon regime to undertake political liberalisation. Today, Asean's
image and self-confidence has nose-dived as a result of the region's
economic crisis. The crisis has exposed the Asean countries' precarious
dependence on global market forces and financial institutions, and caused
the collapse of internal order in its largest member state. Thus, Asean
has less clout today in selling its policy towards Burma to its friends
in the international community than in the past.

	The constructive engagement policy has also been divisive for Asean
itself. Intramural differences surfaced in 1997 when Thailand and the
Philippines initially seemed reluctant to let Burma into Asean fold. They
were indicative of the increasing political diversity within Asean as a
result of the globalisation of human rights norms and the advance of the
democratisation process in Asia Pacific region.

	Until recently, Burma. Backed by some of its Asean friends, had claimed
that Indonesia's political system can hardly be seen as a model.
Moreover, the economic crisis has undermined the view that authoritarian
political systems are better able to create and maintain economic
prosperity. Witness the contrast between democratic Thailand and South
Korea on the one hand, and Indonesia on the other, in dealing with their
national economic downturns. Thus, continued authoritarianism in Burma,
which has been partly legitimised by Asean's constructive engagement
policy, can no longer be justified as a superior approach to economic
growth and political order. 

	For Asean, accepting Burma as a full member has been politically costly.
Thai Deputy Foreign Minister Sukhumbhand Paribatra once warned that
granting membership to Burma would make Asean appear as a "club of
dictators" before the international community. To some extent, this has
happened. Moreover, cross-border incursions by Burma's armed forces into
Thailand in hot pursuit of ethnic guerrillas threatens border peace in
Asean. The constructive engagement policy has also been challenged by a
vocal NGO community in Southeast Asia, thereby strengthening the image of
Asean as an association of governments and elites, rather than the anchor
of a genuine regional civil society. 

	But in the current economic and political climate, there are no easy
alternatives to constructive engagement. One promising course of action
is the idea of "constructive intervention", proposed a year ago by
Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. It called for a more
pro-active Asean role in encouraging, among other things, the development
of civil society and electoral reform in the economically weak and
politically unstable countries of Southeast Asia.  

	But the idea never received much support from the Asean governments,
largely because it seemed to undermine Asean's time-honoured principle of
noninterference. Moreover, constructive intervention requires resources
and political will, which was going to be difficult, even in the
pre-crisis days. Today, with Asean's older members themselves struggling
to maintain their economic health and oilitical stability, the idea of an
Asean-sponsored constructive intervention programme seems even more
far-fetched. In fact, there is no reason why constructive intervention
should be regarded as any more applicable to Burma than to Indonesia,
Asean's largest member.

	To successfully bring Burma into the international community, Asean
needs the help of its Western friends. In this regard, the current
economic crisis may have created the opportunity for a more collaborative
effort by Asean and the West in advancing political change in Burma.

	Until now, Western countries have pushed for economic sanctions and
diplomatic isolation in dealing with Rangoon. But the effectiveness of
sanctions is questionable. Moreover, Asean will never go along with a
policy that uses sanctions to promote democracy in the region, not the
least due to what many in Asean see as Western double-standards in
championing human rights and democracy.

Asean and its Western friends should come to an understanding that
political liberalisation in Burma requires them to search for a middle
ground between a minimalist policy of constructive engagement on the one
hand, and an all-out economic boycott and diplomatic isolation of Burma
on the other.

	One lesson of the current economic crisis for Asean is that an open
policy is a basic requirement for regional stability. Asean should ensure
that the military regime in Burma does not abuse Asean's policy to
perpetuate itself. It should rethink the current approach continues to
alienate Asean's friends at a time when it needs the economic and
political support of the international community.

	Asean should be more prepared to use pressure as much as persuasion in
dealing with the military regime in Burma. It should give careful thought
to developing aspects of the constructive measures to advance electoral
reform and strengthen the rule of law in the region. This would require
Asean to adopt a more relaxed view of its non-interference doctrine.

	In this undertaking, Asean should also be more welcoming of assistance
and involvement of its Western friends. For their part, Asean's friends
should be ready to commit ideas and resources in developing a more
positive and collaborative approach to human rights and democracy. The
Asean-PMC process (rather than the ARF, which has become progressively
hostage to Chinese minimalism) could be used as a venue for developing
such a collaborative effort.


---------------END --------------------