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

Myanmar's ASEAN shield



JUL 31 1998
Myanmar's Asean shield 


Straight Times 

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

By LEE KIM CHEW IN MANILA

THE Asean communique that was issued after the ministerial meeting here last
week has a little-publicised proviso that gives comfort, if not protection,
to the grouping's politically most vulnerable members. 

It states unequivocally: "The foreign ministers emphasised that the
principle of non-discrimination must be upheld in Asean's relations with its
dialogue partners." Has this shielded Myanmar, a favourite target of Western
countries, from criticism of its poor human rights record and repressive
policies? Yes and no. 

The unstated principle which underpins the proviso is Asean solidarity and
the need to demonstrate it clearly, should any of its nine members be
singled out by others for discriminatory treatment. Unity is strength, the
glue that sticks the grouping together. Fair enough. 

But this apparent solidarity comes at a price. Asean's hitherto close ties
with the European Union have suffered somewhat in the past year because of
the EU's stand against human rights abuses and political repression in Myanmar. 

Asean-EU cooperative ventures have run into difficulties because the
European countries refuse to accord Myanmar the participation rights it
ought to get as a full-fledged Asean member. 

Asean, on the other hand, insists that the EU should not discriminate
against any of its members. Both sides have not budged and the issue remains
unresolved. 

Myanmar, which joined Asean last year, may take comfort from the fact that
some of Asean's dialogue partners, such as Australia, seem less pushy now
that it has joined the grouping. 

Back in 1995, when Myanmar was outside Asean's protective umbrella, Canberra
was a much more vocal critic of the military regime when the Labor Party was
in power. Former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans had lobbied hard against the
generals then, even going so far as to propose good conduct guidelines to
measure political progress in Myanmar. 

His successor, Mr Alexander Downer, remains critical of Yangon's harsh
policies against political opponents and the pro-democracy movement, but he
takes a different tack. He would work through Asean to influence Myanmar's
policies, he told reporters. 

"Australia has a greater desire to build a constructive relationship with
Myanmar now that it is an Asean member, but we don't see a way forward to
that. There has been no progress on threshold issues," he said. 

Not all the Western countries treat Myanmar's Asean membership as gingerly
as the Australians do. The American Secretary of State, Mrs Madeleine
Albright, was scathing and forthright in her criticisms of Yangon. 

Her consistent message at the Asean meetings in Manila this past week was
democracy and openness. To her, Myanmar had failed miserably on both counts. 

"Myanmar is a country in great and growing distress today. The situation
there has gotten worse in the last year. The threat it poses to the
stability of this region has grown," she said. "Arrests aimed at decimating
the opposition continue. Members of legal political parties are being
prevented from travelling in their own country. The Burmese economy is
falling apart." She described Myanmar as an "epicentre" of the region's Aids
crisis, and feared that the likelihood of social breakdown was becoming more
real with each passing day. 

Predictably, Yangon's generals hit back quickly and accused the US of acting
as "judge, jury and executioner", but Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw took the
brunt of the criticisms, which were sharpened against the backdrop of a
well-timed stand-off in Yangon between pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi
and the military authorities. 

Holed up in her car under the hot sun for days after she was stopped at a
roadblock, she became the subject of intense interest at the Manila
ministerial meetings. 

Yangon's actions were for Myanmar alone to defend when it was assailed
during the security talks in the Asean Regional Forum last Monday. It is
instructive that no Asean minister other than Mr Ohn Gyaw felt compelled to
stand up and defend Myanmar publicly. 

If Asean countries had any doubts about the wisdom of Myanmar's repressive
policies, they kept their own counsel and seemed perfectly content to let
Western countries do the demolition job. 

In any case, Myanmar cannot reasonably expect Asean quarters to rally in
defence of what is generally perceived as indefensible. 

Moreover, this is the reverse side of Asean's non-interference principle.
They have to observe religiously the cardinal rule that they do not meddle
in each other's domestic politics. 

Asean's expansion as a regional entity in recent years to bring all 10
South-east Asian countries under one roof brings with it not just the
difficult problem of getting consensus from all its members. 

As things stand, the irreducible minimum to maintain Asean cohesion and
unity is non-interference. Any move to change this long-standing principle
will unravel the grouping, because open criticisms of each other's policies
must lead to more dissension, weaken Asean and open it to external
manipulation. 

But Myanmar is a weak chink in the Asean armour as long as its military
government refuses to change its policies and remains out of sync with the
rest. 

Its first year in Asean has provided Yangon with some protection, but that
is all. Sadly, its black sheep status has prevented it from exploiting the
full privileges of membership. 

Myanmar has been denied a seat in the summit of Asian and European leaders.
Unlike Vietnam and Laos, the other new Asean members, it does not get
technical aid from the West. 

There is much for Myanmar's military rulers to gain if they change course.
Cambodian strongman Hun Sen will be wise to learn from their experience if
he decides to take his country into Asean later this year.