• 
• 

Published on August 7, 2007

In the 40 years of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), there have been two nagging issues - the crises in Cambodia and Burma.

The early 1990s were some of the best and worst years for Asean. The group had managed to overcome the Khmer issue in early '90s, but had been struggling with the arduous task of dealing with Burma since late 1997.

The region was going through a major transition and Asean policy makers were tasked with thinking up new ways to keep the grouping moving forward.

Asean handled the Cambodian issue with a strategy to fight the Communists - notably the Vietnamese - during the Cold War. It supported and campaigned for a coalition against the Hanoi-backed government in Phnom Penh throughout the 1980s. Vietnam was an irresistible force, but Asean remained immovable. Eventually, something had to give. The policy makers managed to maintain a balance, but gained no real ground until the Vietnamese troops withdrew from Cambodia in 1989.

The 1991 Paris Peace Accord later helped bring the Cambodian Civil War to an end, but it wasn't smooth sailing as the war-torn country had to pick up the pieces after a genocide that had claimed more than a million lives. The Khmer Rouge took refuge in small pockets near the Thai border, but continued to find a lifeline from Chinese supporters.

Bickering in Phnom Penh eventually blew up in 1997, when Hun Sen purged his co-prime minister Norodom Ranariddh in a bloody power struggle that had the international community moaning "been there, done that".

Besides, Asean was embarrassed - Cambodia, Laos and Burma were about to be admitted into the regional group at the Jakarta ministerial meeting in July that year. So, it had to take action. A troika consisting of three foreign ministers - Indonesia's Ali Alatas, the Philippines' Domingo Siazon and Thailand's Prachuab Chaiyasan - was created in 1998 to end the crisis, steer Cambodia away from troubled waters and make it ready for its Asean membership.

The international community was already tired of the problems and Asean had to step up and solve them. The only answer was holding a general election, which marked the beginning of an end to Ranaraddih's ambitions to solely run the country.

But while Cambodia's problems faded, Burma was slowly rearing its head. It expressed an interest in joining Asean in June 1994, a few weeks ahead of the group's foreign ministerial meeting in Bangkok.

Even though the anti-Rangoon movement was in full swing, debate among Asean policy makers still centred on Burma's membership.

The then Burmese prime minister Than Shwe, head of the country's highest decision-making body, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), was invited to Bangkok for the 1995 summit of Asean leaders.

However, the bitter debate surrounding Burma's entry would not go away. "Expansion" was the buzzword at the time.

Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore were not comfortable with the idea of having Rangoon so close, while Malaysia was pushing a relatively new notion - the "Asean Ten". The year also saw Vietnam joining Asean, which had been initially set up to contain the communist state's expansion into Indochina.

However, some members thought the idea of having a group of 10 nations would capture the imagination of the international community.

It was also argued that Asean had other strategic concerns on its mind - namely China - and that Burma's membership would strengthen regionalism. Besides, apart from having a nice ring to it, "ten" was a wholesome number - it gave the sense of completion. Plus, it would be good for an "economy of scale", the policy-makers said.

Like every proposal, the problem was in the details. Some in the Thai camp wanted to use Burma's entry into Asean as a collateral in exchange for good behaviour, which meant, among other things, the release of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. However, the wish was never granted as Burma had not been given any requirements to adhere to before admission. And this would later prove to be major burden for the group.

In addition, letting Burma join also created problems with the Western camp, notably the European Union, which was strongly opposed to the idea of working with the military state. The EU imposed sanctions on the junta-ruled country, and refused to take part in the Asean-EU meetings between 1997-2000, because it didn't want to sit with dictators who suppressed democracy and violated human rights.

Luckily, with Laos' help, the problems with EU were more or less solved, though sanctions against Burma continued. Laos, despite its good relations with Burma, employed all its resources to hold the 2000 Asean-EU ministerial meeting in Vientiane.

However, despite the resumption of work between the two groups, problems with Rangoon were not going away. The military-run state took Asean's long-standing principle of non-interference to the limit when it put Suu Kyi back in house arrest in 2003 following a bloody incident in Depayin.

The heat was on Asean yet again.

Incidentally, Burma's turn to chair meetings was just around the corner - Rangoon would have to host a summit of Asean foreign ministers and their dialogue partners in line with the group's tradition of rotating the chair in alphabetical order. Luckily, Burma decided to forgo its chairmanship.

Today, the junta is moving at a snail's pace towards national reconciliation and democracy. The process, which aimed to cement the military's place in Burmese politics, is barely more than a sham. The country has been working on its constitution for 13 years now, and there's still no sign of completion. No one is holding their breath for the so-called seven-step road map that is supposed to lead the country to a general election and away from the wrath of the international community. No one quite knows when peace, stability and reconciliation will come to Burma.

Until then, Asean faces many more sleepless nights as Burma continues giving it major headaches.

Supalak G Khundee,

Don Pathan

The Nation