• 
• 

Published on October 8, 2007

Asean must press Burma to take more time out, while the UN goes for targeted sanctions. These combined measures must be sustained over time to work. This is the first time since 1988 that there has been an international outcry over the regime's crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators, including monks and students, with additional appeals coming from dozens of former world leaders. Thanks to the junta's own doing, Burma is today's hot news.

Asean has to do more than just issue a condemnation of Burma. The upcoming Asean summit, scheduled for November 19 to 21 in Singapore, could serve as a venue for concrete action. As host, the republic has the enormous, if not impossible, task to protect the grouping's interest in such a way that the international community does not regard its response with "revulsion", to use the term that most Asean foreign ministers are quoted as using when describing the current situation in Burma.

At 40, Asean must be bolder and yet more pragmatic when it comes to issues related to unity and survivability. Members of other regional organisations would be suspended or expelled for such grotesque violations of human rights, especially those targeting a revered religious community. This is not the practice in Asean. If the grouping were to take such a severe action now at this pivotal moment in its history, it would have two immediate effects.

First of all, it would set a precedent that Asean fears could lead to a similar action being taken against other members. From July 1995 onwards, Asean admitted new members that were former adversaries without sufficiently preparing for each country's membership. Inclusion is better than exclusion at all costs went the argument after the end of the Cambodian conflict. From 1995-1999, four new members were added, bringing together all of the countries of Southeast Asia under one umbrella and fulfilling the dreams of the founding fathers in 1967.

Unlike the European Union, Asean operates on an agreed-upon lowest common denominator. Over the past decade, similar political outlooks, with the small exception of Cambodia, and solidarity among new members have incrementally diluted values and norms shared by core members. Equal voting rights and the need for consensus has further slowed the decision-making process, and watered down the Asean charter. Shameful as it may seem, even at this crucial moment no Asean member would dare or care to include sanctions as part of the charter.

Furthermore, Asean leaders understand that their strength comes from unity, even with a rogue member. To expel Burma would be to commit self-destruction, which Asean will not do. This is not the first time Burma has been a controversial subject. The Burmese crisis has featured prominently in Asean discussions with its dialogue partners since 1991, even before the country joined the grouping. A tireless campaign favouring equal treatment for the junta has won the grouping numerous bouts with outside supporters. Burma's admission to the Asia-Europe Meeting last year in Helsinki and Washington's willingness to meet directly with Burmese officials were cases in point.

In the past, Asean had no reason to give in to international pressure, let alone Burma. However, thanks to the proliferation of new media, this time round the moral climate is so contagious and reactions are high on Burma. Therefore, Asean initiatives receptive to a certain degree to outside pressure are indispensable. As Asean chair, Singapore has mastered this diplomatic undertaking. That said, it would be a surprise if Asean leaders take the most practical step and call for Burma to stay away from the grouping's meetings and programmes until the situation improves.

For Asean, the situation in Burma would be sufficient to justify sanctions for non-compliance. Upon its request in 2005, Burma agreed to skip its turn as Asean chair and allow other members to move ahead with the annual conference. The reason given was that Burma needed time to concentrate on national reconciliation and its political problems.

To defuse this Asean time bomb, as former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew aptly described it, Burma should be persuaded to take a time-out from Asean of its own volition. This would be a win-win situation and save Asean from disgrace. For selfish reasons, keeping Burma away from Asean for now gives the grouping extra room to manoeuvre in coping with pending UN-related pressure. Asean would then be able to support necessary UN-led efforts to end the Burmese impasse. This approach would immediately quell criticisms of Asean and permit the grouping to sign its charter as planned on November 20 in Singapore.

At the international level, Asean would comply with any UN Security Council resolution that calls for sanctions, if one comes. Along with Western governments and their major investors, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia must be prepared for targeted sanctions.

A concerted financial embargo, along the lines of that used against North Korea last year, could break the junta's spine.

Understanding Asean's limitations and what it can practically do is the first step to engaging the grouping on Burma. Asean must also chip in before Burma breaks into smithereens. Only with Asean's help can international and regional pressure synergise and produce the desired outcome.

Kavi Chongkittavorn