
In a joint communiqué released at the end of the meeting, Asean urged Burma to take bolder steps towards a peaceful transition to democracy and a free and fair election in 2010. Asean foreign ministers also repeated their appeal for Suu Kyi's freedom.
However, it is useless for Asean to express any disappointment over her continued detention. Burma will not budge, knowing full well there is nothing Asean can do. Of course, what the junta is doing is to ensure that she is isolated from the political process. The junta will hold the planned election in 2010 and it will be a fait accompli. The generals will use all kinds of trickery to maintain their power and dodge international sanctions. If the national referendum in May was any indication, the future poll will certainly be rigged.
Burma's ratification of the Asean Charter was timed for maximum benefit. For the first time, the pariah state was able to say it is committed to the values and norms of Asean. In the 11 years since Burma joined Asean, it has caused only headaches for the group. Now, Asean and the international community are committed to help revitalise Burma after Cyclone Nargis. An assessment report by Asean, the UN and Burma said that at least $1 billion dollars is needed over the next three years.
The amount is much less than what the junta had originally proposed when the international donors met for the first time in Rangoon; they had asked for a staggering $11 billion. Recently, the UN agencies assessed that $303 million would be needed over the next twelve months to improve health, housing and other priorities.
As the international cooperation and the recovery continue, Burma has invited UN special envoy Ismail Gambari to return. It remains to be seen how he will be treated by the junta. Is he in for more humiliation or more cooperation? Initially it is possible the generals might treat him more respectfully this time, granted the increased role of the UN and international community in assisting the victims of Nargis. But nothing is certain because the junta could easily abandon any such etiquette. Burma's engagement with the UN will be time-consuming to ensure that, within two years, such engagement will mitigate all possible hostile reaction from Western countries to the junta's reluctant move towards recovery and rehabilitation.
After Nargis, the UN and international community promised not to politicise the issue of providing humanitarian aid. The US, UK and France dispatched ships full of medicine and food to the Bay of Bengal to save lives but they were turned away by the junta.
But aid was the precondition that Asean and its international partners agreed to and supported. It provides opportunities for Western governments and donors to use as a pretext to communicate with Burma's leaders. So, while the Burmese people suffered from the effects of the cyclone, the junta continued with the national referendum and renewed Suu Kyi's house-arrest. Although it was a blatant act of hostility, nothing could be done about it. The junta could not care less. Indeed, it fits the pattern of Burma's continued defiance. Therefore, it is important that in the months to come, the UN Security Council and the international community raise the ante and assert pressure on the regime to ensure that the national reconciliation process really takes place.
In other words, it is time to call for a political outcome. If the political status quo remains the same in the next two years, the Burmese junta will be the biggest winner. The losers will be the suffering Burmese people.