Europe misreads ASEAN approach (Edi

[082903@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Europe misreads ASEAN approach (Editorial).


			Europe misreads ASEAN approach
			******************************

	In the age of globalisation no one should deny the right of 
non-Asian institutions such as the European Union and the International 
Institute for Strategic Studies to speak their minds about how the 
Association of South-East Asian nations and the ASEAN Regional Forum 
(ARF) go about their business. But criticism is a two-way street, and 
European commentators sholud not be surprised if their appraisals prompt 
responses of hypocrisy from ASEAN members.

	Sometimes the EU can be breathtaking in its arrogance. When the 
European Commission vice-president, Mr Manuel Marin, linked Burma's 
potential membership of ASEAN with how deeply the EU might engage with 
the group, it was inevitable ASEAN officials would respond with their own 
critiques of how Europe has handles issues such as Bosnia and Northern 
Irealand. As a senior Thai official noted, Burma is an emotional issue in 
the West. The ASEAN approach has been to engage constructively the State 
Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) military regime and attempt to 
win it over. To this end, it is expected to grant observer status to 
Burma at the ASEAN ministerial meeting in Jakarta on Saturday, as a 
prelude to full membership.

	Not everyone in  the region agrees with ASEAN's approach. There 
is no completely "right" way to handle Burma. While ASEAN's constructive 
engagement is seen by some as weak and unproductive, there is also a view 
that strong outside support for opposition leader Ms Aung San Suu Kyi 
could, rather than putting pressure on SLORC, prompt a violent crackdown 
on the Burmese people. Ms Suu Kyi claims constructive engagement has 
failed misrably and is urging ASEAN to deny observer status to Burma.

	She wants ASEAN and the ARF to pressure the military into openng 
a dialogue with her Nationa League for Democracy. In calling for this 
course of action, Ms Suu Kyi believes ASEAN and the ARF carry weight. She 
is well-placed to make such an assessment. In contrast, the description 
by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies of the 
ARF as a "marginal" contributor to peace and stability in the 
Asia-Pacific misses the point.

	The ARF is barely two years old and has yet to achieve its 
potentials. But by including among its 19 members all the ASEAN States 
plus key regional players as the United States, China, Japan and Korea 
(along with Australia), the ARF provides a means for discussion on issues 
such as Burma. Its consensual approach has also moderated, to a degree, 
the situation in the South China Sea, where China has made aggressive 
territorial claims. The ARF has provided a multilateral setting in which 
the smaller States do not feel they have to face China alone. The 
Europeans should appreciate that in analysing Asian regional groups, 
criticism, like engagement, should seek to be constructive.

[The Editorial, The Australian, 18 July 1996].

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