Is the ASEAN really Constructive?

[caroline@xxxxxxxxxx]

Is the ASEAN Really Constructive?
by Dr. Naing Aung
Chairman of the All Burma Students' Democratic Front (ABSDF)

	In 1988, the Burmese military brutally crushed the mess uprising
and calls for democracy by its people; took over the reins of government;
and renamed itself as Slorc. The ASEAN countries have since recognized
Slorc. Soon after Thailand initiated the Constructive Engagement Policy
towards Burma, which the ASEAN subsequently adopted.  Under this policy,
the ASEAN countries are to keep a warm relationship with Slorc, so that
the grouping can encourage Slorc to make reforms for the country's
development.
	From the beginning, the concept of constructive engagement policy
is in open clash with the democratic forces worldwide. Partly, the
difference is based on ideology, and partly, it is based on the ASEAN's
vested economic interest in Burma. Therefore, the arguments in favor of
the constructive engagement policy deserves a close look. 

(1) That the economic development takes priority over the political 
development.
	The ASEAN holds that the economic development of a country is the
pre-condition for its political development; therefore, developing the
economy takes first priority; and engaging Slorc to help Burma develop
economically will eventually lead to the country's political development.
Even if this line of though holds true, the ASEAN so far has not done
anything substantive towards the kind of economic reforms Burma needs.
What it has done so far results more in its own benefits? The genuine
economic progress for Burma will come about only when its political system
makes fundamental changes required by a healthily progressing economy.
Such measures as developing key infrastructures and human resources, sound
public sector planning, and stopping the State/ military from taking gross
advantage in various sectors of business, are some of the policies that
will propel Burma towards a true and sustainable market-oriented economy.
Such measures call for the kind of government that puts the national
interest above self-enrichment, and Slorc's vision of future Burma
political system is not conducive for such governments to come into power.
The ASEAN can argue that their countries have managed to bring about
economic development despite restrictive political environment. However,
the dimensions and magnitude of political conflicts in Burma is too grate
even to let any real economic development takes root. As any ordinary
Burmese can tell, the economic hardship despite a number of direct foreign
investment during the last few year, has been the worst since 1962
military take-over. One reason for such economic disaster is because the
lion's share of the benefit goes to financing the country's armed forces
and to the private hands of its masters and their families, whereas it
should have been to developing the country's human resources, for example.
The ASEAN's economic engagement with Slorc does not lead to real economic
development of Burma and its people, although it does lead the ruling
junta towards the insatiable taste for power and money. Therefore, the
ASEAN's economic engagement is not constructive for Burma and its people;
it is only beneficial for the ASEAN countries to tale advantage of its
vast natural resources, cheap labor and largely untapped market.
	Then, there is the question of citizen's right and dignity. 
Should they be sacrificed in the name of the economic development? Would
the economic policies of a government represent the interest of the people
if those people have no say in the government? True, meeting the basic
necessities of life is all important. But for many people, earning these
necessities of life in a dignified way is just as important. Giving
incremental right and dignity to the citizens means not fully recognizing
it in the first place; it means gauging the citizen's resignation to a
government's domination. 

(2) That Slorc is the ruling government and close relationship with it is
instrumental to the influence on its behavior. 
	Establishing relation with Slorc can be seen as a normal practice
in international relation as it is presently the government in power, de
facto though it may be. However, this close relationship has not been
instrumental in securing the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi a year ago,
nor has it been in securing the release of NLD party MPs recently. In
fact, there has been no incidence where the lose relationship with Slorc
has affect its behavior for the better. On the other hands, here are many
incidence of the ASEAN either saying nothing which is tantamount to
approval in Slorc's eyes at least, or saying in defense of Slorc. The few
instances in which individual ASEAN countries speak out against the
unacceptable behavior of Slorc do come up from time to time though. Being
close only to Slorc without any real recognition of the appeals made by
the NLD, the party with overwhelming and legitimate public mandate, the
ASEAN has become oblivious to the genuine desire of Burma's people. 
Instead, the ASEAN is attentive only to the desire of Burma's people. 
Instead, the ASEAN is attentive only to the desire of Burma's junta.
(Accepting Burma into the group and thereby giving it the much-wanted
legitimacy is one such example.) The ASEAN's constructive engagement would
be lacking the essence without engaging the NLD as well. 

(3) That the development of democracy in Burma is its internal affair and
the ASEAN should not interfere in its development.
	The birth of a political system that represents the people, is
based on the people and is for the people, is good for that country and it
inevitably good for the world. This is the ideology that knows no boundary
and limitation. It is really a blessing for someone, some nations to be in
a position to offer a helping hand to a less fortunate ones' struggle
towards a better future, rather than just standing by with indifference. 
Nonetheless, in this era of global village, it is hardly possible to stay
completely aloof. Ties in various forms will interact.  Economic ties will
end to support political ties. Economic support to a government as lacking
its people's support as Slorc's is equivalent to its standing politically.
Is it not interfering in Burma's internal politics? Given such
interrelations, is it not safe to say that the birth of democracy in Burma
is also in the good interest of the world community?
	Behind the facade of maintaining that development of democracy in
Burma is its internal affairs, one underlying reason for this stand is the
ASEAN nation's acceptance and practice of soft authoritarian rule to
varying degree despite their varying levels of democratization. Should
Burma become a full democracy, the wave would be more or less felt by
their own populace. Helping Burma gain full democracy will inevitably
expose most ASEAN members' irony in handling democracy in their own
countries. 

(4) On the issue of regional security and stability
	One of the ASEAN's main concerns is the regional peace and
stability. In the case of Burma, the ASEAN thinks that engaging Slorc will
help attain it. The unspoken point of consideration under this thinking is
the relationship between China and Slorc. China is a super power and it is
giving Slorc its full backing. The ASEAN does not want to run the risk of
turning Slorc into China's arms by leaving it alone. Also, the ASEAN does
not want to strain its relationship with China on Burma issue. It seems
these are the real causes of concern for the ASEAN's engagement with Slorc
for regional peace and stability.
	On the other hand, the ASEAN has not given any thought on what the
NLD-led democratic forces think about future Burma's relationship with
China. The NLD has already declared that it would practice an independent
and progressive policy of neutrality. The mass majority of the people of
Burma as represented by the NLD, does not want foreign invasion of any
kind, not it wants to be hostile towards and foreign country, be it from
the East or the West. 
	Engaging also with the NLD-led democratic forces can clear up any
undue concerns for the ASEAN. One-sided engagement with Slorc for regional
peace and stability does not seem to be a balanced proposition. 
	Another point to consider is how Burma can contribute to the
region's peace without first achieving its internal peace. The mess exodus
of Burma's refugees in all directions of the country's borders, is the
living proof of how it cannot. this is the proof is how lack of internal
peace in Burma will affect the region's peace and stability. Vast
disparity and repression economically and politically has driven all these
people away. Slorc's handling of internal conflicts by force has failed to
achieve peace in the country.  Fundamental changes in current Burma's
political system are essential for ensuring peace in the country.  We have
not yet seen how the ASEAN's constructive engagement policy will help
achieve internal peace in Burma.  We have seen only the worsening peace
process in Burma because of Slorc's misguided arrogance fueled by the
regional support both economically and politically it believes it has
gathered. 

(5) Pressures or persuasion towards Slorc
	One argument for constructive engagement policy is that pressures
in the form of sanctions cannot be effective for it will only worsen the
ordinary citizen's life; thus, it is better to exercise gentle persuasion
instead. We have to look into the history of modern Burma to see if this
argument can be valid. During the 26 years from 1962 to 1988, Burma
practiced closed-door policy started in 1988, the people of Burma
experienced even more hardships and repression in the form of monopoly,
market manipulation, corruption, favoritism, and nepotism to the extent
not known before. So, will the sanctions hurt the ordinary people of
Burma. It might to some segments of the population. However, it will not
make a big dent on the whole population already used to increasingly
worsening economic situation. The long experience of isolation and
hardship since 1962 has prepared the people of Burma to subsist on what's
available in the country without depending on foreign money.  However,
Slorc has comparatively few years of experience managing the country's
wealth. It is not yet prepared to face strict economic isolation and tough
sanctions in its existence.  Economic pressures will definitely undermine
its administration. For vast majority of the people in Burma, economic
pressure will definitely undermine its administration. For cast majority
of the people in Burma, economic pressures will mean a worthwhile
investment. 
	After all, economic hardship had gotten greater for the vast
majority since the foreign investment come in 1988. It seems, lack of it
might be better off. 
	One other question is whether it can be effective without China's
participation. It seems China's participation will not matter much since
China itself is still in the process of constructing its own economy and
it is not in a position to put economic pressure on Burma.  Besides, China
does not have considerable investment in Burma. Border trade is about the
main activity going on between China and Burma. China alone certainly
cannot support Burma's economy. The ASEAN is in a position to explain to
China, its dialogue partner, the need for economic pressure in Burma.
	All application of economic pressure on Burma, refers only to the
duration of bringing about a viable political settlement in Burma. It will
not be forever. We appeal to the ASEAN and the world community to
cooperate in this important endeavor that will help restore true peace and
stability in Burma. 
	If the ASEAN chooses to do so, the time for mutually beneficial
economic cooperation from Burma will eventually come sooner. The ASEAN can
does do with a clear conscience that the economic pressures it helps out
on Slorc will not hurt the people of Burma as much as it hurts Slorc.
Doing so will help put real meaning to the ASEAN's constructive engagement
policy. 

Constructive or Destroy?
	Now is the crucial time for Slorc. It is trying its best to secure
its hold on power long term. It is forcing its version of national
constitution which would guarantee the military's dominant role in the
nation's politics. On the economic front, it is keeping Burma's national
income and resources for the military and its elates.
	The people of Burma, the NLD and other democratic forces, do not
approve of such mis-handing of Burma's income and resources by Slorc. And,
Slorc thinks that silencing the people and the NLD-led democratic groups
by force, at the same time legitimizing itself with a forced constitution,
will ensure its hold on power and be able to continue its abuses unabated. 
It is unfortunate for the people of Burma that the current policy the
ASEAN holds towards Burma is serving against their best interest. On
behalf of the people of Burma, we earnestly appeal to the ASEAN to review
the constructive engagement policy.