ASEAN has no choice but to ignore U

[ausgeo@xxxxxxx]

Subject: ASEAN has no choice but to ignore US on Burma

Asia Times News

ASEAN has no choice but to ignore US on Myanmar

Stephen Brookes, 30th May 1997

Just after daybreak on May 9, 18,000 identically-clad people assembled in the 
Kantarawaday stadium in the northern Burma's town of Loikaw. Sitting 
cross-legged on the ground in evenly-spaced rows, they waited patiently in the 
early morning sun as the threat to their existence was explained to them. 

"As all the comrades are aware, ASEAN is extending welcome to Burma's 
integration," a speaker intoned sternly to the crowd. 

"But neocolonialists have resorted to all means to prevent Burma's integration 
into ASEAN. Neocolonialists outside the country and their stooges inside 
colluded in their ruthless schemes to jeopardize Myanmar's relations with 
Southeast Asian nations, cause social and religious conflicts and incite riots 
and unrest!" 

The rhetoric may have been clumsy, but the message was clear. And the 
pro-ASEAN, anti-United States rally was only one of dozens staged recently by 
the Union Solidarity and Development Association, the political wing of 
Burma's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), as ASEAN 
foreign ministers prepare to meet on Saturday to settle the date for Burma's 
admission to the association. 

The issue has generated an international squabble, and the battle lines have 
been drawn for more than a year. SLORC has made admission a top priority, 
while opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is dead-set against it. The ASEAN 
leaders, saying they want to promote stability and economic development in the 
region, are in favor, while the US has been energetically lobbying ASEAN to 
delay, saying it should put more pressure on Burma's junta to improve its 
human rights record. 

"I would very much like to slow down the possibility of Burma [Myanmar] coming 
into the ASEAN," US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told a Senate 
committee hearing last week. "We have tried very hard to get the ASEAN 
countries to follow our steps, but they don't seem to be interested." 

In fact, the bickering is a sham. Everyone knows that Burma's membership this 
year is a sure thing, whether it happens in July (which looks like a sure bet) 
or in December, and a five month wait makes no real difference to anyone in 
the region. 

But the timing issue has presented an opportunity for political posturing on 
all sides. The US has used it to pretend it is tough on authoritarian regimes. 
SLORC has used it to attack Suu Kyi as a neocolonialist and an enemy of the 
state. And ASEAN has used it to show that it is an assertive body that has its 
own mind and makes its own decisions - and is not afraid to stand up to the 
West. 

Most of Asia will be relieved when the decision is finally announced and the 
snarling is over. Nevertheless, the debate over Burma has done one important 
thing: It has brought both the romanticism of the West and the pragmatism of 
Southeast Asia into sharp relief. 

Washington's policy, as exemplified by the economic sanctions it announced 
last month, is to isolate SLORC diplomatically and undermine the e Burma 
conomy. This is supposed to bring about democratic change, though no one in 
Washington has explained exactly how, and most analysts agreed that unilateral 
sanctions have almost no significant economic impact. 

The truth is, the US sanctions were never meant to be a realistic tactic for 
promoting democracy. Rather, they were merely a gesture to express disapproval 
of Myanmar's military junta . "There are times when the United States needs to 
stand up and say a situation in a country is so reprehensible and human rights 
are being violated by such a broad degree that we have to do something about 
it," sniffed a State Department spokesman when the sanctions were announced. 

But to many Asian eyes, the sanctions appear foolish and irresponsible - the 
act of a country that doesn't have to live with the consequences of its 
actions. "America acts tough on Myanmar, because they don't have to worry 
about what happens," a Japanese businessman in Yangon said after the 
announcement. "If Myanmar becomes unstable, they don't care. It doesn't affect 
the United States in any way. But they're afraid to put sanctions on China, 
because they know they will have to pay a price." 

This lack of responsibility lends a curious irony to the moral stance taken by 
Suu Kyi and the US. Both are careful to avoid saying sanctions are designed to 
create economic instability and social unrest, but privately they admit that 
is exactly what they are supposed to do. 

But who picks up the pieces if the US policy is successful and Myanmar's 
economy does collapse? The US has been conveniently silent on this. If 
Washington can successfully weaken SLORC's grip on power, is it prepared to 
send in the marines if the country starts to fall apart? Here too, Washington 
has been silent. Would it be prepared to prop up the National League for 
Democracy with money and military support until it could form a government? 
Again, more silence. 

So if the US is not prepared to guarantee Myanmar's stability, is it 
responsible - or even moral - for Washington to actively undermine it, just 
because it doesn't approve of the government? 

ASEAN, on the other hand, cannot afford to act so casually. Its members know 
it is not really important whether or not they approve of SLORC. What matters 
is the reality: SLORC is running the country and is probably going to be 
running it for some time to come. ASEAN cannot indulge in the self-righteous 
posturing of the US - it knows that if Myanmar's economy collapses or the 
country becomes unstable, the entire region will suffer the consequences. And 
that is something against which, as responsible leaders, they must defend. 

"We have all agreed not to leave Myanmar behind," Malaysian Foreign Minister 
Abdullah Badawi said earlier this month. "Otherwise, the situation may 
deteriorate to a point that will jeopardize the stability of the region." 

Moreover, if Western sanctions generate instability in Myanmar, it is ASEAN 
that will have to clean up the damage. As Philippine Foreign Minister Domingo 
Siazon suggested on May 1, "Those who are far away, if this particular case 
should not turn out to be successful, they do not really suffer the strategic 
consequences. We are involved, we are very near. You cannot leave Myanmar to 
collapse or to have an internal revolution." 

Is it really any wonder, then, that ASEAN, as Albright complained, does "not 
seem to be interested" in following the US lead?