Burma, Asean, democracy, dreams and

[suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Burma, Asean, democracy, dreams and realities

  Editorial & Opinion 


Burma, Asean, democracy, dreams and realities

IN reply to Burmese Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's article,
'Nudge
Burma Towards Democracy', which appeared in The Nation's 'Voicing My Thoughts'
column (July 13, 1999) Thai Deputy Foreign Minister MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra
presents his own perspective on Burma, Asean and democracy. 

Not everyone voicing his or her thoughts is listened to with great interest by
the world at large. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Noble Peace Prize Laureate, is
obviously one of those selected few whose opinions invariably gain
considerable
attention in all parts of the globe. So, most likely, her latest article,
''Nudge Burma towards Democracy'', to do more to help the ''people of Burma''
in ''[their] quest for democracy'', will provoke all sorts of responses, both
positive and contrary, from all sorts of people far and wide. 

As we approach the second anniversary of Burma's Asean membership, it may be
appropriate to consider some of the points Daw Aung San Suu Kyi raised in this
article, particularly concerning the role of Asean. 

First of all, it is clear that many people throughout the world, millions
across geographical, social and economic divides, share her sentiments
regarding democracy. 

In this connection, it must be pointed out that after over sixty years of our
own, largely unassisted struggle for democracy, we in Thailand have now
reached
a consensus that democracy, despite its imperfections, is the best form of
governance in a less-than-perfect world. We also now know that democracy, far
from being a western concept or a western value, can be planted and
nurtured to
full growth in our own way, in our own conditions, in accordance to our own
expectations, priorities and needs. We are fully committed to political
reform,
which will serve to strengthen the fundamentals of our democratic system,
namely participation, good governance, accountability, transparency and the
rule of law. 

Because millions of people throughout the world share Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's
sentiments regarding democracy, it is perfectly natural and understandable
that
she should encourage the international community to support her cause.
Conversely, it is also perfectly natural and understandable that some members
of the international community would wish to extend a helping hand to her and
her National League for Democracy (NLD) supporters. 

But good intentions do not always lead to wise judgements, appropriate actions
or just rewards. 

Many governments and organisations have advocated a policy of exclusion,
including economic sanctions, to pressure for change in Burma. But the
efficacy
of this policy option is open to debate. 

Economic sanctions against a foreign country can be useful as a means of
responding to domestic constituencies' heartfelt sentiments. A decision to
this
end is a matter of moral conscience or domestic political exigency. However,
economic sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy seldom work; witness the
cases of China in the 1950s and 1960s, Cuba since 1960 and present-day Iraq. 

One necessary condition for success is that all the great powers concerned and
all the key neighbours of the targeted county are persuaded to support such
sanctions. This condition seldom exists in real life. South Africa seems to be
a notable exception. But the case may be sui generis, for the domestic
struggle
for liberation was truly heroic, and in a predominantly black country and
black
continent, white rule and apartheid could hardly be permanently sustainable
arrangements. At the same time, one should indeed not forget that change in
that great country finally came when all the major powers concerned reached a
level of consensus regarding its future, and not before. 

It is a fact of life that economic sanctions seldom work. It is also a fact of
life that the main victims of economic sanctions are, more often than not,
innocent civilians, ordinary men, women and children who happen to be living,
working and playing in the wrong country at the wrong moment of history. 
Many have also called on the Asean countries to bring their collective
influence to bear on Burma and push for far-reaching changes in the country.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wrote, in the same article, that ''we believe that
support
from Asean ... is crucial to our quest for democracy. If Asean can persuade or
put pressure on the present regime to convene the Parliament that was elected
by the people, this could be the first step towards democratisation.'' The
association's reluctance to do so, she attributed to only the Asean members'
concerns that ''there may be some aspects of their countries that might invite
criticism''. 

Unfortunately, this is a mistaken notion. 

As a founding member of the association, Thailand would dearly love to see a
convergence of values, beliefs and interests among all the Asean countries,
for
this would surely make the task of regional cooperation and integration much
easier. 

As a forward-looking and open society, Thailand will applaud any positive
domestic political, social and economic changes in a fellow member country.
Indeed, where Burma is concerned, we have been openly urging all parties
concerned to engage in a sustained process of dialogue without any
preconditions, with a view towards bringing about national reconciliation in
the country. 

As a country fully committed to Asean regionalism, Thailand wished to see the
resolution of all the contradictions, which prevent member countries from
contributing to the cause of regionalism to their greatest potential. We are
certain Burma, the seat of a great and ancient civilisation with immense
natural and human resource bases, one day can make an enormous contribution to
the region. 

There are dreams. There are hopes, desires and expectations. There are also
realities. All dreams, hopes, desires and expectations ultimately must be
subjected to reality tests. 

One reality is that Asean was created as and remains a framework and mechanism
for cooperation in a region of great political, social, cultural and economic
diversity. It was never intended to be a collective security regime, which has
a collective vision of what is right, just and moral in all things and can
impose changes at will upon its member countries in accordance to this
vision. 

>From the beginning, the principle of non-interference, along with perceptions
and conceptions of common interests, has been the glue keeping Asean
together. 

All principles can of course be modified through changing time and
circumstances. Today, with rapidly growing global and regional
interdependence,
the dividing line between purely domestic issues, on the one hand, and
domestic
issues with international, regional or transnational implications, on the
other, is becoming difficult to discern, as the recent financial crises,
environmental disasters, and problems of drugs, diseases and illegal migration
demonstrate. So, it is only appropriate that Asean should be able to expand
the
agenda of regional concern to include issues, which a few years ago would have
been considered purely domestic issues and hence ''untouchable'' as far as
other members are concerned. 

Thailand first called this process of expansion ''flexible engagement''. Now,
the official Asean label is ''enhanced interactions''. 

But modification is one thing, abandonment quite another. We believe that the
principle of non-interference should be adapted to suit the changing times and
circumstances. But to abandon it is to tear Asean asunder. 

The reality is that Asean cannot be a proactive promoter of changes in the
existing political arrangement of any member country. To advocate such a role
is to misinterpret the genesis and nature of Asean in a very fundamental way. 

Another reality is that, even if the Asean countries collectively or
individually should wish to act as a proactive promoter of changes in the
existing political arrangement of a fellow member country, their capacity
to do
so is severely limited. 

Reason and persuasion sometimes work, but unfortunately mainly in cases which
do not involve vital principles or interests. If reason and persuasion fail,
what then? Economic sanctions? Can they work if non-Asean neighbours of the
targeted country do not comply? Expulsion from Asean membership? Would
expulsion make the lot of the people in the targeted country better? Air
strikes a la Kosovo? Or would an invasion by ground forces be more
appropriate?

For Thailand, the existence of all these constraints means that there is
only a
choice between exclusion and engagement where the policy towards Burma is
concerned. 

We reject exclusion because we believe that isolation will simply reinforce
the
status quo, heighten whatever sensitivity to the outside world there is, and
increase the suffering of the common people. We also reject exclusion because
Thailand and Burma share a 2,400 kilometre-long land boundary, where close
contacts and good relations between the two sides directly benefit the
security
and well-being of all the common people living on both sides of the border. 

For us, there is no alternative to engagement. 

Engagement is a must because Burma is already an Asean member. This has been a
fact of life since July 1997, and in real life the clock cannot be turned
back.
As a fellow Asean member, Burma is a close friend and partner and must be
encouraged to contribute to the cause of regional cooperation. 

Engagement keeps all the doors open for the conduct of quiet diplomacy and for
messages, information and ideas to be conveyed, not only between Rangoon and
Bangkok, but also between Rangoon and the rest of the outside world. History
suggests that access to greater knowledge of the outside world inspire change
more often than closed doors. 

And engagement forms the basis for the management of the numerous bilateral
issues which affect the security and well-being of Thailand and Burma and by
extension also the security and well-being of the region. As Minister of
Foreign Affairs Dr Surin Pitsuwan has said on many occasions, unlike many
countries advocating exclusion and pressure, Thailand does not have
''luxury of
distance'' but is faced with the ''burden of proximity''. 

For us, there is no alternative to engagement. But we also recognise that
engagement will not work unless it is as constructive as possible. Only
through
constructive engagement, can we hope to cultivate a growing habit of
collaboration, to bring about expanding areas of common interests, and to
reintegrate Burma into the mainstream of international cooperation. For this
reason, we have endeavoured to enhance interactions with our neighbour to the
West in a number of ways. 

Bilaterally, we have striven for more extensive cooperation in preventing and
suppressing trade in narcotics and have established a mechanism for addressing
the issue of displaced persons and illegal workers. We have encouraged Rangoon
to allow the UNHCR to have a role on both sides of the border to help manage
the problem of displaced persons. We have engaged Burma in multilateral
dialogues on irregular migration and human rights. In the near future we must
find ways and means of encouraging Burma's more active participation in the
Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and the ARF inter-sessional activities, which cover
a broad range of issue-areas. 

Such engagement is not glamorous. It is not dramatic. It provides no headline
news. It does not inspire crusading zeal or fiery rhetoric. It cannot bring
apocalyptic changes. It requires time, resources, patience, endurance and
stamina -- the kind of commodities and attributes of diplomacy, which a
democracy is often reluctant to yield. 

But it is the only way. 

There is an old Chinese proverb that says: ''Let us light a candle instead of
cursing the darkness.'' 

Thailand will continue to follow the situation in Burma very closely. 

We will continue to encourage all our friends in that country to engage in a
sustained process of dialogue without any preconditions, with a view towards
bringing about lasting national reconciliation, for such a development will
surely benefit everyone in the region. 
We will continue to encourage new initiatives, such as the ones taken by
the UN
Secretary-General last October and the European Union a few days ago. 

As a close neighbour, we will not hesitate to express our concerns and to make
constructive suggestions, if and when questions arise which affect the
region's
and Thailand's security and well-being. 

As a democratically elected government, we will have to allow, listen to,
acknowledge, and accept a wide rage of opinions concerning Burma and our
policy
towards her. 

However, where the question of democratisation in the region is concerned, in
the words of Dr Surin, as a democratically elected government, we will
continue
to be well-wishers of democracy-loving people everywhere, but we can be active
champions of only our own democracy. 

Thailand is a democracy and proud of it. But this is the reality. 

The Nation