During his first visit to Myanmar beginning tomorrow, Malaysian Foreign Minister, Datuk Abdullah Badawi should be the conscience of ASEAN and express the grave concern of the ASEAN people at the failure of ASEAN `constructive engagement’ policy to pave the way for democratisation and national reconciliation in the country.
ASEAN nations have spurned Western proposals for strong actions against the repressive regime of State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) and rejected any imposition of economic sanctions against the Myanmese military junta, although Malaysia had been one of the strongest advocates in the imposition of sanctions against the South African apartheid regime.
The ASEAN governments have adopted instead the “constructive engagement” policy with SLORC, arguing that instead of international isolation of SLORC this was the best way to gradually improve the democratic situation in Myanmar without external interference.
What has disturbed the people in ASEAN is that the ASEAN “constructive engagement” policy has not only failed to bring about democratisation and national reconciliation in the country, in the past five months, there had been more crackdowns against pro-democracy activists.
The admission of Myanmar as an observer of ASEAN by the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta in July has given a completely wrong message to SLORC, which seemed convinced and acted on that conviction that regardless of its repressive policies against its people, ASEAN would welcome SLORC with open arms to become an official member of ASEAN by next year in order to achieve the dream of “ASEAN 10”.
The admission of SLORC into ASEAN can only be justified if there is perceptible progress and success in the ASEAN “constructive engagement” policy of gradually improving the democratic situation in Myanmar.
If ASEAN’s “constructive engagement” policy has nothing to show in terms of the promotion of democratisation in Myanmar, then SLORC’s application for membership to ASEAN should be rejected.
The issue of Myanmar’s admission into ASEAN must be kept as a separate and distinct question from ASEAN’s constructive engagement policy. Myanmar’s membership should not regarded as a test as to whether ASEAN has a constructive engagement policy, but whether the constructive engagement policy had achieved any success after six long years.
When Badawi visits Myanmar and meets the SLORC leaders, he should convey to them in no uncertain terms that ASEAN public opinion can see no perceptible success in the constructive engagement policy improving the democratic situation, and that unless SLORC is prepared to show greater respect for ASEAN and international opinion for the improvement of the democratic situation in Myanmar, its application for ASEAN membership is untimely and unacceptable.
It has been reported that members of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) have endorsed plans to seek talks with the military authorities, and the SLORC should be encouraged to give a positive response to bring about a meaningful dialogue between the SLORC, the pro-democracy activists and the ethnic minorities to start the process of democratisation and national reconciliation.
(19/10/96)