Re: Asean must put house in order first

ASEAN = all talks and no action ,

talking is cheap .

On Jul 31, 12:38 pm, ** <**@.org> wrote:
Asean must put house in order first

31-Jul-07

FLANKED by a group of Secret Service agents, then US Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright's forbidding expression was a sight to behold as she strode
down the corridor of the venue for the Asean summit mid-1997 in Kuala Lumpur.
Washington and the other Western powers were then miffed because Asean leaders
had decided to ignore their protests and lobbying sessions behind closed doors
against the admission of Myanmar into the Southeast Asian grouping.

Then Malaysia's foreign minister Abdullah Badawi denied Asean was thumbing its
nose at the West for going ahead and signing Myanmar up, along with Laos. "We
send signals to nobody (about the admission)," Badawi had said then.

But journalists covering the summit would recall the palpable exhilaration over
the fact that Asean _ which had been described then as a weak grouping of
nobodies by some critics _ had this one time the upper hand over the more
powerful parties, especially the US.

Another exhilaration was to be felt among the members when in 1999 Cambodia was
admitted following a delay of two years over the removal of its Prime Minister
Norodom Ranariddh by co-Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Even in 1997, sceptics had attributed this "diplomatic pragmatism" of Asean on
the more important Asean players' impatience to bring about "the dream of the
founding fathers" to embrace all Southeast Asian countries. Even some supporters
of the admission had questioned Asean's ability to contain potential problems.
This was especially true with regard to some members' allegedly poor human
rights record as described by the Western powers, because there was no mechanism
to regulate it. Even if a mechanism had existed then, the solidarity ties that
they called "Asian values" and "principle of non-interference" would have
rendered such body ineffective.

Now it seems that Asean critics are gaining ground because members have started
to openly criticise fellow member Myanmar for failing to restore democracy and
for the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. This is a major departure
from tradition for the grouping, which usually avoids commenting on the internal
affairs of member states.

Philippine Foreign Minister Alberto Romulo, the host of the Asean foreign
ministers meeting in Manila, said his country was joined by several other
nations in calling for the restoration of democracy in the former Burma. "I
sense there is impatience, there is frustration," Romulo had told reporters.
"Ten years ago this roadmap to democracy was promised."

Earlier yesterday, Asean diplomats drafting a charter for the grouping said they
had completed the first version but left out a provision creating a human rights
body after it was blocked by Myanmar and some other nations. Critics would jump
at this news as yet another proof to their long-standing accusation that Asean
is indeed insincere when it comes to human rights protection.

Not that we need to unquestioningly buy into this line of "democracy and human
rights" reasoning because Asean critics, who have described themselves to be
human rights champions, have committed abuses left, right and centre.

But Asean members do need to be aware of their blind spots. Why has it taken the
grouping 10 years to identify an errant member and express impatience? What have
they done over those 10' years to help certain members improve their standing
and record?

The open criticism against Myanmar may be a sign for Asean's growing maturity as
a grouping, but should also serve as an alert for it to continue safeguarding
its "independence" from other parties' meddling. Ultimately, however, it should
remind the members that they must first put their house in order before they can
command the international respect they have been craving ever since Asean was
established 40 years ago.

brutimes?


.

Quantcast