The Burmese issue: Where is ASEAN? *

2007-10-05 7:46 p.m.

The Burmese issue is not a unique issue in any sense. We have seen the Tiananmen Square protests in the 1980s, and the cries of the people in Georgia in 2003. Pro-democracy protests spring up in so many positions around the globe. The response is just as cliché as the acts, condemnation by regional countries and international organizations. Sanctions have been threatened, mostly enforced and suddenly, the matter either dies away or there is a sort of movement towards the protesters dream of democracy.

Let us look at responses first of all. As I said, they are typical, short of course having a direct military intervention. The most typical response will of course come from the United States, especially since it tries to promote what is in its declaration of Independence all over the world. The next would be the UN, who act on its own (since it is suppose to uphold the UDHR) or usually be pushed to by another nation. The other part of the international level is of course, states acting on their own. Usually these states are those that have big political leverage on the international level. Ok, that’s a very rough overview of what will happen on the international level.

The regional level is vastly different. The condemnation may come, and the likelihood of sanctions is a little less than the international level. Let us look at the case in Myanmar. ASEAN has a traditional “non interference” policy in each individual members affairs. Ok, so it has issued a strong condemnation What lies deeper however, is the historical, political and perhaps economic make up of ASEAN (more importantly its members). ASEAN, at its very first founding in 1967, was suppose to be an anti communist front against China. Now, it definitely could not present a military front against communism because firstly, there was no agreement amongst the early nations for a united force, secondly, that the domino theory wasn’t exactly true (a controversial point but yes this has been substantiated), and thirdly, there was too much friction between members for any unity. The claim was that it was politically against the spread of communism. By name, most countries were new democracies which gained independence from their colonial masters. On closer look, none of the countries in Southeast Asia, be it then or now, could be truly said to enshrine democracy as it is seen in the west. So the struggle between communism (from the PRC and the Vietnam conflict then) and the nations of ASEAN cannot exactly be said to be reflective of the Cold War ideological struggle.

So what was ASEAN for? Forty years on, the main thing that the governments could have a common ground is that of economics. Trade and trade agreements have been the focus of many ASEAN meetings. So that could be the “front” against communism. In the post Cold War era, this continued as the forefront of ASEAN’s objective. Nothing wrong with that. The icky bit comes in including countries like Myanmar into the system. By “normal” Western standards, the inclusion of a country into a trade pact/economic cartel would first have the condition of a corruption-free, democratic government. ASEAN clearly did not place that condition when it admitted Myanmar into its group. Now, it claims it has sent a signal to Myanmar and yet has little political leverage over the whole issue, asking much help from the United Nations.

Digging deeper, the economies of ASEAN do all differ greatly but have been much interdependence due to agreements and such. When a country like Myanmar commits such atrocities however, the response thus far is “no sanctions”. But of course, sanctions would firstly hurt the economies of those SEA countries which trade with Myanmar. The next classic reason is that sanctions would inevitably hurt the Burmese people and not the leaders.

40 years on, ASEAN has a test that if occurred elsewhere, especially in Europe, would be solved by the “traditional” way. So long as ASEAN maintains its economic pursuit and little unity in terms of political ideology and standards, it won’t move far on issues like this.

I know this entry is rather short and vague but I have my reasons for it being so. No doubt such a topic will be heavily debated in the International Relations Theory and East Asian Politics classes, both which I’m not taking. Perhaps Marek will place it down for MUN one of these days. Perhaps. Hint.

Further note: This entry is not one that crticises any country in Southeast Asia, any government, or any regional or international organisation. Yes, there is lacking evidence, but facts do stand.

previous - next