“..…//….ASEAN will never suspend Myanmar despite its bloody crackdown on mass protests….//…” – Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. “If you want Myanmar to continue to be engaged, first we should not be talking about suspending. Nobody can talk when you are threatening with all sorts of things,” he added.

Hamid is talking platitudes. ASEAN has been exploring “constructive engagement” for 10 years since Myanmar was officially admitted to ASEAN membership in 1997 to no avail, without an iota of result to show for it!

Yet Hamid is saying the truth in one other respect, that (1) it is actually the case that ASEAN will always treat renegade Myanmar with kids glove (“NATO”, Talk only, No Action) and (2) whether it ought or not ought to be the case, thats another question……Lets deal with (2) first before (1).

(2) WHY IT OUGHT NOT TO BE THE CASE:

Once, ASEAN was conceived as purely regional economic bloc focusing only on ASEAN countries economic integration, linkages and complementarities. It is now no more that alone. An ASEAN Charter was declared on 12/12/2005 in KL, the final draft of which will be deliberated and endorsed in the next ASEAN summit on 20 November 2007 in Singapore. The draft specifically includes one of the Charter’s objectives – the “promotion of democracy, human rights and obligations” of which General Than Shwe and his group of Junta cronies are the most flagrant violators. Hamd says there’s no mechanism in ASEAN’s Charter (Constitution) to suspend or expel Myanmar. True, if it is silent about not being able to suspend and expel Myanmar, it is equally silent that ASEAN cannot suspend or expel her. Legal text of constitution aside, ASEAN has the moral justification to do so. Myanmar’s human rights abuse is a disgrace to ASEAN and causes cleavages with the international community endorsing human rights as today’s norms. When Hamid visited Myanmar last year as ASEAN’s envoy with ASEAN’s mandate to check out Myanmar’s reforms if any and to meet, democracy icon, Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s generals gave him, and by extension ASEAN, the rebuff. The message from the generals have always been clear is clear : ASEAN countries need Myanmar for economic benefits (oil and gas that Thailand & Malaysia are interested, arms and deposits of currency that S’pore is interested) but Myanmar’s generals don’t need ASEAN’s patronage (why – because generals are prosperous enough from domestic gems and narcotic trade, and like Zimbabwe’s dictator, Mugabe could indulge in violent misrule and yet snub the nose at international community that you and your sanctions can go the hell!) Don’t forget in 1997, Myanmar’s generals briefly freed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from jail to indicate that it was loosening its grip and willing to move towards free elections. It was on this basis Myanmar was admitted to ASEAN. Now the violent suppression of the “saffron” demonstration evinces that the raison de etre of Mymar’s admission into ASEAN is no more – why can’t Myanmar not be expelled from ASEAN for grave misrepresentation of the move towards democracy?

(1) WHY IS MYANMAR BEING TREATED WITH KIDS GLOVE:

Short answer: Because those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. ASEAN leaders are interested in Crony Capitalism – not abstract Human Rights! To take forceful action against Myanmar will only get a retort from the generals whether ASEAN leaders are any better in terms of human rights not to mention set a precedent for action to be taken against each of themselves in the future, then how? The “Saffron” protests in Burma were the biggest since a popular uprising in 1988, and according to the BBC, the singular major catalyst that sparked the protests was the15 August decision by the Generals to increase the price of fuel, causing petrol and diesel to double in price, while the cost of compressed gas – used to power buses – increased five-fold. Now Malaysia also withdrew fuel subsidies that resulted in an across the board cost push inflation but we were too polite (or divided) to demonstrate, but next hike, who knows, the riot and baton wielding police would come out in full force to clobber and bash a few heads and then would Hamid want our ASEAN neighbors or the Myanmar Generals to ask the Malaysian government to resign for human rights abuses? Come on!

Singapore is the most economically advanced member in ASEAN, yet she has no Human Rights Commission like the cases of Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Socialist Vietnam. Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand have human rights commissions but they are only for show to bolster image and appease western critics. Which is why human rights commissions in (say) 2 of ASEAN nations – Indonesia and Malaysia – were started paradoxically by strong arm dictators like President Suharto and ex premier TDM to showcase, give a measure of legitimacy to and fend of international criticisms of their otherwise tarnished human rights records, in the case of Suharto to ameliorate outrage at the 1991 massacre in then-Indonesian-occupied East Timor, and TDM, the sacking, incarceration of and black eye to Anwar Ibrahim…

Singapore’s Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim was forthright when he told the Singapore Parliament recently that, “I do not see the human rights body affecting Singapore’s domestic laws,” he said. “I think we need to take into account quite critically what is the history, the realities and culture of all the 10 ASEAN members states.” By “ realities and culture” I take him to mean the feudal culture of the people to ‘kow tow’ to and take human rights abuses from their leaders!

Which is why ASEAN leaders always seek refuge in the other expressed objective of ASEAN’s Charter of “non interference of each other’s internal affairs” – boy, how else can they otherwise continue to reap economic benefits from Crony Capitalism from each other’s economies?

The end of World War II saw the mushrooming of international and regional organizations where two international norms evolve – the first is Human and women rights promoted by First World principally Western countries and the second, the norm of “non interference of each other’s internal affairs” promoted by post-colonial states recently ataining independence.

Then weak and floundering, these new colonial independent governments argued they faced great domestic challenges, both economic and political and military so how could they develop and participate meaningfully in the international community of nations if they were given space and all the time contend with interference from their neighbors?

ASEAN countries take sanctuary under this second norm of “domestic non interference” and play ball with the wealthier western nations by also adopting human and women rights which is why the ASEAN Charter espouses both principles but does not clarify which has priority as governing imperative in an event of conflict! Meanwhile talk about human rights, let others do the work, whilst we all make money! How clever!