ASEAN loses sense of direction even

[aungsan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: ASEAN loses sense of direction even as it expands

ASEAN loses sense of direction even as it expands

BY Harvey Stockwin
The Times of India News Service

HONG KONG: As the ASEAN Seven become the ASEAN Nine, with the admission
of Laos and Burma, Asia's most successful regional grouping is in danger
of losing its way. ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) was
all set to celebrate it thirtieth anniversary in style Instead, it has
needlessly enmeshed	itself in potential damaging controversy.

It aimed to finally implement the fourth pledge of the original ASEAN
Declaration in Bangkok in 1967 -- "that the Association is open for
participation to all states in the Southeast Asian region."

However, the grouping has sought to become ASEAN Ten at the price of the
basic substance which has made the 30th birthday possible -- shrewd and
sensible pragmatism.  Did the combination of high economic growth rates
and of past political cooperation go to ASEAN's collective head?  Did
hubris replace careful calculation?. Did ASEAN forget why it has been
elective, in a bid to become even more successful? These are questions
which naturally arise as today several ASTAN currencies are taking some
hard knocks in the international market-place.

First and foremost, after 29 years in which ASEAN slowly but steadily
moved towards its goals, there has been an unseemly rush to speedily
obtain the membership of all states in Southeast Asia, by seeking to
hurriedly admit Laos, Burma and Cambodia.  On the one hand, there was
the lure of achieving this in time for the 30th anniversary in a
Malaysia already stricken by a pervasive edifice complex.

On the other hand, there was the natural ASEAN aversion to being
forcefully reminded by , some Western nations of the human rights record
of two of the three nations applying for ASEAN membership.

So expansion of the group was hurriedly arranged.  A new ASEAN flag and
logo were created showing 10 stalks of paddy, representing the 10 ASEAN
nations 'bound together in friendship and solidarity".

Already, the decision, and the logo, are a case of "decide in haste,
repent at leisure'. Seemingly assured of ASEAN membership, second
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen had no compunction in moving against
first Prime Minister Prince Norodom Ranariddh in a bid to bring
Cambodia's under his dictatorial control. Hun Sen might have remembered
that ASEAN had already spent a decade opposing such an outcome.

So for the time being, ASEAN Ten will be ASEAN Nine, with the
Association feeling obliged to suspend Cambodia's membership. Already
Hun Sen has twice rejected ASEAN mediation in Cambodia.  Hoping to get a
reprieve over membership, Cambodia appeared to accept such mediation.  A
day later, with membership denied, Hun Sen again rejected any ASEAN
role.

Whether the Burmese military rulers will similarly miscalculate and with
the security of ASEAN acceptance crackdown even more on Aung San Suu Kyi
and the National League for Democracy, remains to be seen. The ASEAN
Nine could yet become ASEAN Eight.

ASEAN has failed to realise that ruthless power-seekers inevitably view
"Constructive engagement" as a synonym for appeasement. It failed to
reach back to 1967 and remember a basic reason for ASEAN's past success:
national momentum.

For when ASEAN was formed, the five founding members had all reached a
degree of national development which made regional cohesion possible. In
1967, Suharto, while not yet President was well on his way to
establishing his New Order in place of Sukarnoist chaos. Malaysia and
Singapore had settled their differences through separation.  Thailand,
under Field Marshal Thanom was on an even political keel, while the
Philippines was still electing a different President every four years.

Later Brunei joined after discarding the remnants of British
protectorate status, while Vietnam joined once it had settled on
economic reform and regional rapport as adjuncts to its communist
system.

ASEAN membership has never revolved around questions of democracy versus
authoritarianism.  The issue has been of national legitimacy and
effectiveness.  Despite gains and setbacks, the ASEAN Five, and latter
the ASEAN Seven, have each sustained a degree of momentum which made
regional cohesion	that much easier, Cambodia and Burma are a very
different	story.

The failure to fully implement the Paris Peace Accords, for which ASEAN
takes some of the blame, produced an inherently unstable Cambodian
political structure. To have been constructive in Cambodia, ASEAN would
have had to insist upon the United Nations fulfilling the Paris Peace
Accords, and disarming all Cambodian political factions.  Without the
promised disarming, Hun Sen could insist upon sharing power with the
winner of the election, Prince Ranariddh, just as he now shoots his way
to sole dictatorial power.

The failure of the Burmese military to honour the 1990 election result
only enhanced doubts about the military regime's legitimacy, already in
question from long years of economic failure and unending political
repression. ASEAN has taken credit for Aung San Suu Kyi's release from
house arrest, but little credit accrues from the fact that she is still
heavily restricted.

ASEAN could have gained kudos from insisting that membership required
that SLORC honour the results of its own election. Instead growing
global revulsion at SLORC's tyrannical ways will inevitably rub off on
ASEAN itself