Burma's jailing of Suu Kyi is a test for both Asean and Surin

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/18/opinion/opinion_30102894.php

By Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation
Published on May 18, 2009


IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, world leaders after leaders, governments after governments, as well as Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore have expressed concern over the plight of opposition party leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. They have done that several times since the 1990's, in response to Burma's frequently used tactics. One question remains: What is the next course of action?

The Burmese junta understands well its latest scheme - adding charges against her for breaking house-arrest terms for allowing an American intruder to stay - would anger the international community and further harden their positions. That was exactly what Rangoon would like to see happening. The harder the position is outside the country, the better the regime is able to garner support from its rank and file. All members of Burma's military, the Tatmadaw, must stay united to ward off foreign threats.



Furthermore, the frustration helps highlight the prevailing hypocrisy deeply rooted in the overall approaches taken by various players on Burma. Despite strong and sustained condemnation by the international community, the UN Security Council's permanent members have not yet intervened in the Burmese situation. Thus far China and Russia have vetoed any move in that direction. The Rangoon regime continues quite effectively to hold the council hostage, playing off one power against the other.


For China more than for other council members, Burma matters the most. Its rich mineral and energy resources with unique strategic land-bridge to the Indian Ocean have placed the country on Beijing's premium list. Unlike its highly visible collaborative spirit in the North Korean nuclear crisis, Beijing has not yet shown any willingness to persuade Burma to become more resilient. One contributing factor is the absence of common threats in the case of Burma. The perceived nuclear threat brought by Pyongyang's military ambition is equally shared by all council members. That was not the case for Burma at this juncture. Any change of status quo there could bring political uncertainty and further undermine Beijing's preeminent position.


From September 2005 onward, former world leaders and Nobel laureates have repeatedly urged the council's members to intervene, arguing that the situation in Burma affects international peace and security. Somehow, it has not been recognised as such by UN members, even though similar arguments worked very well in the situations in Sierra Leone or Afghanistan or Sudan.


Asean has to take the blame for harbouring such an attitude. The grouping has suffered internal bleeding after Burma gained admission in 1997 without conditions. For the past 12 years, this pariah state has failed to contribute to the collective well-being and reputation of the Asean family. The absence of responsibility to protect its citizens and minorities has caused widespread regional problems, for instance in cross-border human trafficking and internal displacements. Rangoon's constant denials regarding the Rohingya asylum seekers are just one example.


Indifference by Asean of Burma's intransigence cannot continue forever because the Asean Charter came into force last December. Obviously, the principle of non-interference is still very much alive in framing member's behaviour and collective responses. But the charter does give room for the Asean leaders to act with discretion regarding sanctions against their own peers' non-compliance and collective irresponsibility. The question is being asked today: who will take the lead?


As the Asean chair in 2007, Singapore went extra miles to express "revulsion" against the regime's violent repression. Last week, Thailand, the current chair, called for an end of Suu Kyi's detention after the current term expires later this month. That was Bangkok's strongest position on Burma since the Thaksin government's pro-Rangoon policy set in early 2001. Both Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya have expressed deep concern over Suu Kyi's situation. Thailand, as the grouping's frontline state, wanted and needed to do more. The Abhisit- government was supposed to take a fresh lead on Burma but political turmoil and the aborted Pattaya summit prematurely weakened such endeavour. In days ahead, Thailand would require extraordinary moral courage together with Abhisit's leadership to take up this challenge. Does he have what it takes to tackle Burma head-on as his predecessor, former prime minister Chuan Leekpai, did in 1997-2000? We will find out sooner than later.


Within hours after the Cyclone Nargis hit the Irrawaddy Delta last May, Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan initiated the leading role of Asean in relief and rescue missions there. He took extraordinary steps, using the grouping's and his influence and networks to assist Burma's recovery.


Now with an expanded mandate and responsibility under the Asean Charter and the Cha-am chairman's statement, will Surin be able to duplicate this effort to the current political crisis and garner Burma's cooperation? The international community has very high, perhaps unrealistic, expectations of Surin's authority and leadership to help free Suu Kyi. Can he push the envelope? Certainly, he can, but at his own peril unless he receives backing from the rest of Asean's leaders. One more time international and regional players have to face the same dilemma - which course of action to take on Burma. Last week, the Obama Administration renewed for another year the 1997 law banning US investments in Burma. Washington's review of policy on Burma would take several more weeks as appointments of key officials related to East Asia remain incomplete. The EU has continued with its current sanction regime and pledged to ease it in response to genuine progress inside Burma, such as the release of political prisoners, including Suu Kyi.


For over two decades, the Burmese people have risen to the occasion defending their democratic dream, however distant it might be today. The Saffron Revolution in September 2007 demonstrated their courage to continue fighting the dictators. In their hearts, they know the case against Suu Kyi is unjust.


The trial and subsequent decision could spark off fresh protests and disturbances once again in days ahead, especially in time of economic difficulties. High commodity and gasoline prices caused public outcries that eventually led to street demonstrations in 2007. Perhaps, as the international community ponders various options, the Burmese people could show the way.