Burma is refusing to give up its forthcoming chairmanship of the Association of South East Asian Nations, despite increasing pressure to do so.
The US and EU have been publicly critical because of Burma's human rights record, and some Asean members are reportedly uneasy about the prospect.
But Foreign Minister Nyan Win is adamant that it is an internal decision.
Should Burma step aside the 2006 chairmanship? Is it time to break the group's long-held tradition of non-interference in the internal affairs of its members?
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
The whole ASEAN issue is irrelevant like a lot of the debates about Burma. The human rights violations by the Burmese Army are widespread and have been occurring for 50 years now. The SPDC should not have any more "second chances". The generals in Rangoon should be removed as soon as possible even if it means killing them. Countries like the US and the EU should intervene militarily. Lacking that they should at least be willing to send arms and ammunition to the Karen, Shan and Arakan fighters in Burma so they can solve the problem themselves.
Fred Ramsey, Pasadena,CA, USA
It's long past time that the US and Britain stopped trying to dictate to the rest of the world who should run what. If Burma is the forthcoming chair of the association it is nobody's business but the association's members if they are a suitable choice.
Bill Hamilton, Canada
Of course it should step aside, but this is the Burmese junta we are talking about. Normal rules do not apply to them and the longer people take a soft line with Burma, the longer people such as Aung San Suu Kyi will stay under house arrest, and military generals will keep calling the shots. It's time for the world to stand up to Burma and quit the soft diplomacy towards them. The Junta does not deserve or warrant respect.
Jason Robinson, Dublin, Ireland
I believe the members of ASEAN should take a stance and deny Burma the 2006 chairmanship-- how can a government that so clearly violates human rights be even recognized, let alone be allowed to head a group of nations? ASEAN will lose whatever credibility it had if Burma were to be chair.
Nawar Najeeb, Kuala Lumpur/ London/ Boston
Many people justly worry whether sanctions on Burma harm the people rather than the government. However, denying Burma the chance to chair ASEAN is a clear action that would pose little risk to the people of Burma themselves while making it explicitly clear that the way Burma governs its people is unacceptable in the modern community of nations.
Dom Nardi, New York, USA
Every dictatorship claims that the crimes it commits against its own people are an internal matter beyond the reach or even criticism of other nations. It's up to the members to decide just what kind of organization it wants to be and how much respect it will get from the outside world.
Mark, USA
Who has good record among the ASEAN members? I think Burma shouldn't step aside but issues such as human rights should be discussed openly. Abuse of human rights is not an internal problem - it should be everybody's business.
Aeisha, Indonesia (ex-Pakistan)
Give Burma the 2006 chairmanship of ASEAN is a victory for tyranny and dictatorship. If the US and the EU have success in pressing Burma to give up, it will be a clear signal to other countries like Laos and Cambodia of possible consequences of human rights violation in their own country.
Sideth, Banlung, Cambodia
When Burma is allowed to shape policy in the EU or NAFTA, then the US and Europe and start tinkering with what happens in ASEAN. Until then, let ASEAN decide for itself whether Myanmar should or shouldn't chair the association. Peer pressure is more likely to influence change in Myanmar than the interference of George W Bush or Tony Blair.
Tony James, London, England
Myanmar is more likely to change by increasing outside contact. Visit Myanmar as I have done, before sounding off. At least with a military dictatorship you can walk the streets at night without being mugged.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
The Burmese people continue to suffer under the heel of a brutal military dictatorship whose human rights violations are numerous and well documented. Membership of any international alliance lends Burma's dictatorship a legitimacy it does not deserve plus economic benefits that serve only to support and continue the juntas hold on power and the subjugation of its people.
Simon, Westerham, UK.
No, Burma should not be allowed to lead ASEAN 2006. It would give them a wrong message from the international community. They have to understand that there are certain basic rules regarding human rights to which all the countries in the world should obey.
Margherita Bebi, Perugia, Italy
Asean members would be mad to let themselves be led by Burma.
Ted Hunter, Surrey
Burma is an evil dictatorship even by Asean standards and should not even be a member not to talk about leading. The free world, whatever that means nowadays, should not tolerate states like Burma but place their rulers and economies into total boycott by all means until their own people throw them out to get things normalized. They will do that when they are hungry enough.
Istvan Hunanui, Chisinau, Moldova
Foreign Minister Nyan Win is correct to say it is an internal matter. Of course, the disgust and loathing that Nyan Win's masters so deservedly attract would then taint all members of Asean.
Peter Filicietti, Thailand
Burma is the wrong player to lead Asean. Human rights violations are one aspect, having political and economic stability is another. The latter lacking from Burma. Singapore gets my vote for the Chairman seat in Asean.
Elliot, Salt Lake City, USA