IN the 20 years since Burma's last free and fair election, it has become Southeast Asia's poorest country, has continued the world's longest civil war, produced the highest number of refugees per capita in the world and, is home to one of the highest numbers of child soldiers.
Yet, major powers, regional governments and international bodies seem prepared to allow the imminent elections scheduled for this year, hollow polls driven by the strategic needs of the military, to go ahead and for the military to be self-legitimised as the rulers of some 55 million people.
Without a firm plan of action, this is exactly what will occur.
Last month's summit of foreign ministers of Asean in Hanoi confirmed this laxity. Despite much public cajoling and strong words behind closed doors, the organisation has once again failed to offer a firm approach or a regionally approved and facilitated road-map.
While demands first formalised by Asean in 2003 for the release of the National League for Democracy's Aung San Suu Kyi remain in place, suggestions from some that she should be released and allowed to participate in the elections have been quashed by the military.
Also, the possibility of a special Asean envoy to Burma was not pursued.
As such, these demands remain little more than paper tigers, as they are not backed institutionally by Asean, nor is there any formalised process to move in any specified direction.
In the words of one senior Asean diplomat in Hanoi, reported in local media, "in the end, we will probably end up being a big rubber stamp".
Meanwhile, the United States dithers on the sidelines, unable or unwilling to embolden its position. After taking months to review its Burma policy, it then sought to maintain a policy status quo; a combination of engagement and sanctions.
US engagement has faltered without a special Burma envoy and sanctions have limited effect as Burma's close ties with China have tended to surmount economic barriers to trade and investment.
As such, the US position on the elections has fallen in with that of Asean: one characterised by stern words and lofty hopes, but lacking the foundation of a solid plan of action.
For the United Nations, it has been more than a year since the special envoy has visited and one year since the UN's secretary-general spoke with us in person. Neither have been to the country since Suu Kyi was detained yet again, following a sham trial last year.
The UN Security Council has not weighed into the issue for almost three years.
The Burmese regime has been able to completely ignore and repudiate international and regional actors. The proposed 2010 elections will not lead to reconciliation among various forces in Burma -- so effectively wedged apart by the military -- the international community so hopes for, and that the region so needs.
With this election, the regime is playing a zero-sum game. The goal is to completely crush all opposition parties and to completely exclude all relevant stakeholders in Burma's supposed journey to democracy.
The exclusion of major political participants, from ethnic groups such as major Kachin parties to leading political figures denied access to the elections by virtue of being imprisoned (including Suu Kyi herself), is the ultimate in wedge politics, keeping the country on the edge of failed-state status and denying any semblance of true reconciliation.
In effect, the 2010 elections will lead to more chaos in Burma. Tensions will rise as a result of thwarted ambitions and the implications of poverty and the continued violations of basic human rights will possibly boil over.
Increased instability in Burma -- an outcome surely no one wants, even Burma's faithful patrons in Beijing -- will be the most likely outcome.
The National League for Democracy called for a regional dialogue on Burma some years ago. We feel this should be driven by Asean, largely via the extended Asean Regional Forum, and that it should be conducted in Asia.
The goal of such a forum is to find ways the international community and the Myanmar military can work together to initiate a sincere transition to democracy.
The bottom line is, of course, to devise a plan of action. Without such a strategy, the elections will lead nowhere. They do, however, present an opportunity, one which the international community has so far failed to take.