China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand participated in the just-concluded ASEAN summit. Their presence proved that Southeast Asia is of strategic importance to the major powers in Asia.
In order for ASEAN states to leverage that position of importance, they must strengthen their common identity. That is not a trivial undertaking, particularly when there are differences among the members on how to address Burma. Settling the Burma problem will mark a stride toward the creation of a deeper and more meaningful common identity for Southeast Asia.
ASEAN members have been pushing Burma and its military junta to uphold democracy and show respect for political and human rights. No significant change in Burma's attitudes has resulted.
Two main challenges need to be met in order to deal with Burma's rights violations: reviewing ASEAN's understanding of sovereignty and restoring ASEAN's credibility.
Burma has cited sovereignty as a defense against criticism from other ASEAN members. More importantly, although Burma is the least democratic and free country in Southeast Asia, other members do not fare much better. Even countries considered "free" and "democratic" continue to face political and human rights issues.
ASEAN is sustained by six principles: mutual respect for independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations; the right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion; non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; the peaceful settlement of disputes; renunciation of the threat or use of force; and effective cooperation. No less than three of these principles concern sovereignty and freedom from interference.
ASEAN's support of sovereignty is understandable because all the ASEAN countries, except Thailand, share a colonial background. As Amichav Atarya points out, they all see their sovereignty as a hard-earned privilege, and are reluctant to put it at risk.
However, according to Robert Jackson, sovereignty can be a dangerous thing. According to Jackson, many "failed states" in the developing world today "disregard the minimum civil conditions for their population: domestic peace, law and order, and good governance". International tolerance for such states is high because of the decolonization process. The international community focuses too much on giving independence to new states while being less concerned about the responsibility of these states to meet their citizens's needs.
The UN charter, however, clearly requires member states to show the ability and willingness to meet these obligations. The principle of sovereignty that underlies the relations among ASEAN members must take into account this important consideration. ASEAN members should see sovereignty and statehood as paired with the ability of the state to perform its obligations. Otherwise, ASEAN countries will face continued difficulties in putting pressure on Burma.
The second problem is the members' lack of credibility. According to the 2006 Freedom House rating of political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL), on a scale of one to seven, with one as the freest, Burma is rated seven for PR and seven for CL. But four ASEAN members -- Laos, Vietnam, Brunei, and Cambodia -- performed nearly as poorly as Burma. Two other members, Singapore and Malaysia, scored only in the four to five range. With this poor performance in promoting political rights and civil liberties among member nations, it is hard to get the Burmese government to respond positively to the pressure for reform.
Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia topped the rankings with 3/3, 3/3 and 2/3 points respectively. But they are not without problems. Thailand's democracy just suffered a major setback with the military coup. In 2005, Philippine President Arroyo was accused of manipulating the elections and her family of accepting payments from illegal gambling, which triggered a massive demonstration. Indonesia has failed to act decisively to defend religious freedom, such as when the Ahmadiyah sect was attacked. It has also hesitated to tackle the growing number of sharia-based local laws, which many see as an encroachment on private lives and a threat to the credibility of the constitution.
The hope for political reform in Burma rests not only with continuing pressure from ASEAN members but also the willingness of ASEAN as a political community to change internally. ASEAN must reconsider its conception of sovereignty, which should be based on the understanding that the state is created to protect and serve its citizens.
ASEAN members must be willing to reflect on their own performance in maintaining political rights and civil liberties, willing to exert pressure not only on Burma but also on each other, and willing to do better. That is the key to resolving the Burma issue.
The writer is a PhD candidate in political science at Northern Illinois University. He can be reached at Z095005@students.niu.edu.