The Association of Southeast Asian Nations was established in 1967 when its member states recognized their apparent inability to resolve disputes bilaterally, to address the need for a political-cum-security framework for conflict management and resolution.
Since its establishment, ASEAN member countries have indeed substantiated that they are capable of co-existing in peace and harmony. While some regional disputes and differences have not been resolved, ASEAN countries have learned to diffuse or abate their conflicts and not to exploit the association for their own interests.
The existence of ASEAN thus serves to guarantee security for peaceful and harmonious bilateral relations, and as a corollary for long-term economic, social and cultural development.
It has become increasingly difficult to visualize open conflicts between two or more ASEAN member states. Sub-regional relations have developed an ASEAN spirit, which strongly supports ASEAN regionalism. Despite the legal character of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia, ASEAN prefers an informal approach to resolve conflicts, placing an emphasis on relationships rather than formal structures.
There is a general distrust of the structured legalistic approach to conflict resolution, which lacks sufficient consideration of situations and/or the emotional state of conflicting parties. But can the aversion to this approach be sustained in the 21st century, which will be complicated with the deluge of globalization, fierce competition, the multilateralization of security approaches and the multidimensionalization of threats to security?
The globalization process and the financial crisis inundating the region have forced ASEAN members to get over this aversion, to produce a charter and add supplementary values to the ASEAN agenda of peace and stability: "the active strengthening of democratic values, good governance, rejection of unconstitutional and undemocratic changes of government, the rule of law including international humanitarian law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". ASEAN will also need to adjust its policy of non-intervention in keeping with these new values.
The new values have simultaneously shifted ASEAN's approach to cooperation: The process of "lowest-common-denominator-seeking", the approach employed since ASEAN's establishment, has given way to a "target setting" method.
First with the ASEAN Free Trade Area, in 1992, the approach was again seen in ASEAN Vision 2020, in 1998, and the ASEAN Community in 2015, in January 2007. As a consequence, Burma and Thailand have been targeted in ASEAN's preoccupation with the new values of democracy, denunciation of unconstitutional and undemocratic changes in government.
Other aspects include its approach to human rights and fundamental freedoms, which have been addressed, not by "lowest-common-denominator-seeking", but, by heading straight to the calibration of democratic and human rights performance based on regional criteria.
Thailand, a founding member of ASEAN, knows full well what is expected and is adapting to these values, which were agreed to on joining the association. Burma, however, has found it difficult to adapt to ASEAN principles, as regime security is still a top priority for its leaders.
ASEAN has rebuffed wide-reaching calls for sanctions on Burma or suspension of its membership on account of the recent crackdown on demonstrations. Singapore's foreign minister, George Yeo, recently said ASEAN would like Burma to remain part of ASEAN and attend the 13th Summit in Singapore.
He argued that ostracizing Burma could result in it being "balkanised" by big powers in the region. The Jakarta Post (Oct. 25), in its editorial, exasperatingly argued President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono "will probably be the one to raise the hand of Myanmar's self-appointed leader in a demonstration of regional unity".
But Indonesia's foreign minister Hassan Wirayuda said, at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs (Oct. 2), the Burmese junta must be given the opportunity to share its power with a civilian government in a transition towards a democratic government.
Burma needs a transition from its military government to a democratic government. "We cannot demand a drastic change of government from the current military to civilian one. It has to be done through a joint civilian-military government. The world will need to approach the Myanmar problem more evenly," he said.
This is Hassan's way out, since the harsh Western and soft ASEAN approaches have not produced any results so far. Hassan's proposal looks likely to be the path Burma will take with most success, since leaders of both the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), those who wield power in Burma under Senior General Tan Shwe, and the National League for Democracy (NLD) under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, have held their positions for far longer than a normal term.
Tan Shwe is in his 70s and Suu Kyi in her 60s, and, in the same regard, they both should overcome the trepidation which the latter articulated in her "Freedom From Fear" speech: "It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it".
Both leaders must consider the nation, and work to devise ways of resolving the predicament facing Burma and the establishment of a democratic system which acknowledges human rights. This is their duty to the next generation of Burma's leaders.
Indonesia, in particular, should continue approaching both parties to change their strategies and work toward democracy in Myanmar, which is already in their political programs.
Indonesia should, on behalf of ASEAN, invite both the SPDC and NLD to the forum. It would be a good opportunity to listen to what they have to say, and talk face-to-face with the ASEAN family message of peace and harmony, in solving their domestic affairs for the good of ASEAN. This is the best ASEAN could do at this point in time.
ASEAN, however, will have great difficulty setting a target date for Burma's democratization process, but democracy should be determined as the lowest common denominator in this exercise.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the Center for East Asian Cooperation Studies (CEACS).