Marty Natelagawa looked like he had never found it easier to smile as he left a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon at the end of last month.
The Indonesian foreign minister joined a growing list of notables to have broken the endless succession of po-faces that had characterised the pilgrimages to the Burmese democracy doyen before. Only a narrow range of grave expressions availed themselves in the changeless circumstances of her eternity under house arrest.
It was an emblem of the country as a whole. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak called for her release as often as he could -- pushing the unanimity in Asean and elsewhere that Burma could never be taken seriously with Suu Kyi all but locked up in a dilapidated mansion with only a short-wave radio for company.
Then the wish came true. It was not quite believed that so wicked a regime could ever do such a thing. A year later, she is still free and the international community is being challenged to respond.
First off the blocks, not surprisingly, was Asean. The grouping of Burma's neighbours is most invested in constructive engagement -- and most embarrassed by its persistent lack of result. Asean has thus been stalking Naypidaw intimately since elections -- the first in 20 years -- were held last November.
The vote was widely considered to be a stitch-up, a re-clothing of the military junta in civilian garb. In the six months afterwards, the inauguration of President Thein Sein and convening of Parliament did nothing to disabuse doubters that the generals' "discipline-flourishing democracy" was a charade.
However, as soon as the new administration dug in (perhaps against its own reactionaries), the reforms came thick and fast.
Asean moved with a haste that was just shy of indecency.
Foreign ministers meeting in July announced that chair Indonesia had accepted an invitation to see for itself. "We consider positively the willingness and readiness of Myanmar to take the chairmanship of Asean in 2014, based on its firm commitment to the principles of Asean," they said.
Although Natelagawa's inspection tour admitted some reservations, the regional diplomacy behind him had effectively made up its mind.
Back in Bali for the Asean Summit last Friday, he and his colleagues formally accepted Myanmar's accession to the rotating chair in three years.
Asean officials were not the only ones appearing pleased. Britain's International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell beamed as he accompanied Suu Kyi for a pep talk to her adoring people last week. On camera, it was clear who he was speaking for when he repeated the rote remark that "more must be done" by the Burmese government.
Suu Kyi's all-or-nothing centrality in the world's opinion of her country was proved, if any were needed, when President Barack Obama phoned to ask if it was okay to send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a visit next month -- the first by such a senior American personage in half a century.
(That was a big advance from the previous position. The last time Myanmar eyed its turn at the chairmanship in 2006, Clinton's predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, threatened a US walkout.)
The Lady herself has been careful in her statements. At this fragile bend in Burma's historic inflexion point, its politics can be more about gesture than plain words. Suu Kyi has communicated by evasion as much as judgment.
She has preferred obliqueness, describing Thein Sein as a "good listener" and developments so far as "positive". She has even evinced the slightest irritation when Western reporters (allowed in for the first time in years) pressed for more.
But the shift in tone was evident in the speed with which her National League for Democracy decided to register for upcoming by-elections last Friday.
In the weeks before last November, the party had agonised over whether to boycott the polls in protest at the strictures imposed on it.
The tight focus on Suu Kyi is understandable, and not just because of her starring role in Burma's tragic drama. Obtaining an accurate picture of the country is difficult. The generals had closed down the former British colony of Burma and replaced its true condition with the hyper-reality of propaganda.
The subject of Burma is thus more stricken by bias than that of other countries emerging from darkness.
"This has not only left the Myanmar debate in a polarised state, but more importantly has hindered the sort of clear, objective assessment on which the right human rights and other policy decisions depend," wrote Benjamin Zawacki, Amnesty International's Burma researcher and a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations, in Asia Times Online on Nov 7.
Among the few to have attempted such impartiality is the International Crisis Group, which has honed an exceptional acuity from its contacts in the country.
In a detailed report in September, it described what was happening in Myanmar as "remarkable". The "completely new character of governance suggests it could be the beginning of a process of fundamental political change".
As imperfect as they may be, the signs are unmistakeable.
"Those who deny this are simply not paying attention or are allowing their personal, political or institutional agendas to get in the way," Zawacki said.
Even the human rights hard core is starting to favour a reciprocal loosening of sanctions in tandem with Naypyidaw's liberalising steps. Gross violations remain to be answered, such as in the tribal conflict zones, and the motives behind the regime's conversion are still obscure.
But the aim of bringing in Burma from the cold for the sake of its long-suffering population can benefit from not asking too many questions at the present time.