The Cambodian foreign minister, Hor Nam Hong, struck a chord when he said his country's bid to become a member of the Asia-Europe Meeting was being tied unfairly to that of Burma.
Indeed, Cambodia is a fragile democracy whose human rights record is not unblemished. But it is more respectful of political rights than Burma, and should not be lumped with it simply because this is politically expedient for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
With Cambodia's complaint on the record, and Burma making no progress towards political reform, Asean should think again about the wisdom of persisting with the package approach that it has adopted to no avail. In the process, both Asean and the European Union should make the Asia-Europe Meeting, or Asem, the organisation of individual states that some members say it is rather than let it become largely a coming together of two regional groupings seeking a special alliance with China.
The latter impression hits anyone who has followed the expansion battle which features Asean trying to induct Burma, Cambodia and Laos into Asem, and the EU trying to gain admission for its 10 new members. China's confirmation of the expanded EU as its biggest trade partner in May adds to this view.
Launched in Bangkok in March 1996, Asem groups the then 15 members of the EU, the European Commission, the then seven Asean member states _ Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam _ as well as China, Japan and South Korea.
Burma, Laos and Cambodia became members of Asean after Asem's launch. Malaysia was largely responsible for bringing Burma into Asean in July 1997, when Laos was also admitted. A coup in Cambodia that month caused Asean to delay its admission until April 1999.
Europeans critical of Asean's induction of Burma have shunned it at most international forums and kept up stiff sanctions against the junta. Although some Europeans have mellowed, the arrest of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in May last year, and the exclusion of her and her party from the current constitution drafting process has bolstered and multiplied Rangoon's critics.
With or without a ``road map'', Burma remains a country where all but a handful among the elite enjoy political freedoms and human rights.
Having tried hard over several years to persuade the generals to reform, and not succeeding, Asean is entitled to change tack and concentrate on ensuring the admittance of Cambodia and Laos into Asem on their own individual merits.
Europeans say they are willing to accept these two countries but only time can tell if this is only political rhetoric. Given the complexities of expansion, adherence to the principle of individual membership and strict enforcement of admissions criteria is vital. Having admitted Vietnam, thereby showing tolerance of one-party rule, some European members of Asem have laid themselves open to criticism by keeping Burma out. And how politically open are some of the existing Asean and EU members of Asem?
Conceived as a `` process of dialogue'' for political, cultural and economic cooperation, Asem promises considerable benefits to both regions. But in eight years there has been more progress in ``dialogue'' than in concrete cooperation, with the trust fund set up in 1998 to help economies crushed by the crisis a year earlier a lone landmark. Meetings have widened however from foreign ministers and heads of state to those between finance, economic and science and technology ministers, while businessmen and intellectuals have conferred in separate forums.
Hence, Asem has much to do to justify the clamour for membership. Towards a more active agenda, and better understanding between the two regions, Thailand could advocate more exchanges between students and professional people.