As a whole, the idea of constructive engagement is a process not just in the level of government but one that comprehensively include business, politics and culture—people-to-people engagement inside the ASEAN. But what has happened is that the ASEAN could engage Burma only on topics or matters that the military regime agrees to be engaged on. Which is almost nil for that matter. The constructive engagement also calls for states not to interfere in the internal affairs of its member states. With this, the Burmese regime always tries to evade the issues of politics and human rights as core and relevant issues. Here lies precisely the absurdity and inadequacy of constructive engagement with Burma.

When Burma now known as Myanmar was adopted as member of the ASEAN in 1997, the policy of “Constructive Engagement” has directed the region’s perspective and approach towards this junta-governed country.

In discussing and analyzing ASEAN’s “constructive engagement” with Burma, it is important to trace the history of this policy. What kind of specie is “constructive engagement” that ASEAN continuously adheres to it like a bible? Where did it come from?

History of Constructive Engagement policy

It was the Thais who gave birth to the policy of constructive engagement. The then Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun initiated in 1991 Thailand’s foreign policy in Burma. This was later “regionalized” by the ASEAN and thus became “ASEAN’s Burma Policy.”

Being permanent neighbors sharing a 2,400 kilometer-long border, the Thai government sees that whatever happens in Burma directly affects Thailand. Former Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs Paribatra clearly said that the struggles of various armed ethnic minorities in Burma against their central government in Rangoon affect Thailand as these resulted into the “spill-over” of displaced persons and migrants in the Thai soil during the 80s and 90s.

In the face of this problem, or “one of the realities” as the Thais simply put it, it should always be in the interest of both countries to have a good working relationship at the government level so that when a problem arises, Paritbara said, they can be easily resolved.

Despite mounting international criticisms against the military regime in Rangoon, the ASEAN still adopted Burma as its member along with Laos. The ASEAN leaders believed that constructive engagement could encourage the ruling Burmese generals to “re-enter” dialogue with Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and to “resolve” the political deadlock in Burma which has stemmed from junta’s refusal to recognize NLD as winner of the 1990 general elections. Winners of the 1990 elections in Burma where NLD got more than 80 percent of the parliamentary seats were not allowed to assume power.

ASEAN remains soft on Burma

As a whole, the idea of constructive engagement is a process not just in the level of government but one that comprehensively include business, politics and culture—people-to-people engagement inside the ASEAN. But what has happened is that the ASEAN could engage Burma only on topics or matters that the military regime agrees to be engaged on. Which is almost nil for that matter. The constructive engagement also calls for states not to interfere in the internal affairs of its member states. With this, the Burmese regime always tries to evade the issues of politics and human rights as core and relevant issues. Here lies precisely the absurdity and inadequacy of constructive engagement with Burma.

Ask any ASEAN member state how does ASEAN decide on things and the ready answer would be “the ASEAN way.” The ASEAN decides on things based on “consensus.”  Now the question is: Is the ASEAN united against Burma? Is there any consensus, in the ASEAN that Burma should be compelled to initiate tangible and significant political reforms?

In 2003, Thailand’s Prime Minister pronounced that the Thai government would do everything to help facilitate its neighbor’s “national reconciliation.” The regional grouping not only a few times called for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. But this demand fell into deaf ears. The international community called for an all-inclusive, well-represented National Convention but the junta simply used “handpicked delegates” in the process of drafting their Constitution.

After the power struggle in Burma in October of 2004 that led to the ouster and arrest of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, no less than Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines virtually congratulated Soe Win by saying that she welcomes the new leadership of Burma. Using the seal of the ASEAN, Arroyo said that it has been the consensus of ASEAN grouping to pursue constructive engagement in Yangon and that she was quoted as saying, “that is still our goal.”

In the same year, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told ASEAN leaders that it was the region’s responsibility to “help accelerate the process of democratization and national reconciliation in Burma beginning with the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.”

If ASEAN’s claim is to be believed, the regional grouping has allowed Burma to decide for itself whether it would take the chairmanship of the ASEAN or not. In the end, Burma declined the post and said that it would become “busy” to attend to its ongoing national reconciliation and democratization process. Though there were reports that some of the members of the ASEAN including Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia are bent on pressuring the junta to withdraw its scheduled chairmanship in 2006, Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said then that, “we don’t want to tell Burma that they must go out or that they must miss their turn, but they know what they need to do.”

Gang of liars, Cult of power maniacs

Ironically, after the junta crushed the people’s uprising in 1988, the regime not on few occasions also called for the return of democracy in Burma. But it turned out that the junta is just playing a “fool’s game.” Khin Nyunt who was then chief of military intelligence told foreign military attaches in Rangoon on September 22, 1988 that elections would be held as soon as law and order has been restored and the defense services would then systematically hand over power to the winning party.

In 1990, the State of Law and Order and Restoration Council (SLORC) held a general election. This is Burma’s first multi party election in nearly 30 years. After the election where in the NLD won, the junta delayed the transition of power and asserted that if any political party convened a parliament and formed a government, such a government would only be a “parallel government” because the SLORC, the junta said, remained the “legal government.”

For 18 years since the 1988 people’s uprising, the world has witnessed that the military regime in Burma is nothing but a gang of liars and a cult of power maniacs. The junta is fond of making promises but is also known for violating these promises.

Saw Maung, the head of then the ruling SLORC even said, “the fact that we have formed a government with very few people is evidence that we have absolutely no desire to hold on to state power for a prolonged period.” In 1997, when SLORC changed its name to State Peace and Development Council, the junta then advocated for what they dubbed as “disciplined democracy.”

ASEAN’S non-interference policy aggravates human rights violations in Burma

Now the junta gave birth to another creature and named it “disciplined democracy.” But what were the manifestations of this disciplined democracy?

Senator Aquilino Pimentel of the Philippines, a staunch advocate for the return of democracy in Burma, said then that Burma is a neighbor whose house is on fire. And if the house of our neighbor is on fire, Pimentel argued, “we cannot just fold our hands and say we cannot interfere. We should at least call the attention our neighbor and tell him that his house is on fire.”

Pimentel’s analogy is true especially now that Burma remains perhaps the most brutal state in the world. The human rights violations inside Burma became more rampant than before. And non-interference is still ASEAN’s consistent response to this.

The SPDC, being an illegal regime is considered to be one of the most brutal human rights violator in the world. But despite this fact, the ASEAN, in which Burma is a member, remains silent.

Contrary to what the SPDC would like us to believe, there is still no rule of law, no peace and order in Burma, no development, no progress. The name of the government of the military junta is the exact opposite of how it governs its country and how it observes human rights.

It’s a fallacy!

Needless to say, the ASEAN’s constructive engagement policy with Burma has become a fallacy with zero accomplishment for democratization process in Burma. It’s an empty slogan with no concrete meaning for the suffering peoples of Burma. The constructive engagement is something that cannot rescue the peoples of Burma from the hands of their repressive government. It is something that cannot offer them food when they are hungry. It’s something that can give justice to the hundreds of rape victims and thousands of political prisoners. Rules are made to help people not to strangle them. Constructive engagement therefore is something that must be junked.

The writer is the Burma Advocacy Staff of the Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID).