ASEAN and non-interference in Myanmar?

THE ASSOCIATION of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on Aug. 8, 1967 in Bangkok by the 5 founding states: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined on January 8, 1984; Vietnam on July 28, 1995; Laos and Myanmar on July 23, 1997; and Cambodia on April 30, 1999.

According to scholar Robin Ramcharan’s journal article, ‘ASEAN and Non-interference: A Principle Maintained’, “ASEAN leaders have maintained their traditional respect for the principle of non-interference in the affairs of states, despite predictions to the contrary as human rights issues have come to the fore in Southeast Asia’s politics.”

Moreover, “calls for ‘constructive engagement’ from within and outside ASEAN, in the light of grave human rights abuses in Cambodia and Myanmar, have ultimately gone unheeded by ASEAN leaders.”

He asserted further, “This overt stance in favor of non-interference seems incongruous with a more subtle, historical approach of ‘actual interference’ in each other’s affairs. The two are reconciled thus: Publicly ASEAN leaders adhere to the vaunted ‘ASEAN way’ of non-interference while privately, behind-the-scenes, quiet diplomacy interference takes place to resolve issues causing tension between states.”

As students of ASEAN Studies, we have studied the principle of non-interference and read many scholarly articles that either attack or support the principle.

In fact, in one submission, I argued that it’s not true that ASEAN does not interfere in the domestic affairs of neighboring states as gleaned from contentions of scholars.

Join me as we quickly revisit the ASEAN reign. In December 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia, overthrew Pol Pot, installed a new government – the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK), and drove away the Khmer Rouge (KR) to the Thai border.

At this point, both states were not members of ASEAN yet. As earlier mentioned, Vietnam joined in 1995 while Cambodia was admitted in 1999.

Since at the time both countries were not ASEAN member states (AMS) yet, it can be argued that ASEAN’s ‘norms’ of non-intervention did not apply or were not violated, according to one scholar. 

Nevertheless, ASEAN intervened by politicizing the process at the UN General Assembly. It campaigned for KR to keep Cambodia’s UN seat; lobbied for third-world states to vote against PRK’s credentials in favor of Democratic Kampuchea; sponsored critical annual resolutions; argued that PRK was a “puppet regime”, among others.

In 1997, another coup occurred in Cambodia and with mounting US pressure, ASEAN intervened once again. A “creeping conditionality” form of intervention was imposed by phases such as: a) caretaker government to ensure free and fair elections; b) holding of elections to coalition formation; and c) coalition formation to senate establishment.

When these were satisfied, Cambodia was formally admitted to ASEAN completing her international rehabilitation. This ended ASEAN’s intervention.

While it can be argued that from 1978-1998, Cambodia was not part of the ASEAN umbrella yet and thus, not encompassed by the ‘norms’ of non-intervention as expounded by scholar Lee Jones, it can also be asserted that ASEAN intervened through active and even coercive diplomacy through imposed conditions for political reasons. This is the same position advanced by Ramcharan.

I surmise that the compelling reason for ASEAN’s intervention could have been to deliver on its much-ballyhooed claims of promoting regional security and stability thus avoiding the risk of being discredited in the global community. 

Which brings us to the situation in Myanmar now. ASEAN could not just quietly stay on the sidelines and watch in either disgust or amusement the domestic squabble of an AMS. ASEAN has the moral ascendancy over its member states. It cannot just sit and “monitor the situation” because it’s a “domestic matter”.

It reflects poorly on an organization that brandishes the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) Blueprint that aims to ensure that AMS live at peace with one another… in a just, democratic, and harmonious environment with members of the Community pledging to rely exclusively on peaceful processes in the settlement of intra-regional differences; regard their security as fundamentally linked to one another; and bound by geographic location, common vision, and objectives. Big words indeed!

More importantly, this ASPC Blueprint envisions ASEAN to be a rules-based Community of shared values and norms; a cohesive, peaceful, stable, and resilient region with shared responsibility for comprehensive security; as well as a dynamic and outward-looking region.

With all these big pronouncements, where’s ASEAN now in the Myanmar domestic conflict?

***

Writer can be reached at belindabelsales@gmail.com. Twitter @ShilohRuthie./PN