Mario “Mayong” Joyo Aguja, Manila

The Jakarta Post

April 18, 2006

ASEAN’s Special Envoy to Myanmar Syed Hamid Albar will be briefing his

counterparts this week at a retreat in Ubud on his recent visit to Yangon.

However, the Malaysian Foreign Minister’s report is not likely to provide

any new information or good news that somehow, the Myanmar military

authorities have miraculously fulfilled their promises to ASEAN concerning

economic and political reforms.

Already, the statements emanating from ASEAN capitals after Syed Hamid’s

premature departure from Yangon on March 24 indicate that ASEAN leaders may

be considering backing off from the bold advocacy they initiated last year,

which induced Myanmar to withdraw from the ASEAN chair. ASEAN ministers are

giving the impression that they may be losing their resolve, perhaps even

their nerve, when it comes to negotiating with the reigning generals.

History is written by the decisive, not the jittery. ASEAN leaders must be

able to see that the stone facade set up by the Myanmar regime is a thin

and teetering one.

The sudden move of Myanmar’s capital to a semi-completed bunker last

November, in which civil servants were given 48 hours’ notice, does not

signal strength. The regime’s dwindling grip on the economy, even as it

exposes its inability to understand the bird flu epidemic has further

eroded business confidence to the point of despair.

Even the annual military parade to mark Armed Forces Day on March 27 was

conducted in front of an audience of military men and their families, under

tight security, away from the direct gaze of the general public. Despite

the increased distance from democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s home, where

she remains under house arrest, the authorities continue to isolate her for

fear of her national and international influence.

On April 4, the news service Kommersant reported that Gen. Maung Aye had

arrived in Russia bearing “an extensive list of Russian arms and military

hardware” to acquire. Such extravagance is outrageous when most of

Myanmar’s people suffer extreme impoverishment. It’s also a hint that the

generals feel far from secure.

This is why ASEAN cannot afford to shy away from taking leadership in

solving the Myanmar question. The current crisis is partly a result of the

ASEAN’s prior dithering over Myanmar, which saw ASEAN becoming Myanmar’s

greatest defender even as the regime flouted its most basic values. If

ASEAN fails to garner sufficient political will to solve this problem, it

will undermine its role as the guardian of regional security. How then will

it be able to maintain its credibility in the region, let alone

internationally?

The Myanmar authorities have so far modified their behavior and rhetoric in

response to those who willing to exercise leverage and determination, such

as the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the United States

government. It had, until last year, treated ASEAN with contempt.

Now, the Myanmar generals would have us believe they are totally in

control. They would prefer ASEAN to cease its advocacy and revert to the

thankless job of defending the indefensible. They want ASEAN to campaign

against pressure without delivering any tangible benefits. Such extreme and

selfish demands are an insult to the spirit of ASEAN solidarity.

We must see beyond their bluff. Regional players, such as India and China,

now realize that it is not in their economic or security interests to allow

Myanmar’s instability to deteriorate further. ASEAN could lead a regional

strategy to ensure that pro-reform forces, inside and outside, of Myanmar

are able to deliver outcomes that will benefit the peoples of this region.

If isolation of Myanmar is not the solution for democratic reform, surely

meaningful reform cannot be initiated when the Myanmar regime acts in

remoteness. That is why ASEAN has to assert for an inclusive political

process where the NLD, along with other pro-democracy parties that won the

1990 elections and ethnic nationality leaders be an integral part in the

long-term solution for Myanmar.

ASEAN is capable of skillfully harnessing both diplomacy and pressure in a

mutually reinforcing manner. Such an approach will lead to a practical and

sustainable solution that is all-inclusive. If it shrinks away from this

challenge, ASEAN risks delivering our regional destiny into the hands of

irrational dictators.

Now, more than ever, an ASEAN strategy of principled engagement backed by

international pressure is needed. If ASEAN is indecisive, it will not only

be Myanmar’s 50 million people who suffer.

Congressman Mario “Mayong” Joyo Aguja of the Akbayan “Citizens” Action

Party is a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippine

Congress and an active member of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar

Caucus (AIPMC).

ASEAN should take a stronger stand against Burma’s military junta in the wake of the disappointing visit last month of its special envoy, Malaysian Foreign Minister Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, to Burma which failed to bring the country and its long suffering people any closer to democratic transition.

Although the much-awaited “fact finding” visit achieved nothing tangible, the AIPMC hopes that ASEAN will not shy away from bringing about political and economic reforms just because it appears difficult. It takes strong political will and determined leadership to see through what ASEAN so courageously started in December and we hope the organization will be able to confound its critics by being resolute in tackling one of its most pressing problems.

“ASEAN may have been able to avoid difficult situations in the past, but the stakes are so much higher in today’s interrelated world. Now is not the time for ASEAN to lose its nerve when dealing with Burma,” said AIPMC vice-president and Indonesian parliamentarian Nursyahbani Katjasungkana.

“The relevance of the entire organization rests on how effectively it deals with Burma. ASEAN must take into consideration international views and policies on Burma, especially from organisations like the European Union and the United Nations, that impact political and economical relations member states have with such global partners,” she added.

That Syed Hamid was barred from meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, and members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), may suggest that Burma’s military regime, also known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is adamant in clinging on to power. But its grip is more precarious than it appears.

The hasty move last year of Burma’s capital city from Rangoon to a half-completed bunker in central Burma, the apparent inability of the regime to cope with the bird flu epidemic and the authorities’ dwindling grip on the economy, undermines the SPDC’s defiant propaganda and displays of strength.

“There is ample recent evidence that the regime is feeling far from secure. Otherwise they would not be afraid to allow Aung San Suu Kyi to receive visitors, including Syed Hamid last month,” emphasized AIPMC member and Philippine legislator Congressman Mario Joyo Aguja.

“Now, more than ever, an ASEAN strategy of principled engagement backed by international pressure is needed. If ASEAN is indecisive, it will not only be Burma’s people who suffer. Regional security will continue to be affected by a paranoid and unstable regime that is intent on flooding its neighbours with drugs and refugees,” he added.

If isolation of Burma is not the solution for democratic reform, surely meaningful reform cannot be initiated when the SPDC acts in remoteness. That is why ASEAN has to insist that the NLD, along with other pro-democracy parties that won the 1990 elections and ethnic nationality leaders be an integral part in the long-term solution for Burma.

On February 12, the NLD issued a bold, innovative proposal to the SPDC for a power-sharing transitional arrangement. This proposal has received the support of the leaders from many of Burma’s ethnic groups as well as political parties and organizations seeking democratic reform in Burma, including the AIPMC.

The SPDC has so far not responded to this magnanimous offer to start the process of reforms that will also see the military playing a role in the future of Burma. In order to salvage the situation following Syed Hamid’s fruitless visit to Rangoon, ASEAN will be wise to use any leverage available to prove that is has the political will to ensure that Burma’s generals fulfil their promises for reforms. This should include the implementation of NLD’s power-sharing proposal. It is the most credible and practical plan available.

AIPMC wishes to reiterate its strong support for the NLD proposal to create a transitional body to implement true democratic reform in Burma and a genuine program of national reconciliation.

AIPMC further urges ASEAN to push Burma’s generals to consider NLD’s proposal as part of the military government’s efforts to create democratic reforms in the country. ASEAN must be more actively involved in Burma’s political developments if it chooses to continue allowing a military dictatorship, which violently suppresses and isolates its own people, to remain a member of its organisation.

Ends

Released on 13 April 2006, by the AIPMC Secretariat.

Media coordinator: Roshan Jason, AIPMC Executive Secretary. (+6012-3750974)

6 April 2006

Engaging Burma: The ASEAN Experience

Congressman Mario ‘Mayong’ Joyo Aguja (AIPMC member, Philippines)

Delivered at the Hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Burma, Danish Parliament, 6 April 2006

Mr. Chairperson, fellow parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen:

Allow me to express my gratitude for this opportunity to share with you my hopes for democracy in Burma. I sit here before you, on behalf of the ASEAN legislators who also dream for development not only in our respective countries but also in our region, particularly in our ailing neighbor Burma.

Imagine a country where over 2,500 villages have been destroyed, where a military regime has more child soldiers than any other country in the world, and where millions of refuges have fled the country and continue to flee. Does this sound like a country in modern-day Asia? It does not, but it is. And that country is Burma.

First, allow me to share with you a few facts about our region and a brief history of ASEAN’s relationship with Burma.

ASEAN has a combined GDP of $685B and total trade of $758.7B. It is home to a population of diverse religions and multi-faceted cultures. It also has a political history of democratization where dictatorship is a thing of the past, except in Burma.

ASEAN was formed in 1967 by five Southeast Asian states – Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. The basis of their union was a concern over security threats from internal communist insurgencies, which plagued all of these countries, and regional threats such as the Indochinese conflict and the People’s Republic of China’s support for revolutionary communism in East Asia. The leaders hoped to form an alliance to represent their presumed mutual interest and strengthen their role against external threats.

ASEAN and Burma had little interest in each other then as ASEAN focused on its own internal issues, while Burma retreated into isolation. The changing political and economic landscape in the 1990’s tipped the attention of ASEAN to Burma’s membership. Since the 1988 popular uprising in Burma, it had shifted to an open economic policy catching the interest of the global world for its vast natural resources, including from China and ASEAN. Burma formally became a member of ASEAN in 1997. While some member countries continued to have doubts about the wisdom of admitting Burma into ASEAN, the support of three of the association’s most influential members helped Burma to secure a seat. The three countries were Malaysia and Indonesia, with interest in protecting the Muslims in the predominantly Buddhist country, and Singapore whose interest was access to Burma’s natural resources and market for weapons.

Policy of Constructive Engagement

Although Burma’s inclusion in ASEAN was criticized by the international community, members defended the decision by arguing that a human rights abusing state should not be left alone to behave unchecked but should be influenced to change by using economic ties as bargaining chips. The then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed was quoted as saying,”If Burma is outside, it is free to behave like a rogue or a pariah, while if it is inside, it would be subject to certain norms of behavior”. This policy of “constructive engagement” operated on the assumption that Burma’s immersion into ASEAN would influence the Burmese government towards democratic reforms. ASEAN governments and parliamentarians used this policy to pressure, if not to criticize, the junta.

In the spirit of “constructive engagement”, ASEAN ministers urged the military government to allow the entry of UN Special Envoy Razali Ismail in 2002 to facilitate dialogue among various groups in Burma and call for the release of political prisoners, particularly Nobel Peace Prize Winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The ASEAN ministers also pressured the government of Burma to relinquish its post as Chair of ASEAN for 2006. Stepping up further, ASEAN recently sent its special envoy, Syed Hamid Albar, Foreign Minister of Malaysia to conduct a fact-finding mission in Burma. However, what was supposed to be a three-day trip became only a one-day visit with Albar meeting up only with Prime Minister Soe Win and Foreign Minister Nyan Win and denied access to NLD leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Lopsided Partnership

Despite the transforming policy of non-interference to “constructive engagement”; and “flexible engagement” of “strong advising” (as proposed by Thailand), Burma has failed to show genuine reforms. On the contrary, the military regime intensified its repression against pro-democracy opposition and ethnic groups, apparently assuming that admission into ASEAN was a sign of approval for its previous policies. The situation in Burma continues to worsen with no degree of measurable improvement. Burma has trampled on democracy and continues to commit humanitarian and human rights violations. Burma likewise threatens the security of its neighbors with the substantial outflow of refugees, rampant drug trafficking, spread of HIV/AIDs and more recently the uncontrolled spread of the avian flu virus.

Moreover, several ASEAN members have found Burma’s membership in the association only as a means to utilize Burma’s natural resources. While ASEAN publicly condemns the human rights violations of the Burmese government, its members have unwittingly supported the government by entering into trade negotiations with Burma, thereby still financing its military government.

Joining ASEAN, the Burmese junta has gained everything but has given nothing in return even when the international community, not only ASEAN, has been demanding for reforms.

The AIPMC initiatives

In exasperation of Burma’s uncooperativeness, and to further maximize ASEAN’s potentials, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) formed itself in November 2004. AIPMC is composed of parliamentarians from Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia, Singapore, Thailand, and members of Burma’s government in exile. AIPMC has affiliate members and partners in the form of national caucuses and parliamentary groups outside ASEAN, such as India, Republic of Korea, Japan and countries in Europe. The body also works closely with the civil-society Burma movement and members of Burma’s government-in-exile.

One of its initial campaigns was to urge ASEAN to deny Burma its turn at chairing the regional bloc in 2006. Having succeeded in its campaign, members of the Caucus have now further called on ASEAN to suspend the military government’s ASEAN membership if it fails to show concrete democratic reforms in the country, such as acknowledging the 1990 national general election results and convening Parliament.

Since its inception, AIPMC has conducted the following campaigns and activities;

• A visit to a refugee camp on the Burma-Thai border housing 20,000 refugees (Feb 2006)

• Conference on ‘Good Governance, Democracy and ASEAN’ (Dec 2005, Kuala Lumpur)

• Meeting with UN and European Parliament (Oct 2005)

• Suu Ki’s 60th birthday celebration/campaign for release(June 2005, Kuala Lumpur)

• National parliamentary caucuses launched in Indonesia (Feb 2005), Thailand (March 2005), Philippines (April 2005), and Singapore (June 2005)

• Constant Press releases/statements and opinion articles

The AIPMC continues to call and support the following:

• Inclusion of Burma in the UN Security Council agenda and a UNSC resolution urging the SPDC to cooperate with the UN to facilitate democratic reforms.

• Unconditional and immediate release of Suu Kyi and all political prisoners

• Urgently convene legitimately elected Parliament/government of Burma based on the results of the 1990 elections per NLD power-sharing transition offer (February 12 offer of NLD)

• End systematic human rights violations in the land

• Declare a nationwide ceasefire to pave the way for a process of national reconciliation that includes ethnic nationality groups and the NLD

• Access into Burma for UN and ASEAN envoys

• Active participation of ASEAN and other stakeholders in resolving the conflict in Burma

Challenges for the International Community

While the Burmese government remains callous to the persistent calls of its people, and the international community, to institute democratic reforms, external pressure still remains a big potential to spark change in this deteriorating state.

Members of ASEAN and AIPMC should continue its call for the Burmese government to genuinely initiate reforms towards democratization. However, the membership of Burma in ASEAN and the policy of ‘constructive engagement’ should be reviewed since the military government has not, in the last 8 years, shown any substantial reform. It seems that ASEAN’s “strong advising” has not been enough to initiate the changes it had hoped for when it accepted Burma’s membership in 1997.

But despite criticisms on ASEAN’s current approach to Burma, AIPMC remains confident that it can still be firm and decisive by utilizing principled engagement, diplomacy and pressure.

Moves should also be made to broaden international campaigns on Burma outside of ASEAN. AIPMC has broadened its network beyond ASEAN and Asia to Europe and North America. Non-ASEAN neighbors China and India, who have been supportive trading partners of Burma, should be convinced to join the international community to put an end to Burma’s prolonged crisis. Doing so would be more beneficial to their mid and long-term interests.

What Denmark can do

Denmark as the incoming Chair of the UNSC will be in the best position to make a huge difference on Burma by pushing for the formal inclusion of Burma in the UNSC agenda. We are proud to say that in our short term as member of the UNSC, the Philippines supported the first-ever discussion on Burma at the meeting of the UNSC on December 16, 2005. Now, we are appealing to the Danish parliament and government to strongly, aggressively and pro-actively seek a resolution on Burma at the UNSC. I ask the Danish members of parliament to publicly call for a binding UNSC resolution urging the SPDC to cooperate with the UN towards meaningful reforms. The groundbreaking report commissioned by the Honorable Vacláv Havel, Former President of the Czech Republic, and Bishop Desmond M. Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, has presented more than enough reasons for the UNSC to take action on Burma.

The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Helsinki can also be a platform to campaign for Burma by ensuring that the ASEM process includes a face-to-face interaction between ASEM heads of government and representatives of civil society. The progress towards democracy is incomplete if other pro-democracy forces are excluded in discussions.

My friends, Burma has been under military rule since 1962, but the 50 million people of Burma refuse to give up their fight for democracy. And we in the international community cannot and should not give up on them. We can no longer afford to “wait and see” what happens to Burma while the country rapidly deteriorates. Let us continue to be inspired by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s appeal to us, “Please use your liberty to promote ours”. Together we can help the Burmese people enjoy the fruits of freedom, justice and peace.