Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should have celebrated a triumphant 2007 for at least two reasons: it turned 40 this year, and it signed a legally-binding charter that will define its existence going forward.
Reaching the age of 40 is in itself a worthy achievement for a regional grouping. More surprising, is the fact that ASEAN has progressed beyond a mere gathering of officials toward integration and functionality. The grouping's leaders have reiterated that to be functional the organization must benefit people in the member countries.
In stark contrast, other regional organizations have been dissolved, gone into inactivity or simply ended up as an annual gathering of leaders and officials. The African Union (AU), the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and several regional groupings in Latin America can be given as examples. In this sense, ASEAN can compare itself to the European Union, which is considered the most successful regional organization in the world.
Ironically, many criticize ASEAN as too slow in its integration, pointing to the way it lags far behind the EU.
However, there is a contrary notion: that the two groupings are exceptionally different and the most relevant comparison between them is that both are still alive and kicking. This popularity of this notion is growing.
As for the differences between ASEAN and EU, first there is the diversity among their respective members. The EU is generally homogeneous as regards in culture, religion and economic conditions. This smoothes the integration process. ASEAN countries, on the other hand, are different from each other in almost every respect.
While Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions characterize EU members, ASEAN has yet to uncover the shared values that can unite its members.
In terms of history and culture, each of the 10 ASEAN members is quite unique. Some were colonized by the British, others by the French or Dutch. In each case, the former colonizers left behind different influences.
Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are all predominant religions in ASEAN countries. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei are Muslim-majority countries; the Philippines is mostly Catholic; and Thailand, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia embrace Buddhism.
As for systems of government, ASEAN comprises a military junta, a communist state, and an absolute monarchy -- in addition to quasi and full democracies.
Against this backdrop of diversity, ASEAN has plenty of reason to be proud that of turning 40 without ever having experienced serious conflict among members.
It is the search for common values that underlines the significance of the signing of the constitution-type charter in Singapore in November.
ASEAN has tried to convince the world that its central values are democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to a market-oriented economic approach. And the text of the charter clearly refers to these, including provisions for a human rights accountability body.
Many have said, though, the charter represents a watering down of original ideas to such a point that it becomes only a description of the status quo in ASEAN member countries. Criticism generally centers on continuing deference shown for consensus-based decision making and the "non-interference principle".
While the critics are justified, the charter should be seen as the first step toward establishment of a genuine legally-binding set of ASEAN game rules - not a final score. It should seen as the evolution, instead of the instant remaking of the Southeast Asian system.
Most ASEAN leaders have represented that their countries will ratify the charter, which converted the organization into an international legal entity governed with bylaws from a body whose resolutions were entirely voluntary and non-binding. So, by any standard, the 40th anniversary and the signing of the charter are landmarks.
However, 2007 passed without ASEAN having received much in the way of congratulations from the international community or the international media. They seemed to play down these significant two landmark achievements.
Instead, all attention has been focused on one issue: Myanmar. That country, instead of ASEAN, has become the brightest star in Southeast Asia. Even worse, some have called the charter a joke just because Myanmar signed it.
The critic's reasoning is lucid enough. The grouping failed -- at least in the eyes of the U.S. and EU -- to take any meaningful action against the reclusive country, despite thousands of monks marching in the streets of Yangon for weeks, and many being killed.
The grouping, some argue, should suspend Myanmar until the junta decides to show respect for democracy and human rights. This would make ASEAN bold in the eyes of the international community and prove the grouping was on a course toward democracy and respect for human rights in accordance with its new charter.
It is widely admitted that the whole world has failed on Myanmar. ASEAN hasn't sanctioned Myanmar for reasons of brotherhood, and after seeing the failure of sanctions imposed by Western countries. After years of attempts at constructive engagement, the junta in Myanmar doesn't listen to ASEAN, nor are they likely to in the future.
Meanwhile, ASEAN would have realized that there was a crucial shift on Myanmar early in the year when it survived a critical UN Security Council resolution on sanctions, thanks to a veto from China and Russia. For its part, the junta would have known, at that point, that China -- and to a lesser extent Russia -- was the one to be heeded.
The veto was a true turning point as the junta is afraid only of concerted international legal action against them -- UN sanctions that could lead to economic paralysis and catalyze unrest on a scale even greater than what they experienced last year.
So, if the Myanmar junta will not listen to ASEAN, what is the use of engaging the country? What has ASEAN to win from acting boldly only to be embarrassed by the junta?
The real challenge in the coming years, then, is whether, how, and to what extent human rights and democratic values -- and the planned human rights body stipulated in the new charter -- will be applied in the Myanmar case.
