CHA-AM, Thailand — The US “engagement policy” toward Burma seems to be working better than the one applied by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) since 1997, the year it embraced the military-ruled country. The Burma political issue is likely to highlight the summit that opens in the Thai seaside town on Friday, as it did at previous Asean meetings.

The US administration announced its new policy of “direct dialogue” with the repressive Burmese regime on September 28. Since then, there have been some developments in this direction.

In the latest of these, the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell, announced on Wednesday a new round of talks with the junta. “We intend to go to Burma in the next few weeks for a fact-finding mission,” he said.

“During that trip, we will talk to the Burmese government, representatives of the ethnic nationalities and the democratic opposition, including the NLD [National League for Democracy], Aung San Suu Kyi and others.” 
 
Since Asean controversially admitted Burma 12 years ago, its “constructive engagement” policy has been seen as a shield for one of the most repressive governments in the world, contrary to partially meeting its goal of taming the Burmese generals in terms of human rights violations. 

Asean leaders might view the new US policy on Burma as being in line with their policy. That is not the case, however. There are significantly different components. 

First of all, Washington’s new approach was introduced while sanctions imposed on Burma since 1997 are still in place. In essence, the approach can be called a dual policy. The US has made clear that it’s in no hurry to lift the sanctions and will look at responses from the Burmese generals.

That is to say, the sanctions in place are an effective tool to bring the self-isolated Burmese generals to start showing interest in engaging directly with the US. Thus, we can’t say that sanctions didn’t work at all.

That is a tool that Asean is lacking in its policy, which shows that carrots alone don’t work.  

Apart from that, there have been conflicts of interest when it comes to Asean’s engagement policy.

Several Asean members have benefited from business concessions from the military regime. Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia are longtime major trading partners, dealing in Burma’s natural resources.

The business concessions have always weakened their position in dealing with the Burmese generals. The Asean leaders have had to hold their tongues whenever they wanted to criticize the generals. Moreover, Asean’s traditional non-interference policy has always been a factor.

Neither sanctions nor an engagement policy have, therefore, pressed or persuaded the stubborn generals to move the country in the direction of democracy.

Asean leaders at their Cha-Am summit should understand that their engagement policy alone will never work. They need to modify the policy, just as the US did seven months ago. Asean needs to implement some firm measures to make its engagement policy effective.

Asean leaders need to reaffirm their message to Burmese Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein that they are in line with the world when it comes to his country’s political situation. Their message must include calls for the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, as a precondition for making the 2010 general election free and fair.