Infinity Journal

One of the most memorable study trips I had the pleasure of taking when I attended graduate school was a trip to Southeast Asia with fellow students. We visited three countries and by day we would attend private meetings with think thanks, NGOs, and officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), stopping off in between each meeting at street vendors to purchase $1 Pad Thai and coconuts. By night we would sit outside to relish the hot, humid air, a nice change from the chilling wind and rain of London, and debate the foreign policy platforms of the U.S. presidential candidates. It was an unforgettable trip.

One of the most memorable moments of the 3-week trip came in our meeting with the Thai MFA. After viewing a presentation about the role Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plays in enabling its member states to live in peace through the consensus building that is required by its charter and a “habit of consultation and cooperation”, most of my colleagues and I had one particular exception in mind—Burma. We naturally asked how consensus and unenforceable human rights norms make a difference in a place like Burma, and moreover should a country enjoy membership in a regional organization if it can’t live up to basic principles of human rights? The answer we received was enlightening, though I would argue staggeringly unsatisfactory. Sensing derision from his audience, the man to whom the question was directed cleared his throat nervously before making an analogy that’s faulty logic was glaringly obvious to most everyone in the room. He asked, “Do you have a friend who smokes cigarettes?” We all looked accusingly, but half-jokingly at one of our fellow students who regularly snuck a cigarette in between meetings. “I see that you do,” the man chuckled a bit before continuing. “So if you have a friend who smokes, you know it is bad for him and you would like him to quit, but you aren’t going to stop being his friend. Instead you’re going to try to build common values with him and hope that little by little he may change to be more like you, the non-smoker.” We were aghast.

This story is one of my favorites to regale Washington friends and colleagues with because it always elicits a strong reaction. Beyond its shock value, the analogy presented to our group by the MFA was also illuminating. The argument we repeatedly heard on our trip was that Asian values are different than those we embrace in the west. Instead, what people care about in Asia, we were told, is community over individual, deference to authority, and above all stability. While ASEAN was originally formed to counter hegemony, promote peace in Southeast Asia, and improve interstate relations, it is culture, we are to believe, that prevents ASEAN from functioning as a body that addresses transnational issues. Decisions made by ASEAN are talked out until all agree. There is little to no meaningful enforcement. Changes in cultural norms that favor human rights are ideal, though voluntary, and are inevitably incremental. Compare this with the European Union (EU), which serves a fundamentally different purpose than ASEAN, but has the European Court of Justice to enforce certain agreed upon norms and laws across borders.

Is this acceptable or even in the best interest of ASEAN member states? Is the culture argument a cop out? In the face of the Asian values argument, it is tempting to adopt an overly cultural relativist perspective, but this impedes progress, mischaracterizes internal strife as purely domestic, and promotes the instability members of ASEAN so desperately want to avoid. The deplorable human rights record of the junta is not just affecting Burma. For instance, at least 200,000 UNHCR-recognized refugees from Burma live in neighboring countries. The vast majority live in Thailand or Bangladesh, but some also live in Malaysia and India. During 2005, the highest numbers of new and appeal asylum claims worldwide were filed by nationals from Burma. Most of these were for asylum in Thailand and a sizeable number were for asylum in Malaysia. In addition, according to ALTSEAN-Burma, a network of NGOs based in Bangkok, two million Burmese live as undocumented workers in neighboring countries. The Thai MFA would be interested to know that one million of these undocumented workers live in Thailand alone and a staggering 20% of them are children. A large amount of these one million workers living in Thailand are also women working in brothels and 60% of them are under the age of 18. To top it all off, Burma has the highest HIV/AIDS rate of any ASEAN member country. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) contends that this is not a Burmese problem and has a particularly discriminatory and oppressive policy towards those afflicted with the disease. This provides additional incentive for HIV/AIDS victims to flee Burma. Given the high number of undocumented workers employed in Thai brothels, this poses a potential public health problem for Thailand. In addition, in 2005, Burma produced 21% of the world’s opium. Some of the heroin and amphetamines are shipped down the MeKong River. These drugs have turned up in the ASEAN countries of Thailand and Laos. In many Thai hospitals, anywhere from one third to one half of those admitted are being treated for methamphetamine use. Needless to say, large numbers of war-weary refugees and undocumented workers combined with the cross-border spread of disease and drugs has never been a recipe for peace, let alone stability.

ASEAN members have made token efforts to improve the situation in Burma, one example being the Philippines’ support for putting Burma on the UN Security Council agenda and another being the decision in 2005 to send an ASEAN special envoy to Burma to assess political reform efforts. These gestures seem almost for show because they do not yield notable results, and in fact we were told in one of our meetings that the Philippines’ occasional objections to Burma’s behavior are largely seen as grandstanding. Meanwhile, General Than Shwe’s son allegedly commutes to Singapore almost daily to attend school. Any meaningful action is prevented by the structure of ASEAN and reluctance by its members to criticize lest they too be criticized. I am not calling for military action or even sanctions, but rather tough talk, followed by tough diplomacy. Whatever ASEAN’s policy towards Burma’s abuses, the message it sends is that it is not serious. As ASEAN is ineffectively organized now, because it is focused on consensus over compellence or even cooperation, it cannot push Burma to clean up its act without Burma’s agreement. Fat chance.

In closing, I am tempted to toss out a number of clichés to characterize ASEAN’s inability to influence Burma to make responsible changes even as it enjoys all the perks of ASEAN membership, but I’ll stick with the Thai MFA’s analogy for now. In response to the argument that Thailand shouldn’t be so concerned about Burma just because it smokes I say, “What about secondhand smoke?” Once Thailand and other members of ASEAN start to realize that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer too, they are going to have to do a lot more than just say, “Hey Burma, it’d be cool if you threw your Marlboro Lights away…” After all, everyone knows Burma isn’t going to throw away its cigarettes just because its friends are looking at it funny.