It has been relatively easy to ignore the plight of the poverty-stricken and the politically abused in Myanmar when news of their existence can barely get past the strict media controls sanctioned by the isolationist generals that make up its ruling junta. Moreover, the one incident that could have marked a watershed in its political landscape, the 1988 uprising that led to the deaths of at least 3,000 protestors at the hands of the army, was unfortunately sidelined by a region embroiled in its own trials at the time.

The bloodshed in last month’s monk-led protests, however, was a potent enough message for the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) — whose response to such strife in the past was to refrain from publicly castigating Myanmar’s government — to realise that its credibility was at stake. Singapore, due to its chairmanship of the 10-nation grouping, issued a statement on behalf of the group that, in the words of Foreign Minister George Yeo, “expressed their horror and anger”, admitting that they had been hesitant before but that “the honour of the family was at stake and the people of Myanmar would not forgive us if we kept silent.”

The question therefore arises: now that ASEAN has taken a pro-active stance on Myanmar, what role should it play in the days to come and how does the future ratification of an ASEAN Charter fit into their plans?

The ASEAN Charter to be ratified bestows a legal identity on the bloc, enabling it to facilitate international negotiations and, more significantly, giving it the authority to expel a member for breach of its principles. What are these principles? Several provisions in the draft charter are illuminating; for example, one makes it contingent on members to “strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and rule of law and to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Another dictates that “ASEAN people and countries live in peace with the world at large in a just and democratic environment”. A tall order indeed.

ASEAN secretary general Ong Keng Yong would have us believe that Myanmar sees a “certain usefulness in ASEAN” and does not want to be excluded from the regional arrangement and therein lies the potential for political sway over Myanmar’s actions. However, practice seems to run contrary to this assertion and officials in ASEAN point to evidence which suggests that Myanmar’s generals seem to sincerely believe that affairs within their borders are of no concern to those outside of it. Any threat of exclusion will likely fall flat before an impassive junta, emboldened by its rhetoric of sovereignty, and ASEAN must not lose what little political leverage it has to emphasis the importance of mediation.

Furthermore, experience has shown that threats to its economy in the form of sanctions seem to carry very little weight. A number of governments have denied bilateral aid and imposed arms embargoes on Myanmar since 1988 but this, as we have seen, has done nothing but drive the rural population of the country further into gut-wrenching poverty while its ruling junta grows richer.

So what can ASEAN do to compel a country such as Myanmar to move in a direction that respects its charter principles?

Instead of relying upon the threat of expulsion or statements calling for change, ASEAN needs to place diplomatic pressure on India and China, who Myanmar has cleverly pitted against each other and who have in turn engaged in extensive economic arrangements with the buffer nation, thus ameliorating what little effect the above sanctions might have had. The two rival countries must come to a consensus, must encourage Myanmar to co-operate with the UN envoy led by Ibrahim Gambari and cannot shy away from together threatening the economic fruits enjoyed by the generals. The prospect of their coffers drying up will likely make the regime more amenable.

Lastly, the ratification of its charter should allow ASEAN to take a more immediate role in the mediations being conducted by the UN special envoy, giving it both the authority and the credibility to facilitate meetings amongst the UN, India, China and Myanmar. It should openly support Gambari’s position that there should be compromise between the ruling military party and Aung San Suu Kyi, and continually encourage cooperation and not falter till there has been some positive change. Myanmar should be seen by ASEAN as the first test of its new stance on coordinated engagement within member nations, and the world will be watching.

Harpreet Kaur Dhillon is a second year law student and an associate editor of SLR.