M

yanmar’s formal request to chair ASEAN in 2014 has sparked debate in the media. The government of Myanmar says it is now ready to take the opportunity to lead the organization, after passing up the opportunity to do so in 2006.

At that time, Myanmar said it needed to focus on managing domestic affairs, although it was widely believed that the decision was a result of a peer pressure from fellow ASEAN members and the rest of the international community.

Now that Myanmar submitted an official proposal to lead the organization, it is interesting to follow arguments that have arisen surrounding the issue. Many scholars and government officials have indicated a tendency to support Myanmar’s willingness to take the opportunity to chair ASEAN, believing that giving it this opportunity will serve as an incentive to continue and improve political reforms there.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, acting as a representative of the current ASEAN chair, recently visited Myanmar to assess the country’s readiness to chair ASEAN. Apparently, the minister was quite impressed with the progress made by the present Myanmar government, and said the ongoing political reform in Myanmar was “irreversible”.

 Conversely, civil society groups and the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) called for the postponement of Myanmar’s plea, doubting the government’s seriousness in its proposed transition to democracy.

Article 31, paragraph 1 of the ASEAN Charter reaffirms the traditional principle of alphabetical order in deciding the rotation for ASEAN chairmanship, stating that “The chairmanship of ASEAN shall rotate annually based on the alphabetical order of the English names of member states.”

Therefore, according to this rule, Myanmar should not become ASEAN Chair until 2016. This imperative, nonetheless, has never really been applied in the strictest manner. There have been several cases when members have requested to take the role earlier due to certain considerations, including this year’s Indonesian chairmanship.

Myanmar clearly also has its own reasons for requesting an earlier turn. One thing that might come to mind is the fact that 2014 is only one year before the implementation of the ASEAN Community in 2015, and Myanmar may want to take the opportunity to improve its political standing in the international arena.

Leading the organization in the vital stage of realizing this long-desired vision would undoubtedly be a prestigious position for any member. Looking at it from this point of view, Myanmar may want to prove it can also contribute something to the organization it joined in 1997.

Some promising developments have in fact taken place in Myanmar since the November 2010 elections. The new Myanmar administration under President Thein Sein was reported to have released around 200 political prisoners last month, an indication of its seriousness in implementing political reform. It also issued a new regulation giving workers the right to form associations and to strike.

However, despite the good news, roughly 2,000 political prisoners remain in jail in Myanmar, including key opposition actors. In addition to that, tension and conflicts involving several ethnic minorities also persist in the country.

In this regard, before granting Myanmar’s wish for an earlier chairmanship turn, ASEAN needs to take careful consideration, particularly because 2014 is a crucial year for the grouping in realizing the ASEAN Community by 2015.

Externally, ASEAN needs to consider the reaction from its dialogue partners toward the possibility, particularly the United States and the European Union, which have consistently pushed both ASEAN and Myanmar for political reform with respect to human rights. Internally, ASEAN must seriously consider whether Myanmar’s leadership in 2014 will disrupt its path toward the idea of a people-centered community.

A significant shift has been made by the Obama administration in its Myanmar policy. Unlike in the past, the US now has been more open and has been showing a softer approach toward the military junta.

US coordinator for policy on Myanmar Derek Mitchell, after his visit to the country last September, noted that there were indeed some encouraging signs toward political reform, but remained concerned about the political prisoners who were yet to be released.

Similarly, UN rights envoy Tomas Ojeo Quintana in August also underlined that there were still many serious human rights violations in Myanmar.

Both Mitchell’s and Quintana’s claims are reasonable, and may determine what kind of policy response will be issued by the US government. ASEAN, therefore, should be aware if its decision to endorse Myanmar’s proposal will trigger a strong reaction from the US and other dialogue partners as such moves have in the past.

Should they object and boycott Myanmar’s chairmanship, the continuity of ASEAN-initiated regional cooperation, such as the ARF and the EAS, would be put at risk. This, in turn, would also jeopardize ASEAN’s plan to “strengthen ASEAN centrality in regional cooperation and community-building” as laid out in the APSC blueprint.

Internally, it is also important to consider Myanmar’s commitment to put ASEAN’s vision to become a people-centered community into real action and policies. One among other aspects of this vision is the engagement between ASEAN and civil society, which can be represented by the ASEAN Civil Society Conference (ACSC).

During previous executions of ACSC, the Myanmar government has indicated strong objections toward civil society’s participation in the interface meeting between CSOs and the ASEAN leaders at the
Summit, both by rejecting the Myanmar CSO delegate and replacing it with a government-appointed representative.

With those matters at hand, ASEAN needs to undertake some serious considerations before the decision can be made at the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali. In fact, it is difficult to make a good and objective assessment of Myanmar’s readiness to lead the organization in 2014, particularly because it has only been one year since the country began the political transition process. It would be wise, therefore, not to rush into the country’s chairmanship.

It would be better, both for ASEAN and for Myanmar, to give the Myanmar government and people time to focus on domestic political developments and to develop its capacity to lead a people-centered ASEAN.

In 2016, when Myanmar’s political transition and leadership capacity have achieved a higher and more stable level, there should be no more doubt for ASEAN to present the Myanmar people with their rightful opportunity to chair and lead the organization.

The writer is an assistant  lecturer and researcher at the Department of International Relations, University of Indonesia.