Thailand’s military government’s bid to engage with Myanmar’s military government has caused a visible rift in the members of the Association of South-East Nations (Asean). Most of the Asean members refused to attend the meeting. Thailand defended the initiative as necessary because of the unrest inside Myanmar, and the need not to isolate Myanmar. Most others are against talking to Myanmar’s government when the country’s opposition is outlawed, and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been arrested and convicted on charges of corruption. Cambodia is the only country that had agreed to attend the foreign ministers’ meeting. Singapore’s foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan had said on Friday: “It would be premature to re-engage with the junta at a summit level or even at a foreign minister level.” Thailand foreign minister Don Pramudwinai defended his country’s decision saying, “The current situation has changed a lot. There is now more fighting within Myanmar. Myanmar also has a roadmap leading to elections…These things have given us the need to continue our interactions with Myanmar.”

The surprising thing is that the Thai government is an outgoing one as the politicians supported by the military had lost the elections, and the new government opposed to the military will be taking office in August. Asean countries have had a difficult equation with Myanmar. When the military outlawed the National Democratic League (NDL) under Aung San in 1988 and imprisoned her, the United States and other Western countries had boycotted Myanmar. But the Asean did not want to cut off relations with Myanmar. So, in defiance of the West, the Asean continued to deal with Myanmar. But it seems that the Asean is willing to say that it cannot accept the military junta ruling Myanmar. Though the army had been interfering in Thai politics, elections have been held and a democratically elected formation opposed to the military will form the government in Bangkok.

It is the case that many of the Asean members are not perfect liberal democracies in the Western sense of the term. Vietnam and Singapore remain single-party democracies, and Cambodia has been ruled by Hang Semrin for more than 40 years. It is Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines which have had periodic elections and different parties have come to power. Brunei also remains an exception to the democratic rule. The Asean then is looking at the Myanmar situation a little differently. The economic ties with Myanmar have taken a backseat. And there has been migration out of Myanmar. More importantly, the Rohingya problem seems to have become an issue of serious concern, though it has not been stated by Asean explicitly. The persecution of the ethnic minority group, who are Muslims, has attracted worldwide condemnation.

The Asean has held itself together despite different political structures and situations in each of the member countries because it has mainly been an economic grouping with belief in free trade among the members. The economic cooperation has indeed served as a strong bonding and it has greatly contributed to the social stability in the region. So, it is surprising that many of the Asean members should be taking a strong position with regard to the military rule in Myanmar. Perhaps the belief has grown among the ruling political classes in these countries that the cause of free markets is better served by democratic establishments, even if they do not answer the definition of liberal democracies as understood in the West. The Asean is forever looking over its shoulder at Communist China and there is perhaps a feeling that the one thing that distinguished Asean from China is a democratic political setup. And it is this perception that is driving Asean’s Myamnar policy.