Democracy & corporate interest

Today's editorial of the PDI gives a concise and very pointed analysis of Burma's move to take over the ASEAN chairmanship. It's corporate interest that will finally bar such a move, not democratic altruism. Thailand and Singapore have already made their stand known, if not clear:

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand, the largest trading partner of Burma, who as late as last December had publicly stated the Burma junta had good reasons for keeping Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, has turned around and publicly declared: "The Asean nations have to talk and come out with a common stance that reflects the Asean feeling and will make Myanmar realize they have to improve themselves."

Singapore's Foreign Ministry recently expressed concern over the slow pace of reform, warning that Asean foreign ministers may put pressure on Burma at an informal meeting here in Cebu on April 9. This came on the heels of Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsein Loong's recent two-day visit to Burma. xxx

And these are not democratic states. The overriding concern is, of course, trade. That is, trade which could very well be lost to China.

American ire is a serious risk, and that, not democracy, seems to be the more important consideration for Asean. Last November, the US Department of State said US dealings with Asean have been "complicated" by the case of Burma, and dangled the possibility US officials would be a no-show at Asean meetings if Burma gets the chairmanship. Recently, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke said that if meetings are held in Rangoon, Asean "runs a serious risk that countries which attended regularly for a quarter-century will not show [up].''

Western media commentaries have noted that Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand are concerned over the loss of foreign investors to China. And democratic-conscious Westerners might use undemocratic Burma as an excuse to shift investments to equally undemocratic, but far more lucrative, China.

The irony can hardly be ignored. And the other part of this irony is that the Philippines now finds itself in a most favorable position. As aptly pointed out:

[The Philippines now gets] back on the bandwagon rather late, but with the sort of panache only we democratic Filipinos can muster. Senate President Franklin Drilon says the Philippines will propose an Asean-wide stand calling for Burma to be barred from assuming the chairmanship next year, which would save other Asean nations the embarrassment of having to publicly take a stand for democracy. Ironically, even if Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand's actions only prove that money talks, only the truly democratic, it seems, can walk the walk. And that honor goes to us.

A Filipino businessman once said that "democracy is development," and it may just be, that our Asean neighbors are finally catching on to this. There are genuine fears among our more affluent neighbors that democracy might be required to save the gains they proudly built up in an authoritarian manner. Whether sooner or later, apparently democracy saves the day.

Democracy has always meant development, whether economic or otherwise. However, development takes on a different meaning when an economic power extends the principles of democarcy beyond its jurisdiction, to another jurisdiction, in the furtherance of that power's local development. What results is neo-colonialism. Or parochial interests in the guise of global trade.

The Philippines is now in a very beneficial position to negotiate with the US and other ASEAN nations for more advantageous trade relations, in exchange for unequivocally and vigorously oppposing Burma's bid for the chairmanship. This is likewise an opportunity for ASEAN to negotiate itself into a position that would make its members true players in global trade, not as mere pawns or beggars. Let's see if these members can get their act together.

For the Philippines' part, this requires great statesmanship and acumen at international relations. This couldn't have come at a most inopportune time, when the Filipino people's representatives in both Houses of Congress are either too busy betting on Manny Pacquiao or robbing the Filipino people blind. Or both. In any case, there doesn't seem to be anyone around to rally the government to take advantage of this opportunity. There is no statesman among them, not one. There is no shining light in Congress; it has become, indeed, a dark pit of snakes and crocodiles.

The question now is: Can GMA do this on hew own without having the opposition in Congress bringing her down? Goodness knows she needs this victory -- any victory. Her ratings are at their lowest since she took over as President. She has not become the leader we hoped that she would be.

(The full editorial can be found here.)