 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Expulsion An UMNO tradition
Interview ASIAWEEK talks with Anwar Ibrahim
Counterpoint Ghafar's unofficially official point of view
Stocks Pumping up the bourse
THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING from
bad to worse for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It had to
delay admitting Cambodia last year because the country's second prime minister
ousted the first. A noxious smog settled over the region like a divine
reprimand, and most leaders just prayed it would go away. The Asian economic
meltdown has scorched confidence. Any notion of a concerted ASEAN response
to the Crisis never gathered force. The group's hands-off policy may have
once been a strength; now many in the region believe it is a weakness.
Anwar Ibrahim was the first one to say so.
"Anwar emerged as one of the most interesting and forceful leaders in Southeast Asia," says Singapore-based academic Amitav Acharya. "He caught the imagination of a lot of people." In a July 1997 essay, Anwar advocated that ASEAN should cast aside its long-cherished principle of non-interference and embrace "constructive intervention." The official response was an embarrassed silence. The old guard apparently thought ASEAN was doing just fine, thank you very much.
Anwar was not the only leader to suggest that ASEAN needed to do better. Thai Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan, Philippine Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon and top Singapore foreign ministry bureaucrat Kishore Mahbubani took up the cause. Surin, with support from Siazon, also advocated constructive intervention. Then he softened it a bit - first to "flexible engagement" then to "enhanced interaction." Explained Surin: "My point is, hey, let's make ASEAN more open." But many now believe the chances of that are remote. Anwar is gone, Kishore was sent to the U.N. and everybody but Bangkok and Manila rejected outright the notion of flexible engagement. Says Amitav: "If Anwar would have been the next leader of Malaysia, then - with Thailand and the Philippines - you would have three founding members advocating some form of flexible engagement and more openness. That combination would have been quite formidable for the prospects of change in ASEAN. Without Anwar those forces will be weaker."
Still, not all observers are pessimistic. Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, executive director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Center, contends that Anwar's initiatives will not be forgotten simply because he has been forced out. Regarding flexible engagement, Razak says: "The baton has been passed to Surin. Anwar brought it to the fore, and although he may fade away, the issue is still alive." Prudhisan Jumbala of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok agrees, noting that others may challenge the group's traditional ways. "There are a number of young, up-and-coming people in ASEAN, whom I can't believe would be conservative," he says.
Anwar was also one of the few senior officials who publicly criticized Asia's political, social and - more recently - economic shortcomings. Unlike the generation of Independence leaders, he was not still fighting against the West. Some, of course, saw that as one of Anwar's failings. "The West will miss him," says an ASEAN diplomat. "He always says what the U.S. likes to hear." Certainly Anwar's more balanced views on democracy and governance did not always go down well in some of ASEAN's autocratic states. Indeed, some believe that ASEAN's totalitarian regimes in Brunei, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam may welcome his demise. Says Prudhisan: "Probably they will be happy to see him go."
Many think that even Singapore may quietly appreciate his departure since the leadership there considered him unpredictable, if not flaky. Mahathir, at the very least, is a known quantity - and far less of an Islamist (ever a worry in the island republic). Says a Singapore academic: "Singaporeans are always unsure of Anwar. His talk about 'going to the people' would create a certain degree of anxiety." An editorial in the government-leaning newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times, didn't offer much of an opinion about Anwar's downfall. Instead the piece focused on Malaysia's new currency controls. The paper did report the allegations against Anwar, as well as his denials. Thai and Philippine columnists were more forceful: They called Mahathir authoritarian for dismissing Anwar before any formal charges had even been filed against him.
ASEAN's next years are uncertain. New and mostly untested leaders are in power in Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Authorities in Myanmar and Brunei are facing greater challenges than they have in a while. Cambodia is still in limbo. The loss of a clear successor to Mahathir only adds to the unease. "ASEAN is in trouble with or without Anwar, but his sacking adds to the chaos," says Charnvit Kasetsiri of Thailand's Thammasat University. "The future of ASEAN is not very promising at all. It's kind of dark and gloomy." If he's right, then ASEANleaders have a lot to talk about - or ignore.
- With bureau reporting
