AS Asean celebrated its 40th anniversary in Singapore last year, its leaders approved the text of an Asean Charter. Their hope was that its adoption in Bangkok in December this year would give the organisation and the region a new dynamism and purpose.

Next year, Asean will celebrate its 10th anniversary as Asean-10. While still a young grouping, it has accomplished much in fostering regional peace and stability.

Despite this, there seems to be a sense of unease within the regional grouping. Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Thailand have yet to ratify the charter. This is, indeed, worrying.

When Asean foreign ministers meet in Singapore this month, they should address any concerns about the charter -- in addition to discussing global food and energy security, climate change and reform of international financial institutions.

While the new members have been trying hard to "fit in" with the aspirations of the older members, a whole raft of issues and grievances still remain -- causing differences between and among them.
They include broader issues, such as the slow pace towards democratic development and market economy to matters such as the absence in the charter of any "terms of reference" for its human rights body or any mention of the Myanmar junta's continued detention of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

The new members tend to be seen by some as laggards and by some others as "second-class" members -- even as outsiders -- in Asean.

The fact that the new members are grouped together as CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam ) only further helps to reinforce such a perception.

All these have contributed to talk of the "Other Asean" -- the CLMV countries in relation to the original members.

Membership in Asean is by invitation. It is wrong, therefore, since they have been admitted into this exclusive club, for them to be treated like second-class members.

The original members invited them to join Asean. Malaysia, in particular, was responsible for spearheading the admission of most of them, notably Myanmar.

Membership confers equal status on all its members. Asean, indeed, has gone to extraordinary lengths to project this equality -- through chairmanship, hosting of meetings and summits as well as representation in the Asean Secretariat.

The CLMV were invited into the grouping for geo-strategic reasons: to prevent them, in the aftermath of the Cold War, from coming under the influence of external powers.

In other words, it was essentially to realise the desire to see the whole of Southeast Asia as a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality and build mutual trust.

Prior to the advent of European colonialism, the Hindu and Buddhist empires, such as Sri Vijaya, Majapahit and Khmer and the later Muslim kingdoms and Christian enclaves helped bond mainland and insular Southeast Asia into a single whole.

But in the post-Cold War period, the "glue" that once held the peoples together is no longer empires or religions. Rather, the bonding is through institutions, values and norms.

The thinking was that if the CLMV countries joined Asean by subscribing to a common vision of a community, then over time, differences between and among them would be less stark.

The inherent belief in this is that all Asean members subscribe, not to the "triumphalism" of democracy (whether illiberal or liberal), but to democratic development and market economy.

Indeed, as long as Southeast Asian countries are held back by wrong internal politics and wrong economics, they, individually and collectively, would not be as effective as they should be in their domestic and international activities.

So the question of second-class membership does not arise. Rather, it is recognition that countries that grew under communist system need time to adopt and change.

Socio-economic progress is the key to transformation of the region and with that, self-confidence and the desire for political change would follow.

Changes have indeed taken place in the CLMV, roughly in the order of their accession to Asean. Vietnam is well ahead whereas Cambodia and Laos are mid-way and Myanmar still lags far behind.

The 1997 financial crisis left the so-called Tiger economies crippled and rendered them unable to either invest in the CLMV countries to an extent they would have liked or provide them with significant amounts of assistance.

This, perhaps, has also partly contributed to the notion of the "Other Asean". However, this should not be viewed negatively.

Reducing or closing the development gap is the key to the transformation of all member states and the catalyst for community building. Unfortunately, the charter does not do much in term of new sources of funding for the CLMV countries.

Talking about abstract concepts will not help governments and the peoples to pull together in a common endeavour. This can only be done if Asean is brought closer to the people, say, by narrowing the development gap and tackling other problems which directly affect them.

Otherwise, Asean will not only lose its credibility in the eyes of its own peoples, but also be diminished globally.

It is, therefore, imperative that Asean is bold and visionary in terms of its charter. Though some of the visionary ideas of the Eminent Persons Group were put aside in the drafting of the charter, it is still not too late to redress some of its shortcomings.

The terms of reference for its human rights body, compliance mechanisms and questions about funding must be clearly enunciated in the charter so as to ensure its widest possible acceptance by member states and their peoples.

All member states are compelled to find ways of uniting what brings them together and putting aside what can pull them apart.

Member states have to realise that not every interest is essential and instead agree on the essential interests that they want Asean to express. Otherwise, all members will suffer, and Asean will decline.

Similarly, member states should not use the organisation to protect themselves while leaders should not continue to capitulate to any particular member state or states for purely economic or political reasons.

Member states unable to attune themselves to the times should "take time out" from the grouping as opposed to suspension or expulsion which, after all, is not provided for in the current charter.

The ratification of the charter should not be rushed. Asean should relieve itself of an artificial deadline to adopt it at the 14th Asean Summit in December.

Asean still has time to fully flesh out the various provisions of the charter so as to encourage members who have not done so to ratify it. Only then should it be adopted.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with Asean leaders convening a special summit in Bangkok at a later date to adopt the charter.

It is time for deep reflection and analysis of the charter. And as initiator of the charter project, Malaysia must find common ground.

The charter should not fall by the wayside. It is worth working for.

---

Datuk Deva Mohd Ridzam is a former ambassador to the European Union, Belgium, Luxembourg and Cambodia