The European Union and its Asian partner countries agreed in principle at a recent meeting in Jakarta to hold the planned Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit in Hanoi in October despite the unresolved dispute over the participation of Myanmar and new EU members and senior Dutch politician Hans van den Broek has been dispatched to arrange the difficult terms of this accord.

Van den Broek, a former Dutch Foreign Minister and EU Commissioner for External Relations, was appointed July 12 to the mission by the Dutch Government which holds the rotating presidency of the EU. He was said to be planning a visit later in the month to Thailand, Vietnam and Japan and to visit European capitals later in the hope of resolving the issue by early September to allow preparations for the Hanoi Summit. Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot commented that “efforts are required on both sides to enable the holding of the Summit.” He added that Myanmar must take the measures it promised, notably the release of political dissident Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Dutch Government is believed to have been one of several in the EU to insist on a tough position toward Myanmar in the long-running dispute in addition to the UK and one or two others. While a majority of the EU might favour more flexibility, those advocating a strong position have been able to block adoption of a softer EU line, leading to a “consensus problem,” according to a senior EU official.

While some non-official analysts believe the understanding in principle could unravel, European officials stress a positive formula should be negotiated to at least momentarily shelve the controversy which has soured European-Asian relations for nearly a decade.

The latest flareup in confrontation surfaced when the military Government in Rangoon failed to release, as hopefully anticipated, detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her followersin time to participate in a constitutional conference that began May 17.

(See previous articles.)

In the aftermath, some Asian neighbours reacted with open criticism since they had been led to believe that the road map presented to them in 2003 by Burmese Prime Minister Khin Nyunt and other verbal declarations had assured them of Aung San Suu Kyi’s release and participation in the constitutional work. Despite their disarray, Asian neighbours insisted on maintaining relations with Burma and not isolating it. The US, Europe and others also decided to maintain or tighten economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Senior UN officials, including Secretary General Koffi Anna and Myanmar emissary Razali Ismail of Malaysia have also urged a tougher line and persuasive intervention by Rangoon’s ASEAN neighbours.

And the issue spread to affect European-Asian relations when a meeting of ASEM Foreign Ministers in Ireland in April failed to resolve the problem of ASEM enlargement when the question of new EU members and recent ASEM members became linked. The EU cancelled the scheduled meetings of ASEM Finance and Economics Ministers because it said new EU members were not allowed to attend.

Further meetings, including high-level sessions of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Jakarta at the end of June, attended by the EU’s Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana and Commissioner Chris Patten, failed to completely resolve the stalemate. But they reportedly reached an agreement in principle with Asian ministers that the Hanoi summit would be held and that agreement would have to be reached to implement that decision.

Since the ASEM summits are informal and not strictly bound by legal treaties or laws, some mechanism should be possible that would permit the involvement of both the new EU and ASEAN members, including Myanmar, especially since Rangoon was allowed to attend the 2003 EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels.

Asians have been quick to point the inconsistency of the European position regarding whether to engage or isolate such problem states, on the one hand ostracising Myanmar and on the other engaging at least partly with North Korea or others. One Asian Ambassador in Europe noted last week that “We and Europe share the same democratic objectives, but we differ on our approaches.” Even if they find the SPDC practices distasteful and have on occasion breached the once-sacrosanct Asian policy of non-intervention in domestic matters, they place greater emphasis than Westerners on the need for tolerance of a state-building transition toward consolidation; especially in the case of multi-ethnic division and conflict such as in Myanmar.

Several key senior Myanmar officials, including Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, told an unofficial seminar in January organised by the Asian Dialogue Society of Singapore that the country was on its way step-by-step toward genuine multiparty democracy, albeit a “disciplined” form, in compliance with the road map plan. One top SPDC leader told the gathering that “democratic change is never easy.”

While advocating what it terms “enhanced interaction” between ASEAN and Myanmar, the organisation which organised the dialogue, in its final report on the situation issued more recently, does not mince words with Myanmar and ASEAN, adding both will be judged on the success or failure of the imprecise road map, with consequences for the entire region. Noting in part that “ASEAN’s international image has been adversely affected,” by the actions of the Myanmar authorities, which “have grave regional consequences” and “are too serious to be ignored.” It also noted the brief 2003 ASEAN change in tactics toward a more pro-active involvement in the situation, which it said was “more apparent than real.” It states that the SPDC road map “has serious shortcomings” and advocates the establishment of a Council of National Reconciliation and Concord composed of a small number of stakeholders, including military, NLD and other political parties, ethnic races and eminent persons chosen by the others to guide the transition.