Asean is fed up with Burma’s military leaders, feeling thoroughly let down by the rulers of its most recalcitrant member state. As Asean foreign ministers gather for the start of a ministerial conference on Thursday, some of them have been unusually outspoken in their remarks about the regime.

With Western counterparts attending follow-up meetings, Asean ministers particularly from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are expected to be critical of Burma’s snail’s pace movement towards democracy.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could be expected to sharpen such criticism, but she may have to miss the session because she is currently mired in more urgent Middle East diplomacy.

Some editorials in regional papers have even predicted more coordinated pressure and consensus among Asean members to try to put pressure on the Burmese regime to move towards political reform.

A weekly commentary written by Thai regional analyst Kavi Chongkittavorn in the The Nation said: “The outcome of the Kuala Lumpur meeting this week will impact on the discussion on Burma’s future when Asean leaders converge in Cebu for the 12th summit in November. Despite ongoing political crisis, the Philippines would like to see continuing democratization among its members, especially Burma. After years of lacklustre performance, President Gloria Arroyo, as the summit’s host, would like to assert her leadership in Asean as well.”

He pointed out that last week, Asean legislators also signalled their strong support and urged the Philippines to take the lead in exploring and advocating effective measures to spur democratic transition in Burma.

The Philippines has been one of the toughest critics of Burma’s intransigence, and Manila could well produce a special document to ensure that Burma’s future stalling will not be tolerated and will be punished, Kavi wrote. It would coincide with the completion of the Eminent Persons Group’s recommendations on the drafting of the Asean charter.

Sign of encouragement? Perhaps.

But remarks and informal statements from some Asean countries are not enough. Aside from empty words they send contradictory and wrong messages to the international community and Burmese people.

On Monday, Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, the current chairman of the group, wrote in an opinion piece in the Asian Wall Street Journal that Asean cannot keep defending Burma.

He wrote, “Asean has reached the stage where it is not possible to defend Myanmar [Burma] if it does not cooperate with us or help itself by delivering tangible progress on economic and political reforms.”

But some member nations believe that Asean cannot expel Burma. Thai officials, for instance, have said that Asean will still engage Burma, under its “constructive engagement” policy.

Singapore has also been particularly critical of the Burmese regime, despite the island-state’s strong business relations with the country.

When Burmese leaders abruptly began to move the capital to central Burma in 2005, Singapore’s foreign ministry issued a statement criticizing the regime.

Singapore had just finished building a brand new embassy in Rangoon, and was perhaps understandably upset and outspoken. But it seemed to be more concerned that it had not been told earlier about the capital’s move, than any worries about human rights abuses.

Indeed, some Asean countries may posture about Burma for the benefit of the foreign media and Western partners, without yet laying down effective mechanism to make the Burmese regime listen to its neighbors and act.

Some of Asean’s many international critics over its ineffectiveness may suspect that any critical remarks made about Burma are not totally sincere, but just to appease domestic opposition, as well as to try to show the West the grouping is actually doing something.

The trouble is while Asean countries may want to keep on engaging Burma, the Rangoon generals do not seem to care.

When Syed Hamid was in Burma last March, he was not allowed to meet detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Top leaders did not meet him either. The Malaysian minister, in his own words, “was treated shabbily.”

The regime leaders know full well that at the end of the day, Asean won’t kick Burma out, and that pressure only builds before the grouping’s big meetings. In other words, they may regard it as so much hot air, and that business will continue as usual after it dies down.

The generals have also been less interactive in Asean since the departure in October 2004 of former prime minister Gen Khin Nyunt, regarded as one of the more externally acceptable faces of the regime. Rangoon might feel it does not now need Asean so much, and can fall back on its solid backing from China.

In any case, Asean countries which have taken a softer line towards Burma-Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand-may disagree with any strong wording on Burma in a final statement after the annual meeting.

That leaves the possible scenario of Asean and Western ministers simply making strong individual statements about Burma before boarding their planes home. And Asean would be left with its “constructive engagement: intact, and no big stick in sight.