As the Association of South East Asian Nations meets in Singapore, it is under pressure from outside governments and from some of its own citizens to put more pressure on Burma (also known as Myanmar), one of its newest member states, to stop the crackdown on the recent democracy protests. While the confab's atmosphere will be peaceful — protests are not tolerated in Singapore itself — the contentious question of how to push the junta toward political reform is sure to be raised behind closed doors. Will this involve ASEAN participation in sanctions against the Burmese junta?

Some Asean ministers are resentful that this question is even being asked but not Mari Elka Pangestu, the trade minister of Indonesia, Asean's biggest member nation. She is tolerant of the question but highly skeptical of the call for sanctions. “Sanctions,” she says in an interview in Jakarta late last month, “are a last resort. You should try all other means because at the end of the day the priority is to help the people you are trying to help. Sanctions could be counter-productive.”

But what if the time has come for a last resort? Can it not be argued that the junta in Burma has now traveled so far beyond the pale that extreme measures are required to bring it to heel? Ms. Pangestu does not attempt to justify the junta; on the contrary, she says that Indonesia, like all the other Asean members, is “very concerned” about what is happening but she insists that a political solution is required. Some argue that sanctions are the key part of a political solution but she sees political engagement as the crucial element of a process to encourage “the military into dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi,” the winner of the last democratic elections held in Burma.

Ms. Pangestu is not saying that sanctions would not work but that if indeed they are the last resort and they do nothing to shift the junta, what then? If there is no next step after the last step, maybe this is not the time to take it.

Asean has adopted a united stand on this matter, but there are subtle yet significant differences in approach. Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo, who represents the Asean country with arguably the most significant business relations with Burma, recently said that sanctions were unwise because they would “exacerbate divisions there.” He insisted that the ruling military junta needed to be very carefully handled because “without the military, Myanmar can dissolve into civil war,” adding, “the last thing we want is a Yugoslavia or Iraqi situation on our doorsteps.”

You don't hear any of this talk from Ms. Pangestu; her emphasis is on “pushing dialogue” and rooted in the idea that change is most likely to occur from within. She cites the Indonesian experience of ending the Suharto dictatorship, achieved without external support, as relevant to what's happening in Burma.

Ms. Pangestu has an impressively nuanced way of dealing with the big policy issues. When she says “we do deal with politics in our way — the Asean way,” it might be expected that she would start reciting the familiar litany of remarks about “Asian values,” special characteristics of Asian culture and so on. Instead she opts for the objective situation and talks of what's happening on the ground where the previous Asean policy of “non-interference” in the internal affairs of member nations has given way to “constructive engagement.” She says, “Each of us can facilitate the others in finding solutions.” And this includes the dialogue on human rights, which, she says, was shunned a decade ago in Asean but is now part of the agenda.

It is a little hard to believe that all Asean members see things this way. After all some of the newer member states house large numbers of political prisoners, and one of Asean's six founder members places strict limits on freedom of speech within its borders. But Indonesia passed from dictatorship to democracy with some small amount of bloodshed, and the people now in charge appear to be acutely conscious that there is no going back to authoritarian rule or the former practices of silence on uncomfortable matters that were a specialty of the former Suharto regime.

If Asean has disappointed some of its friends by a lack of assertiveness on political matters, it has probably disappointed even more by the lack of progress on the economic front, the very front where greatest progress is supposed to have been made. Ms. Pangestu says she recognizes that “there are a lot skeptical views” about the slow movement towards economic integration. Because the goal posts have been shifted so often it is hard to see what the current goals are. Instead of working on how agreements can be made effective Asean has busied itself devising formulas for members to disagree. This involves a careful step by step process allowing member states to opt out of an agreement and then it gives them time for reconsideration and then what? It seems to mean that they simply opt out of everything they dislike more or less indefinitely.

On top of this is the matter of growing numbers of bilateral trade deals between Asean member states and third parties. Ms. Pangestu paints Indonesia as a team player keen on regional cooperation and in, her words, seeing Asean “as a nut cracker. We are squeezed between China and India and we have to assert our relevance as a region.” She insists that Asean “can have a comprehensive strategy” for dealing as a block with other nations and that such deals have been struck with the likes of China and South Korea. Negotiations are underway with Japan, New Zealand and Australia, but she admits ruefully that member states, especially Singapore and Malaysia, have been busy signing bilateral deals. “So it seems we need to do it too.”

“So Asean,” she says, “is pulled two ways between greater cooperation and countries trying to get individual advantage.” This is hardly a novel conundrum and most unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. It is suggested that this is less than satisfactory, she laughs and says, “some people say that.” Asked what she says, a poignant silence follows, broken by a light shrug of the shoulders.

Yet all hope is not lost. Ms. Pangestu points to the fact that 99% of tariffs between member states have been eliminated. And there is work underway on establishing common product standards. But she admits that “investment and competition policy cooperation have been less effective.” The next challenge, she says, is to devise a regional disputes settlement mechanism. But she shudders when it is suggested that this will become anything like the European Court of Justice. Indeed most comparisons with the kind of integration on the European Union agenda are regarded as fanciful. “That's all very, very long term,” she says, implying that the word never might be more appropriate.

This interview was conducted on the sidelines of the Trade Expo Indonesia exhibition held in Jakarta. Indonesia has shrugged off its lamentable reputation as an Asean laggard in the growth stakes and claims to be on course for GDP growth of 6.8% this year. Export growth by the end of year could be as high as 20%, compared with 17.5% last year. Mari Pangestu's officials have a skip in their step, not least because they are attached to a ministry which looks as though it is getting results.

Mr. Vines is a Hong Kong-based writer and broadcaster.