It was supposed to be a landmark event. To celebrate its 40th anniversary this week, heads of state from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed a charter that was intended to push the region toward more complete integration and more coherence. The final product — ASEAN's new charter — falls considerably short of that ambitious design. Rather than demonstrating "one ASEAN at the heart of dynamic Asia," the theme of this week's summit, the summit exposed deep divisions at the heart of the organization.

ASEAN member states have a total population of about 500 million people, a combined gross domestic product of nearly $700 billion, and total trade of some $850 billion. It is a diverse group. Member states include sprawling archipelagoes (Indonesia and the Philippines) and tiny city-states (Singapore); the world's fourth-largest country (Indonesia) and the 170th (Brunei); modern developed economies such as Singapore and agrarian backwaters like Laos. Their political and economic systems are equally heterogenous. The result has been a lowest common denominator decision-making style — the "ASEAN way" — whose lowest common denominator has been quite low.

This consensus-based approach yielded criticism that ASEAN is toothless, incapable of making hard choices and preferring to paper over internal dissent. Even when leaders agreed on a policy, enforcement mechanisms were lacking. As a consequence, ASEAN's aspirations were usually mentioned in the breach. Creating a charter was intended to remedy those shortcomings, and create a single, coherent entity that could lead East Asia and sustain its regional economic dynamism.

The charter that was unveiled this week makes ASEAN a legal entity, requires members to appoint a permanent representative that sits on a council, and sets up other associated institutions, including a human rights body. Among ASEAN's purposes are: the maintenance of peace and security in the region; the creation of a single market and production base; the alleviation of poverty and narrowing the development gap; the strengthening of democracy, enhancement of good governance and the rule of law; the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the promotion of sustainable development.

While ASEAN leaders heaped rhetorical flourishes upon the charter, most others were disappointed by the final product. It is telling that the charter was never released to the public until it was signed at this week's summit: That is a funny way for an organization that promotes democracy to work. (A copy was leaked to a Thai source a few days before it was unveiled.) But more troubling than the process by which the charter was created, was what it contains — or more to the point, what it omits.

For example, while it calls for the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms, that admonition is qualified by the need to do so "with due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Member States of ASEAN."

Among its principles, noninterference in the affairs of member states is still mentioned before adherence to democracy, rule of law and constitutional governance. The terms of reference of the human rights body are not established; they will be set by ASEAN foreign ministers. Decision-making is still based on consultation and consensus, and there are no penalties for noncompliance with ASEAN rules, principles or decisions.

Neither is there a real outline for the creation of the single market that ASEAN leaders and business professionals insist is necessary if the region is to remain competitive. As one critic lamented, the charter is not a bold step forward but is "the codification of existing norms."

The proof of the gap between ASEAN's ambitions and its reality is plain in its response to the situation in Myanmar. The junta there continues to ignore the wishes of its citizens, incarcerates — and sometimes kills — the political opposition and keeps the symbol of its people's hopes, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. Despite a brutal crackdown in recent weeks, ASEAN's criticism of the Myanmar government remains muted. During the summit, ASEAN was forced to call off a briefing on the situation in that country by the United Nations special envoy because of the junta's objections.

Inaction over Myanmar reflects the fundamental divisions within ASEAN. Some member governments are not prepared to have their actions scrutinized, not even by an organization that they have joined and whose principles they profess to honor. Other governments admit that the failure to call members to account undermines ASEAN's legitimacy and raises the specter of its irrelevance. The charter was supposed to fix that. By all appearances, it won't.