[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
DAWN Bulletin
It is not the time to rush
The unexpected release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from her six-year
house arrest
on 10th July was a welcome move on the part of the State Law and Order
Restoration
Council (Slorc). While western countries were quick to send messages
applauding the
release in a sprit of cautious optimism- as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself
put it- and
Asian governments including Japan welcomed the move as substantive
progress.
Apparently some in Japan are very anxious significant indication that
Burma is moving
towards democracy. To date, unfortunately, all evidence points to the
opposite
conclusion. Slorcs behavior since the release of Aung San Suu Kyi
indicates it has no
intention of moving towards democracy, and in fact, the evidence
indicates that Slorc
intends to use the release of Aung San Suu Kyi as part of its on-going
campaign to
maintain indefinite military rule in Burma.
After the Second World War, the diplomatic relationship between
Japan and
Burma can be characterized as that of the donor of the Official
Development Aid(ODA),
including war compensation, and the recipient of that aid. Burma was the
first one to
receive the Japan war compensation in1955 among the Asian nations. From
1955
through 1965, the Japanese government paid 72 billion yen ( 200 million
US$) in goods
and services. A major portion of these funds were used for the
construction of Baluchaung
Dam in karenni State and four major industrialization projects; light
vehicle production,
heavy vehicle production, farming machinery production, and electrical
machinery
production. These cmpensation ended in 1977 and Japan began promoting
Official
Development Aid (ODA) from 1975.
The total amount of Japanese ODA to Burma that includes loan aid,
grant aid and
technical co-operation from the time Japan began funding until 1988
amounted to 511.7
billion yen. Burma was the number one recipient of Japanese aid. For
example, Burma
received 332.71 million dollar in bilateral aid in 1988, of which 78 per
cent of this amount
was from Japan.
Japan suspended all new ODA to Burma following the 1988 brutal
suppression on
the democracy uprising. It was later resumed but limited to parts of
on-going projects,
technical co-operation, and emergency humanitarian assistance. A freeze
was put on new
aid and even for those projects that were resumed, they were based on the
principles of
starting with problem-free projects, gradually, destructively and cautiously.
Japan has been behaving itself as a good friend, persuading Slorc
to open up
Burmas economy as well as to move towards democracy and stop human rights
violation.
The Japanese government expects the Burmese military regime to change on
its own, even
though sometimes it has been irritated by Slorcs stubbornness.
But pressure from the Japanese business community has been
growing to resume
ODA and now that Aung San Suu Kyi has been released, that pressure is
likely to
increase. Chinas increasing influence in Burma not only economically but
also militarily
since 1989 has made Japan nervous. The Japanese government began to urge Burma more
strongly to enter the international community and to decisively adopt the
market-oriented
economic policy. This position is basically shared by the members of
ASEAN and India;
the countries that must fear Chinas penetration into Southeast Asia and
the India Ocean.
The powerful Japanese business organization Keidanren (Federation
of Economic
Organization) set up a study group in January 1995 to examine aid
policies and assess
the prospects for economic cooperation with Burma, following a trade
mission it sent to
Burma in June 1994. A number of Japanese trading and construction
companies have sent
their own mission to Burma. In February 1995, Marubeni became the first
Japanese
trading company to sign a broad agreement with Slorc to promote joint
ventures, act as a
coordinator for various Burmese infrastructure projects, and assist with
development of
the oil, steel and gas industries.
Japan announced an agreement to give Burma an US$ 11 million
grant for
agricultural development. Japanese justified the decision on the grounds
that the funds
were to be used for humanitarian purposes to increase food production;
also that was
intended as a positive signal to help promote the countrys pro-democracy
movement and
human rights improvement efforts. At the same time, Japan also granted
Burma debt
relief worth $ 4 million. US government officials denounced the move,
calling it a
mistake.
The release of Aung San Suu Kyi was immediately welcomed by
Japanese Prime
Minister Tomiichi Murayama, who added, I hope democratization with
proceed further.
Foreign Minister Yohei Kono announced the Tokyo was eager to begin
discussions with
Slorc regarding resumption of ODA once they (Burma) are ready to do so,
and later
said he would visit Burma soon -- the highest ranking Japanese official
to go to Rangoon
since 1988. Foreign Ministry officials indicated that high priority ODA
projects being
considered include a $287 million expansion of the Rangoon airport and
aid to Burmas
telecommunications system. It is also considering giving grants of 1.5-2
billion yen to
repair nursing schools in Rangoon, a foreign ministry official said in
September. The final
decision on the grant is expected in October, following the visit to
Rangoon by foreign
ministry study missions in June and in late August-early September.
Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt
also announced Japan will donate US$ 400,000 t Burma to build schools in
border areas.
For the Burmese people and democratic forces, the resuming of
Japanese ODA in
not an appropriate time for Burma. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
said her release
from house arrest is no indication of change in Burma and that it should
not result in an
torrent of foreign investment and aid for the current military regime.
She urged foreign
countries as soon as she was released, not to rush to improve relations
with Burma
following her release because nothing else has changed under military rule.
The guide line for the ODA require that those funds be used only
if the recipient
country, is moving towards democracy. But the is no points saying that
Burma and
Slorc is moving towards democracy. Evidence of this fact can clearly be
seen by
contrasting the release from prison of Nelson mandela in South Africa and
the release of
Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. In South Africa, soon after Nelson Mandela was
released,
the white apartheid government entered into a serious dialogue with him
as head of the
African National Congress to discuss and negotiate the conditions for the
transition to
democracy in that country. It was not the release of Nelson Mandela that
showed the
sincerity of the apartheid government, it was the beginning of the
dialogue after the release
that indicated the apartheid government wanted to move in the direction
of democracy. In
contract, In Burma, the Slorc military dictatorship reportedly said it
would not discuss
political reforms with Aung San Suu Kyi, according to U Tin Win, Rangoons
ambassador
to Thailand. Slorc, therefore, has given every indication tha it
intends to contain and silence
Aung San Suu Kyi, not enter into any type of dialogue with her, and in
this regard the
release of Nelson Mandela and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi could not
be more
different from each other. The South African government released Mandela
as a signal
that it was now ready to begin the dialogue over the transition to
democracy. The Slorc
military dictatorship released Aung San Suu Kyi to lower the level of
international
pressure, with no sign of any intention of opening a dialogue or taking
any steps to
transition towards democracy.
Further evidence of Slorcs true attitude towards moving towards
democracy
can be seen by the fact that since the release of Aung San Suu Kyi,
Burmese opposition
activists U Thu Wai, U Tun Shwe and Htwe Myint were all rearrested and
sentenced to
seven years in Rangoons dreaded Insein prison with no reason for their
rearrest being
given. More recently, Ye Htut, a Burmese student was arrested on
September 27, 1995
for sending incriminating documents to opposition news groups in
Thailand. The arrest
was soly for having sent information to friends and contacts abroad.
Under international
law, this cannot be characterized as criminal behavior.
Slorc continues its military offensives against minority ethnic
groups like Karen
and Karenni forcing thousands of refugees over the border into Thailand.
the barbaric
system of using forced human labor on Slorc infrastructure construction
projects and
forced human porters on Slorc military campaigns continues unabated, also
the other
serious categories of human rights abuses such as torture, rape and
killing documented by
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch/ Asia as well as United
Nations. None of
these human rights abuses have abated in the least since the release of
Aung San Suu Kyi.
Japanese government should answer this question: what evidence can be
pointed to that
the Slorc military dictatorship is moving towards democracy? Releasing
the leader of
opposition from illegal arrest and then refusing to talk to her about
democracy is certainly
no an indication of a government moving towards democracy. On the
contrary, it is an
indication of an international public relations ploy devoid of any
political substance
whatsoever.
The full extent of Slorcs strategy to avoid democratization and
to institutionalize
long term military rule in Burma can only be understood by understanding
the role of
Slorcs so-called National Convention plays in the strategy. In May 1990,
Aung San Suu
Kyis political party, National League for Democracy won 80 per cent of
the seats at stake
in the election. Even though Slorc refused to hand over power, the
military dictatorship
was faced with a long term problem because by refusing to honor the will
of the people
clearly expressed in a free election. The military dictatorship was
illegal under the new
emerging standards of internatioal law. Slorcs attempted solution to
this problem was
to call a so-called National Convention to write a new constitution for
Burma. Actually
the term National Convention is a complete misnomer. It is really not a
National
Convention at all; it is a Military Convention. It was called by the
military; all of the
delegates were hand-picked by the military; its day-to-day deliberations
are supervised by
the military; and even more outrageously, the military has given a
written order to the
convention instructing it turn out a constitution that guarantee the
military the leading role
in the national politics in the future of Burma. This so-called National
Convention is
nothing more than a transparent farce designed to permanently
institutionalize military rule
in Burma. UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, Mr. Yozo Yokota said in last
year It is
difficult to assume that, in the National Convention, open and free
exchange of views and
opinions are taking place in order to produce a truly democratic
constitution. Despite
repeated calls in UN resolutions for the Slorc to give a timetable for
the convention, there
is still no sign of the convention coming to an end two and half years
after the process
began. The last session on April 8, 1995 was adjourned until October 24.
But again it was
adjourned another month.
Japan has a very special responsibility when it comes to helping
prevent this planed
institutionalization of military rule from suffering in Burma. Japan
knows full well the
evils, the horror and the death that can befall a nation politically
controlled by its own
armed forces. The period of military domination of Japanese political
life in the 1930s and
1940s brought death, destruction and defeat upon the Japanese nation.
Additionally, a
conquering Japanese soldiers, under the control of these military
dictators, brought killing,
rape, torture and destruction to many conquered lands including Burma,
which suffered
greatly in World War II. For Japan, a country that has suffered
grievously at the hands of
its previous military rulers, it would be unconscionable to now help and
assist Burma
military rulers to solidify their control over Burma. Japan should
remember that Burma is
completely unique in Southeast Asia. Burma is the only country in the
entire region that is
still a military dictatorship. Japan, therefore has a special
responsibility to move cautiously
in Burma. To assist Slorc to institutionalize long term military control
in Burma by giving
ODA to Slorc would be a complete betrayal of Japans own history. The
Burmese people
appreciate the recent apology of the Japanese Prime Minister concerning
certain measures
taken by Japans military rulers in the Second World War. Now the Burmese
people ask
that the Japanese government does not assist Burmas military rulers to
solidify their long
term control of Burma by giving those military rulers direct development
aids.
In trying to decide what course of action to take in regards the
release of Aung
San Suu Kyi, Japanese government must turn to the words of Aung San Suu
Kyi herself,
given during a recent taped interview:
..... During this wait-and-see period, where we want to see in
which way the
(Slorc)authorities wish to move and where we want to give th every
opportunity to be
able to come to the negotition table with a clear conscience, and with
the best will
possible. I think this is something we wait and see. I have said that
this is not the time to
rush in with investment, please wait and see, that I said from the very
first week, please
wait and see before rushing in with new investment...
If during this wait and see period Slorc were unexpectedly to
begin a dialogue with
Aung San Suu Kyi; if Slorc were to release all political prisoners; if
Slorc were to
announce a policy of discontinuing human rights abuses, particularly in
areas inhabited by
ethnic minorities; if Slorc were to dissolve bogus National Convention,
then it would be
time for the Japanese government to reexamine the situation and see if
one or more of
these Slorc actionssatisfied the moving towards democracy requirement
contained in
the ODA guidelines. But until the Slorc military dictatorship make such
genuine and
sincere moves, Japanese government should heed the urgent words of Aung
San Suu Kyi:
Please wait.