No Subject Given

[fdhr!chan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

To: reg.burma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:27:55 +0000
Subject: from India
CC: ncgub@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Confirm-Reading-To: chan@.unv.ernet.in
X-pmrqc: 1
Return-receipt-to: chan@.unv.ernet.in
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) & WPEGWAF v0.7
Organization: Forum for Democracy and Human Rights

INDIA AND MYANMAR

An Agonizing Relationship

	On November 14, 1995, when the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru
 Award for International Understanding was conferred on Aung San Suu Kyi
 of Burma in the Ashoka Hall of Rashtrapati Bhavan by the President of India,
 a friend of mine who is usually very sympathetic to the people of Myanmar 
expressed some misgiving about the timing of this recognition, keeping in view
 the current upward trend in the bilateral ties of the two countries. This 
misgiving brought to my mind the fact that in the 1990, shortly before the
 Iraq-Kuwait armed conflict, Rajiv Gandhi who was the Leader of Opposition
 paid a visit to Baghdad in an effort to move, calling it foolhardy. When asked
 for my views on this matter at informal discussions, I supported the former 
prime Minister, saying that a leader of India can not effort to make his foreign
 policy moves dependent solely on considerations of immediate national benefit
 and diplomatic rectitude. India stands for certain values which transcend
 immediate national interest. Indian leaders cannot afford to ignore them. 
In fact, upholding these leaders cannot afford to ignore them. In fact, upholding
 these values itself id a vital national interest of India.
	India's relations with her immediate neighbour, the Union of
 Myanmar, should also be examined from the same view-point. India and 
Myanmar have concluded a number of bilateral agreements during the last
 twelve months, the  most important of these being the border trade agreement.
 Two-way trade by the sea route has also picked up. The military cooperation
 along the border has also developed in an unprecedented manner. For example,
 recently, a huge consignment of arms which has being clandestinely taken 
across Burmese territory to the separatist groups in the north-east was 
captured with timely assistance from Myanmar Army. Ministerial visits
 between the two countries have also been exchanged on a scale which is not
 normal.
	These enhanced contacts naturally raise a question __ 
Has the Government of Inida decided to normalize its relations with the
 military regime in Yangon, rather than continue the policy of support to
 the democracy movement under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi? 
While in India this question is rising in the minds of mainly those who 
have some interest in Burma., for the Burmese people inside and outside
 that country, this has become a most vital issue. I have received a number
 of quarries on this matter me of the statements made by Rajiv Gandhias 
Prime Minister and several of his successors, expressing unequivocal support
 for the cause of democracy and the admiration which Indian Government has
 for Aung San Suu Kyi.
	I tell my Burmese friends that there is no conflict between having
 normal relations with the regime which is in real control of the administration
 of that country and support for democracy. But unfortunately, the people at
 the helm of affairs in South Block do not seem to realize this. The result is that
 at international fora, India's voice is muted on the issue of restoration of 
democracy. On the other hand, our leaders appear apologetic while trying
 to explain the growing economic and military ties between the two countries.
 They seem to forget that a country like the United States, while criticizing 
China for its suppression of human rights, is having a burgeoning economic 
relationship with that country. 
	It is, therefore, not an anti-Burma move to welcome the prospect
 of democracy in that country. It has been an article of faith for every Indian 
Prime Minister to support the cause of democracy in every part of the 
globe. Seen from this angle, the signals from Yangon are not encouraging for
 the present Indian leadership to express satisfaction with their ties with 
Myanmar.
	Aung San Suu Kyi's release has not been followed up with release
 of other important leaders. Nor is there any further relaxation of control over
 media and other avenues of self-expression. Moreover, the SLORC is trying 
to keep Suu Kyi out of the political process. They have been trying not only
 to work out a new constitution for Burma which gives the armed forces 
permanent place in the stewardship of the country through a constitution
 convention which they have called without any authority under any statutory
 law, but have also stated  publicly that Suu Kyi will not be allowed to contest
 elections as she is married to a foreigner. To cover this move, they are quoting
 none other than her own father, General Aung San.
	The military regime in Yangon is closing its eyes to the fact that 
1995 is not 1948, when Burma was emerging from British colonial rule and 
there was a general dislike for foreigners. To expect that India which had a 
Prime Minister married to a foreigner and the rest of the world where many 
naturalized citizens have made to the highest political offices in 
their countries of adoption, would accept their moth-eaten ideology
 is almost an affront. Not content with this, the Burmese military leaders
 have taken other steps to keep Burma's woman of destiny out of power.
 It has been reported that the National League for Democracy has reinstated
 Aung San Suu Kyi as a General Secretary of the party. But, the five-member
 Election Commission of Burma which has been filled with hand-picked persons
 has refused to accept the change which is a requirement under the rule
	The Burmese Government is trying to hide these development
 under an open-door scheme under which foreign tourists, businessmen and
 media personal are being allowed to visit the country without any hindrance
 and to see things with their own eyes. This change of policy in a country 
where maximum length of visa used to be seven days and no citizen was 
allowed to have a foreigner as a house guest, has elated many outside visitors.
 A good deal of imported foodtuff and cosmetics have added to the attraction
 of the local markets. But, a close look would reveal that this change is barely
 skin-deep. The economic policy of the military government has been able to
 attract only some short-term and fast money-making investors. It has not been
 able to lure long-term investment in the manufacturing sector. The reason for 
this is that major investors lack the confidence to start labour-intensive and 
long-term investment in the manufactoring sector because the infrastructure
 in the transport, communications and energy sector is still very poor. 
Moreover, the constitutional and legal framework which can ensure safe
 repatriation of profits and prevent expropriation is totally non-existent.
 In addition, business rules and regulations are inconsistent and corruption
 and nepotism continue to be widespread.
	In a situation like this, for countries to rush to Myanmar to make
 hay, disregarding the growth of the democratic process, would not be a wise
 policy. Lasting economic growth based on free enterprise can take place only
 under a democratic policy.
	In fact, what the SLORC has done so far is to use all the available
 resources of the country for the expansion of the armed forces. It has so far 
invested in $ 1.4 billion for this purpose. The result is that the strength of the
 Burmese Army has grown from 180,000 to 400,000 during the last half decade.
 Burma has purchased mostly from China fighter jets, tanks, patrol boats, 
anti-aircraft missiles, artillery pieces and other arms and ammunition. According to a UNICEF report, Burma's defense budget rose from 22% of its total expenditure in 180, to 39% in 1993.
	It may be recalled that on her release from house arrest, Suu Kyi
 had said that there was no occasion to rejoice over an individual's freedom, 
as long as the Burmese people were not free to express their views and to 
choose their own government. In view of this, she had advised foreign 
governments not to rush with their investments. To do so would be to fall
 prey to the game they have played by releasing her.
	The irony is that countries have fallen in this trap. Japan, the
 country which has provided the largest amount of economic assistance to
 Burma, has already welcomed Suu Kyi's release as a positive gesture on the
 part of Slorc. The Japanese Government which has frozen ODA credits when
 military cracked down on the democracy movement in 1988, is seriously
 thinking of resuming it, to the great delight of Japanese MNC's. In fact, it
 is believed by many that the military authorities decided to release Suu Kyi
 primarily with a view to influence Japan. If this is true, then the Slorc has 
really succeeded in its game. There were, however, other factors which have
 played a role in tilting Japanese attitude. Japan has been worried over the 
growing importance of China in Myanmar and was looking for an opportunity
 to rectify this tilt. In addition, Japanese diplomacy has always been hampered
 by US attitudes and inclinations in respect of most countries in Asia. In the 
case of Myanmar, USA has only a limited interest which does not go beyond
 human rights and drug smuggling. Hence, Japan could play a free hand.
	The ASEAN countries have been pleading for " Constructive
 engagement " with Myanmar for long and even invited a Burmese delegation
 at their Ministerial Meeting in 1994. But what Japan, ASEAN and the 
developed countries of Europe are disregadrding is the recent history of the
 success of democracy in the world, of which the Republic of South Africa 
is a burning example. This history has shown that it is the economic pressure
 of the democratic world which results in political wrongs being righted.
	The result of this misjudgment on the part of develop democratic
 countries is already visible. The Slorc seemed to be in no mood to relax its 
group. It wants the political parties, particularly the NLD to succumb to its 
pressure and accept a constitution which gives to the armed forces a
 domineering place in the governance of the country. It seems to be dead set
 on reconvening the so-called Constitutional Convention on 28th of November.
 Suu Kyi, on the other hand, announced on 24th November at a large meeting 
of students in front of her residence that her party cannot wait indefinitely for
 the rulers to start a dialouge to restore the democratic process. Thus, any hope
 that there would be a thaw in the situation in Myanmar has faded.
	 The question that rises in one's mind at this juncture is : Does the
 above picture of Burma have any impact on the thinking of the policy-makers
 in NewDelhi ? The answer is : " Perhaps, not " . An indicator of this was the
 strange coincidence that at the Nehru Award ceremony for Aung San Suu Kyi
 at Rashtrapati Bhavan, the two persons who were conspicuous by their absence
 were the Ambassador of Myanmar and the prime Minister of India. It is , 
therefore, safe to assume that hard ground realities do not seem to be guiding
 the thinking of the foreign policy makers of South Block*. According to a 
press report, even China has promised to the Thai Defense Minister Chavalit
 that it will cease supporting the build-up of Burmese armed forces.
	It is high time that the mandarins in South Block wake up to 
the gong from the great golden Shwedagon Pagoda of Rangoon.

* South Block - Ministry of External Affairs

**************  END TEXT **************