FEB/MAR'98-AV: MOVING TOWARDS HUMAN

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

/* Written Mon Feb 9 11:00am 1998 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" Moving towards human rights "-------------- */

[Following is my article featured in the Feb/March-1998 issue of
"The Adeliade Voices". The AV is a kind of activist Newsjournal
published in every two months. Copies of AVs can be ordered from
The Editor, Adelaide Voices Inc., P.O.Box 6042, Halifax Street 
SA 5000, Australia. Yearly subscription for 6-issues is AUD10.00 
including postage. Lets give supports to our good friends
at the AV. --- Regards, U Ne Oo.] 
---------------------------------------------------------------

ADELAIDE VOICES, FEB/MAR'98.

"MOVING TOWARDS HUMAN RIGHTS"
by Dr U Ne Oo, a Burmese refugee and human rights advocate.
***********************************************************

In Massachusetts, USA, a Burma activist campaigns for selective
purchasing legislation; in the Northern Territory of Australia,
the supporters for an Independent East Timor launch a
photo-exhibition; somewhere in the world, members of Amnesty
hold a candlelight vigil for prisoners of conscience, and
Indigenous land-rights advocates in Australia address public
rallies.

These phenomena are known as `new social movements' or simply
`movements'. These movements are the people's struggle for
greater respect for human rights in the respective countries.

(FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES)

There can be no geographical boundary to such movements,
especially when sophisticated communication technologies are now
available: a movement can be intra-national as well as
international.

Though the new social movements may in general be defined in
broader social and political contexts, common elements among
these movements can clearly be seen. Firstly, they seek to
redress the fundamental social and political injustices for
which an existing political order cannot adequately provide a
solution.

In Burma, the existing military led one party rule cannot
accommodate the democratic aspirations of Burmese people. IN
East Timor, the sovereignty of its state is not recognized by
Indonesian authorities. In Australia, the rights of the
Indigenous population are not properly provided for in the
Constitution: these are the types of root causes of the conflict
between authorities in power and the people's movements.

One other element shared by all movements is the transcending
nature of participant groups. In contrast to other social
phenomena, such as interest groups, the participants in a
movement are not necessarily confined to a particular section of
the community. Communities from a broad spectrum of society
participate in such social movements.

A movement can enjoy broader support bases because it seeks to
address obvious injustices that are affronts to the human
conscience. The Burma democracy movement for example, as with
its counterparts, enjoys the support of many of the social and
political organizations across the globe.

(THE UNITY OF THE MOVEMENT)

A stark contrast between a formal political institution, such
as a political party or trade union, and a movement, is in
defining unity. Because the participating individuals and
organizations transcend social strata as well as geographical
boundaries, it is impossible to unify a movement in a normal
sense.

Since movements are built upon the voluntary participation of
flexible, non-authoritarian and autonomous organizations, they
may not necessarily find a hierarchical form of leadership to
set agendas for the movement.

Furthermore, it is rather counter-productive (often impossible)
to regulate the agendas of a movement. The unity of a movement,
therefore, can only be defined by the participants' principal
objectives.

The exception to this argument is Amnesty International (AI).
The overall agendas of AI's campaigns are set by its Secretariat
in London. However, because of the fundamental nature of of AI's
objectives, and the voluntary participation by members from
almost every society throughout the globe, that organization may
be considered as a movement.

Although unity in the normal sense may not be possible in a
movement, the participating organizations and individuals can
still achieve co-ordination between them. On achieving such
co-ordination, the diversity of strategies by autonomous
organizations will translate into the strength of the movement.

(OVERCOMING THE ODDS)

The entities which movements seek to confront are usually the
established institutions, such as governments, power groups or
corporate interests. In confronting its opponents, the movement
will have advantages as well as short-comings.

When mobilising public opinion in a campaign, the movement
generally is much slower than its opponents. However, once it is
mobilised, a popular movement can often wield considerably more
influence on public opinion than that of its opponents.

For example, the news media monopolized by a government or an
interest group may be quicker to put out their version of a
dispute. However, the public in general may be more receptive to
the `grassroots' communications. In this way, the movement may
have the advantage.

A grassroots organization may often feel weak if one compares it
directly with its opponent in terms of total resources. However,
the movement in a broader sense is not necessarily disadvantaged
by this in a campaign. For example, the Burma democracy campaign
features in the international media, and on the Internet where
the junta is simply outnumbered by many of the movement's
voluntary supporters. Thus the best practice is to encourage all
participants within the movement to put forward their best
available time and efforts.

For those who are seriously engaging in a struggle it is often
necessary to remain in the position of the underdog and prepare
to put up a long fight. Because a movement, like a human being,
has its limitation on resource and energy, it is good practice
to choose carefully the action to be engaged in.

The leaderships of a movement may not necessarily strike down
every move of its opponent: such practice can easily exhaust the
movement's energy. The leadership must always focus on the
principal objectives and must engage selectively in a series of
campaigns.

The international movements should not rely principally on the
normal media to build up a campaign. The normal media can help
the cause, especially when mobilising local grassroots support.

However, the normal media is of only limited use in the long
term since the focus of the movement and the news media are
quite different. For example,  when reporting the situation of a
group of refugees, a normal newspaper or television report may
only focus on more sensational aspects, such as extreme violence
or egregious living conditions, that may necessarily provoke the
public to a quick response.

The movement may, however, need more factual reports with
information such as the total number of refugees, conditions of
food and sanitation at the camp site and various matters
relating to protection of refugees. The best solution is for
grassroots support groups to set up their own communication
networks, such as newsletters or Internet mailing-lists.

One striking thing about social movements is that they cannot be
suppressed totally: as long as injustice exists there will be
people's struggles to overcome it. In the longer-run, however,
people's power is always greater and will finally win the
struggle.

(CURRENT SITUATION IN BURMA)

The present military junta in Burma seized state power in 1988
after violently suppressing the popular democracy movement. An
election was held in May 1990, in which the opposition party,
the National League for Democracy, won an 82 per cent majority.

The military junta then refused to transfer state power and now
continuously harasses, intimidates and unlawfully detains the
members of the NLD.

Since the seizure of state power, the junta exercises all
legislative, executive and judicial powers. Many decrees (laws)
made by the ruling junta are rendering violations of human
rights legitimate, according to the UN Human Rights Special
Rapporteur.(For example, the junta made a decree in 1996 to
criminalize anyone discussing the Constitution of Burma. This
law has prevented the elected representatives from freely
discussing and drafting a constitution.)

Since 1991, the UN General Assembly has been consistently
putting pressure on the junta to respect the result of the 1990
election. At the time of preparing this article, a
representative of the UN Secretary-General is visiting Burma to
broker a dialogue between the junta and National League for
Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi (the winner of the 1991 Nobel
peace prize). The military junta, since 1966, has not allowed
the Human Rights Special Rapporteur to visit Burma.

/* Endreport */