BP: Editorial & Opinion : Negotia

[suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: BP: Editorial & Opinion :   Negotiating for change in Burma




Editorial & Opinion 

POLITIC VIEW: 

Negotiating for change in Burma

AFTER several failed attempts to bring the Burmese junta to the dialogue
table,
the world is still waiting to see what will happen next. Josef Silverstein
examines past efforts to find a solution to the country's political and civil
problems in the first of a two-part series. 

THE skies over Burma are slowly filling with trial balloons about negotiating
political change in the country. 

The first balloon was sent aloft last year by Human Rights Watch (Aug 6, 1998)
when it called for three things: 

-Understanding of the nature of the three key actors in Burmese politics --
the
millitary, the NLD and the ethnic minorities. 

-New dialogue between the industrialised nations and Burma's millitary
rulers. 

-The construction of a road map of specific improvements in human rights in
Burma and ''incremental restoration of normal economic and diplomatic
relations
with the international community''. 

In October, a second balloon was floated by the UN and several of the leading
industrialised nations. They offered technical and financial assistance for
political dialogue in Burma between the military and the National League for
Democracy (NLD). 

The first proposal went nowhere, even though several writers and journalists
picked it up and gave it their backing. 

The second effort alarmed supporters of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD
because of rumours that the military rulers were being offered US$1 billion as
an inducement to accept negotiations. But the loud outcry against ''bribing''
the country's ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to hold
meetings with the civilian opposition, together with the military junta's
rejection of the plan, appeared to have buried it. 

But six months' later, in late May 1999, US Deputy Secretary of State for
Asian
and Pacific Affairs Ralph Boyce, on a visit to Asia, was reported to have said
that the October UN initiative was ''the only game in town'' and still worth
pursuing. 

A few weeks later, the press reported yet another balloon which suggested that
the UN was prepared to send an envoy to Rangoon to discuss exchanging aid
for a
political dialogue. 

The new element in this report was that Burma's neighbours, who previously
were

silent as they pursued the Asean policy of constructive engagement, were now
encouraging Burma's military rulers to accept the mission and start talks with
NLD leader Suu Kyi. 

As the world waits to see what will happen next, it is worth examining the
past
activities of the key players in order to put the future into perspective. 

It should be remembered that 
Suu Kyi has long been on record as saying that she and her party were ready
for
dialogue and willing to discuss anything with the view of starting a
process of
restoring democracy in Burma. Suu Kyi's position has not changed since she
made
this statement to the then US Congressman Bill Richardson while under house
arrest in 1994. 

Opposition to dialogue between Suu Kyi, other leaders of the NDL and minority
leaders is also part of the military's policy of ''divide and rule''. They
have
blocked all her efforts both to travel to areas inhabited by the minorities
and
hold talks. They also have put dialogue restraints on the minority groups.
As a
condition of the ceasefire agreements with them, the military rulers have
demanded that those who signed should not communicate with those who did not. 

By keeping all political groups apart, SPDC hopes that the people will see and
accept the military as the only leaders in the country and gather behind it.
But no matter what they say or do, Suu Kyi and her party have the backing of
both the Burmese in the country's heartland and the minorities in the frontier
areas. 
Burma's military rulers have fooled no one with their shifting explanations
about the goals of the 1990 election and their own efforts to write a new
constitution which will keep them permanently in power. 

They say that until the constitution is written and in place they cannot
discuss the issues which matter most to the people -- whether Burma will be
federal or unitary, whether or not it will be a democracy and whether or not
the people will be given all the rights set forth in the UN Declaration of
Human Rights. 

Thus, if internal dialogue is the goal of the Human Rights Watch, the US
government and the UN, they are right to focus on the military rulers because
it is they and not the NLD who refuse to come to the table and talk. If the
dialogue is to proceed, then the participants must come as equals, each with
the right to choose its own leaders. 
But is it necessary to pay a giant bribe to get talks underway and why should
anyone trust the military rulers to keep their word? 
Governments and people, the world over, know that the military rulers
showed no
respect for the election law and the results of the voting. 

They continue to show no respect for the laws they have promulgated and the
promises they have made. The world community also knows that SPDC shows no
respect for international law and binding treaties. 

Tomorrow: The forced labour equation.