[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

The Hindu: A mellowing junta?



A mellowing junta? 
The Hindu
15 August 1999

              In one sense, the ASEAN policy of engagement with the Yangon
regime
              has given the international community some leeway in dealing
with the
              junta, writes P.S. SURYANARAYANA. 

              IS A new modus vivendi emerging imperceptibly between the
military
              government in Yangon and the international community,
particularly
              Myanmar's South East Asian neighbours? Or, is a storm in the
wake of
              the current phase of low-key activism by Myanmar's
``pro-democracy''
              campaigners in exile. The latest noisy demonstration in
Bangkok against
              the Myanmarese junta would have passed off as a non-event but
for the
              prying urges of photo journalists. 

              Whatever the answers to these imponderable questions, the Yangon
              authorities have lost no time warning the administrators and
people
              against unrest being stoked up by an alleged alliance between
              ``neo-colonialists'' and Myanmarese activists owing
allegiance to Ms.
              Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD).
The
              military government, known as the State Peace and Development
Council
              (SPDC), is looking over its shoulders to prevent a new
upsurge of
              dramatic ``pro-democracy'' agitations by either the NLD
activists or their
              sympathisers in exile or even by foreigners sneaking into
Myanmar in the
              guise of tourists as some of them did last year. 

              At another level, there is some relief for the SPDC. It did
not have to
              cope with an avalanche of criticism at the latest meeting of
the ARF (the
              Association of South East Asian Nations' Regional Forum) in
Singapore
              unlike as it happened at the time of a similar meeting in
Manila last year.
              Ms. Suu Kyi's roadside stand-off with the Yangon authorities,
which led
              to a stinging criticism of the SPDC by the U.S. during the
ARF meeting
              last year, is now almost faded memory. In fact, the tone and
tenor of the
              utterances by the U.S. Secretary of State, Ms. Madeleine
Albright, at this
              year's ARF session points to Washington's qualitatively
different concerns
              now. 

              Ms. Albright said ``the United States urges Burma to shift
direction and
              begin a dialogue with the democratic opposition, including
(Ms.) Aung
              San Suu Kyi, and other representative groups.'' In a language of
              diplomatic courtesy, as distinct from her usual stridency on
this theme, she
              told the ARF, ``we (the U.S.) support the U.N. role in
encouraging this
              (idea of dialogue) and (we) are disappointed that Special
Envoy DeSoto
              has not yet been able to return to Burma despite several
requests (by the
              U.N.) over the past six months.'' The U.S. was calling upon
the SPDC to
              ``allow such a visit as soon as possible.'' 

              Though there was nothing in her message to indicate a shift in
              Washington's stance on the democracy puzzle in Myanmar, there
was a
              hint of possible intersection, as different from a
convergence, of the
              relative new ways of the U.S. and Myanmar. Ms. Albright's
              commendation of a U.N. role was matched by the Myanmar Foreign
              Minister, Mr. U. Win Aung's separate response, avoiding a
hostile
              rejection of the idea of a special envoy visiting his country. 

              Even as Ms. Albright made no concession to the SPDC by
setting the
              U.S. sights lower on a democratic resurgence as Myanmar's
destiny, Mr.
              U. Win, too, did not yield ground on any substantive issue.
He repeated
              the SPDC's more recent refrain of Myanmar being headed for a
              rendezvous with democracy at an indefinite future date and of
the
              Council's more immediate compulsions of sorting out assorted
              ethnic-political problems. However, there was no mistaking
the regime's
              new willingness to experiment with a policy of tentative
engagement with
              the international community in the present circumstances
defined, in part,
              by a certain loss of momentum, not a reversal of course, of the
              pro-democracy movement. 

              More central to the SPDC's calculations is the recent
detente, as it were,
              between it and the European Union, which has considered it
worthwhile
              to talk to the Yangon regime in a logical extension of a
theory which, in
              the first place, provided a rationale for the West's new
engagement with
              China. 

              At stake is the possibility of redefining the recent,
absolutely informal,
              proposal by some officials of the World Bank and the U.N.
that the
              Yangon regime be granted economic aid and goaded into making
peace
              with Ms. Suu Kyi and/or other leaders of the democracy
movement. The
              idea is still just that, but international interlocutors can
no longer point to
              any permanently locked doors in Yangon. 

              In one sense, the ASEAN's policy of engagement with the Yangon
              regime - the association's primary reasoning for admitting
Myanmar into
              its fold - has given the international community some leeway
in dealing
              with the SPDC at this time. Given the ASEAN's first
principles, the
              association as also India, whose External Affairs Minister
met the
              Myanmarese Foreign Minister on the sidelines of the ARF
meeting, has
              not been inquisitional about the SPDC record in internal
politics. Not
              surprisingly, Mr. U. Win Aung said at the latest ASEAN
meetings that ``a
              country's affairs should be handled by its own people.'' 

              A concept of ``enhanced interaction'' among the ASEAN states, as
              popularised by Thailand, would be put to test by its Foreign
Minister, Mr.
              Surin Pitsuwan, in his stewardship of the association's
standing committee
              from now. Myanmar may attract greater attention in the
context of Mr.
              Surin's agenda of human rights, democracy and human resource
              development across South East Asia. 

              It is, however, possible that trans-national issues such as
the illicit trade in
              drugs and environmental protection will bring Myanmar into new
              international focus as much as the democracy riddle does. Ms.
Albright
              has recently identified Myanmar as ``a threat to regional
stability'' because
              of the SPDC's ``failure to prevent widescale narcotics
production and
              trafficking activities.'' She also blamed the SPDC for its
``repressive
              policies'' at home which ``created strife and caused the
outflow of
              refugees.'' But the anticipated Thai focus on ``future
security threats,'' in
              the form of ``economic disruptions'', ``illicit drugs'' and
the like, could
              bring the SPDC to account on a range of issues other than the
Suu Kyi
              question.