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

MY COMMENT ON TALK TO BURMESE GENER



WRITTEN 17 SEP 99; 6:00AM

> The BurmaNet News: September 15, 1999
> FEER: TALK TO BURMESE GENERALS
> 
> FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW: TALK TO BURMA'S GENERALS
> 16 September, 1999 by David I. Steinberg
> 
> THE WRITER IS DIRECTOR OF ASIAN STUDIES AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AND SENIOR
> CONSULTANT TO THE ASIA FOUNDATION. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE ARE HIS OWN.
> 
> Can anything alleviate Burma's political and economic problems? Foreign
> countries and groups have tried contrasting approaches. The United States
> is trying to strongarm the military into honouring the results of the 1990
> election. Until it does, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on new investments.
> But while this focus on democracy is morally appealing, it is unrealistic.
> At the other extreme, Asean, which admitted Burma to membership in 1997
> over strong U.S. objections, has been trying appeasement, though its
> "constructive engagement" is nothing more than a euphemism for exploiting
> economic opportunities. Both initiatives, along with others involving
> nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations have failed.

I have dispute with Prof. Steinberg's conclusion of "nothing works
with Burmese junta including initiatives by non-governmental
organisations and United Nations". This conclusion is a rather 
superficial for a man of his stature. On the effectiveness of "Sanction"
and "Constructive Engagement", I have less reason to dispute. However,
with regards to UN initiatives, one needs to note that there is a lack
of substantial pressure, such as from UN Security Council taking on
Burma agenda. Oppression in Burma and situation of refugees are 
disturbing. But, for some reason, we've never been able to attract 
attention of UN Security Council. Are we talking about UN humanitarian 
initiatives ? Nothing of substance has been done by UN in this regards.

On the other hand, the UN General Assembly has been too slow to act upon
many things we have requested. Sure, no one, including Americans, like
to send their boys to faraway country such as Burma. Then, this could be
compensated if we have properly constructed resolution passed by UN
General Assembly. Otherwise, we will have to put up with sanction,
sanctions and more sanctions but nothing else. 

As an activist, I do not like economic sanctions. But, because of lack
of other forms of leverage (require substantial political commitment by
international community) myself have joined in the "sanction-band-wagon" 
in early 1998.

Given that the rationale for sanction is to weaken the government
apparatus, I think we can now make even more justified call for economic
sanction on Burma. Firstly, this is because every decent businesses have
already left Burma and imposing international ban on new investments is
quite timely. Existing businesses, of course, should find some ways to
work with the parliamentarians. 

I had reservation in earlier years to call for economic sanction on
Burma because it poses unfair burden on Burmese people. My perceived
rationale for economic sanction, rightly or wrongly, was weighted as 
of creating  dissent on the government (not necessarily of weakening 
government apparatus) by the population concerned, which leading up 
to violent overthrow of the government. Fortunately, it is proven
that, despite current level of economic hardship experienced by the 
Burmese people, no signs of civil unrest. My estimate is that the 
Burmese people cannot get poorer than the current situation. It means 
that, any sanction we impose now, its effect would be all for 
SPDC/SLORC. In this regards, ASSK's comment is quite noteworthy.

> Kyi and the opposition National League for Democracy. Meanwhile, as the
> military refuses to negotiate with the opposition, and as the opposition
> itself creates conditions the military cannot accept, a stalemate ensues,
> forcing Burmese to continue to suffer in misery.

I think, here, too, Prof. Steinberg is making an unfair judgment. The
opposition NLD does not intentionally create conditions the Burmese
junta cannot accept. On contrary, the NLD has given all necessary
concessions, including ASSK to stay out in initial talks (before that
Burmese junta was complaining about this poor-man Michael Aris, too).
Whatever way around the junta choose to argue, the fact remains that
unacceptable condition for Burmese junta is the result of May 1990
General Election.

> 
> A Burmese organization of whatever stripe -- political, social or economic
> -- that is independent of state control is a contradiction today. With
> civil society destroyed, institutions exist only to serve state goals, or
> if not then they are under strict surveillance. Thus, despite the initial
> guarded approval of the Australian proposal, it would seem doomed to
> failure. But then, note that the needs of Burmese society are ever growing
> even as the government has neither the competence nor the ability to
> deliver. Thus, as the population becomes more exposed to new ideas --
> through the Australian initiative itself -- and as the regime begins to
> recognize its limitations, it is possible that state control over any group
> deemed not overtly political will gradually erode. This will herald the
> reintroduction of facets of civil society, and even perhaps a modest
> pluralism. The Australian initiative, thus, is potentially the start of a
> tortured, tedious process, without which only stasis can be expected to reign.

This philosophy of "Civil Society first, Democracy second" essentially
is that of "Constructive Engagement". In "Constructive Engagement", free
market and economics incentives are utilised the governments to make
reforms. At the same time, it expects a "democracy-minded middle class"
to emerge from the population. The "Civil Society first, Democracy
second" philosophy is the most gentle variety of the "Constructive
Engagements". In worst case scenario, its contexts could be interpreted
to sound like some colonial educators who said, "the Burmese population
have to be brought to the level of civilisation that fit to enjoy Her
Majesty Government". That sort of attitude is quite patronising to the
Burmese. Like that of Australians, anyone is welcomed to help Burmese
people in a forthright and straightforward manner: but no patronising
please!

I think the task of encouraging civil society in Burma is certainly
important. However, we must not confuse such issue with replacing a
dictatorial government with a popularly elected one. Since societies
tends to move slowly, even in the case of Burmese having a government
that allows civil and political freedom, time taken to absorb various
aspects of democracy and democratic rules, including development of
civil society, can be many years. Closest example of that are the 
Philippines, Thailand and Taiwan: we begin to see in those societies 
totally free press, independent judiciary and a healthy mix of
political, non-governmental and human rights organisations have emerged.
What we need in Burma is the back bones of democracy--press freedom and
a representative government. Starting from that, various aspects of
democracy should have to be built.

Some academics seek to blame Burmese society for being too
"authoritarian- structured" that it couldn't foster a democratic rule.
On this line of discussion, one might look at Prof Pye or Prof Mg Mg
Gyi's books (if you were to look at those book and make judgment on
Burmese politics, the Burmese may well have to wait democracy for
another 200 years!!). I don't see any difference amongst societies of
those countries with ourselves. We can also look at India as example for
our democratic inspirations, too.

My understanding about the emergence of a democratic rule is that it
should be based on the ability of political movement and its leadership.
On the subject of emergence of a popularly elected government, it is
wrong to focus on the development of civil society as a substitute to
the political movement. In other words, inspite of deficiencies within
society, the politics must find its way through in establishing a
democratic rule. So, the solution to the confused academics is simple:
believe in the Burmese democracy leadership; believe in Aung San Suu
Kyi; trust them and help them. We will certainly get there to democracy.

> 
> Even if the commission were to be established, its effective operation
> likely will be delayed. Still, the very existence of a body to which human
> rights protests can be lodged -- if not yet acted on -- can begin an
> incremental process towards change. Many say that such a commission would

Well--- even in Australia, the Human Rights Commission, along with other
human rights NGOs and activists, are frequently cited as "paper tigers".
The HR Commission here doesn't appears to have the power to make a
binding-rule
on its own. It does have the power to investigate human rights
complaints "freely" (I put it in quote because the Commission
investigation depends on government fundings too). But, in the end, the
Commission has to relied upon the judiciary-- i.e. independent from the
government, of course. This is the only mean for HR Commission here to
get a ruling on matters. The Constitution here does not include the bill
of rights.

For some results, the Human Rights Commission here seems also relied
upon the press, NGOs and GONGOs (Government Owned Non-Government
Organisations). From these advocacy groups and through the public, the
Commission's concerns are brought to bear upon the decision makings of
the parliament. In addition, the Commissioner here can talk freely to
any MPs and Government Ministers, I suppose.

In situation of Burma, operation of a Human Rights Commission may be
considered effective if it has (1) the rights to investigate any human
rights complaints (2) the rights to disseminate freely about the human
rights information. But, it will be a waste of time to expect Burmese
junta to set up an "independent" human rights commission.


> only serve as a propaganda tool for the military, as well as prove
> ineffective. For the near term, they are likely to be right, But neither
> Burmese nor foreigners are fools and over the longer term the military will
> not be able to keep up the propaganda charade. Indeed, it is best to
> remember that the initiative represents only a modest first step in
> engaging the military -- a "toe in the water," as Sidoti put it. Others
> worry that the Japanese, for example, may follow up on this to renew major
> economic assistance. But this underrates donors' understanding of the
> dynamics of power in Burma and the lack of economic reforms urgently needed
> before assistance may be employed effectively.

Given that the elected representatives in the form of CRPP being
recognised properly, any Japanese or Americans or Europeans or
Australians can explore whatever assistance or developmental issues 
they desire (we would need plenty of that, wouldn't we). But, nobody,
including United Nations, should try to cleverly "cut-the-deals" with
Burmese junta -- it will not help Burmese people and will amounts to a
simple short sightedness.

Recent ICRC operation in Burma was the junta's initiative. We are not
overly critical to ICRC visits, even it is not being our initiative: we
do trust the integrity of ICRC. Unfortunately, ICRC do not share their
prison visit information to the public. But we now atleast know 18,000
possible political prisoners in Burma.

On the other hand, the visit by Australian Human Rights Commissioner or
initiatives to join up Asia-Pacific Human Rights Forums should not be
claimed, especially at the UN General Assembly, as a positive step made
on human rights. We've got to remember that the UN Human Rights Special
Rapporteur, including ILO Commission of inquiry, are not allowed to
visit Burma for 3-years now. Urgent and immediate cooperation to UN
Human Rights mechanisms must be demanded of the Burmese junta.

Finally, everyone has the right to talk to Burmese junta as long as one
knows what one is doing. But no one should waste the time of Burmese
people who are under severe repression.

With best regards, U Ne Oo.

> 
> Australia, a mid-sized power, has taken a step the major powers have been
> reluctant to take. It should be complimented. Even if this initiative
> proves less successful than intended, or even fails, the effort is
> nonetheless noteworthy and important. What Australia has done is to show a
> way to deal with Burma that involves neither confrontation nor appeasement,
> but rather engagement. Further engagement along this line may be the only
> way to wrench Burma out of its political and economic morass.
> 

-- 
HTTP://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~uneoo
EMAILS: drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx, uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
POSTMAIL: Dr U Ne Oo, 18 Shannon Place, Adelaide SA 5000, AUSTRALIA
[http://freeburma.org/[http://www.angelfire.com/al/homepageas/index.htm]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =