I n t e r n a t i o n a l Z e i t s c h r i f t
About ·
Submissions ·
Archived Issues ·
Literature & Book Archives ·
Home
|
|
Moving Forward in Burma
Aung Sung
Suu Kyi has spent a total of twelve years under house arrest. The daughter
of the Burmese independence leader General Aung Sung, Ms. Suu Kyi has
in theory been prime minister-elect since 1990 but her election led
to the imposition of martial law. Her father had been allied with Japanese
military expansion until 1944, when he read the writing on the wall
and took up arms against the Japanese Imperial Army. After the surrender
of the Japanese General Aung Sung ended his brief alliance with the
then returned British colonial masters of Burma, and began to agitate
for independence. In the spring of 1947 independence was achieved, but
General Aung Sung was assassinated by a Burmese rival in July of that
year. Thus both father and daughter earned their positions as leaders
of the Burmese people, but never actually lead. It’s arguable that
both remain heroes of the Burmese people because they were unsullied
by the day to day problems of running the country, but it’s inarguable
Ms. Suu Kyi has inherited her father’s paladinic status. The international community has been shocked and appalled by the regime’s shambolic handling of the natural disaster. In fact, the regime has used the death of tens of thousands of its own citizens to further entrench its power by pushing through a referendum on its rule and taking credit for the distribution of the little aid that gets through. If it took Cyclone Nargris to make the international community notice the utter moral bankruptcy of the Burmese regime, then they haven’t really been watching. This is a regime that once called itself the “State Law and Order Commission” until they realized that the Orwellian acronym SLORC was reminiscent of fictional organizations such as SPECTRE and KAOS. In 1997 the quite plausible prospect of their organization (or lack thereof) being confused with Bondish bad guys led them to change their title to another oxymoron, “State Peace and Development Council”. The SPDC has taken it upon itself to re-name the country Myanmyar (it’s pre-colonial name that didn’t bother those who actually led the nation out of colonialism) and move its capital to the mountain redoubt of Pyinmana in the typical totalitarian manner of erasing history and governing from bunkers. Burma was once the world’s largest rice exporter, but now recruitment of child soldiers and forced labour is about all Burma comes in at the top of the list of.
Cyclone Nargris
has once and for all exposed the SPDC as an authoritarian regime that
does not even posses the “make the trains run on time” efficiency
that apologists for such regimes usually claim. In fact it is precisely
the policies of the regime that keep petroleum laden Burma mired in
poverty while its neighbours enjoy “tiger” economies. To add to
Burma’s misery there is an on again/off again civil war between armed
factions of the Shan ethnic minority and the Burmese army. Ms. Suu Kyi’s
National Leauge for Democracy does agree with the SPDC that Shan independence
is out of the question. The would-be leader of an independent Shan state;
Crown Prince Hso Khan Fa, currently resides in Edmonton. He advocates
Quebec-style autonomy for the Shan, but few are listening. Ironically
he is a petroleum engineer exiled from a nation that could well use
some.
After Cyclone Nargris there were again glib calls for the international community
to “do something” about Burma. It’s somewhat unclear what that
“something” would be. Suggestions ranged from the very likely to
be ineffectual dropping of aid from aircraft more or less at random,
to a UN Security Council Resolution that the regime cooperate fully
with aid efforts, to a wholesale invasion. Apparently assisting the
Shan factions who actually are fighting the Burmese army is not as sexy
an idea as parachuting commandos into the SPDC’s lair once the Security
Council signs their death warrant. In fact any meanignful Security
Council Resolution would undoubtebly be vetoed by Burma’s Chinese
allies. The prospect of Burma becoming a liberal democracy frightens
China’s rulers much more than the disgrace of the onstensibly socialist
Peoples Republic enabling what can only be described as a fascist regime.
The final irony is that the SPDC brand of fascism/militarism presently
propped up by China can trace its roots to the same Japanese facism/militarism
that led to the deaths of about twenty million Chinese! China protects
the SPDC despite the fact that they most likely find them an exasperating
client state much like North Korea. This is the same dynamic that prevents
the Security Council from taking any meaningful action against Sudan.
To provide political cover Burma enlisted the Association of South East Asian Nations
to distribute aid. The ASEAN effort got of to a slow start with the
Royal Thai Air Force attempting to render at least one of their dozen
C-130s airworthy. In contrast the USS Essex was denied permission to
land in Burma, or even utulize her twenty or so helicopters. The frustration
of the crew of the same vessel that has a proud history of delivering
humanitarian assistance to such places as East Timor and Aceh can only
be imagined. Eventually some aid did get through, but the ASEAN effort
was no where near as timely or effective as an unhindered international
effort could have been.
That ASEAN would act as a enabler for the SPDC is not suprising. ASEAN
has a long history of delivering only the midlest of rebukes to the
SPDC. The nations that comprise ASEAN all something in common with the
SPDC-Thailand is ruled by a military junta albeit a user-friendly one,
Singapore is hardly a democracy although the trains do run on time,
and Indonesia and Malaysia have human rights issues of their own. Thus
it’s naïve to think that ASEAN will ever deal effectively with this
problem in their own backyard. As it is, SPDC leader General Than Shwe
is said to regularly travel to Singapore for medical care and to take
care of his personal finances.
However the same internationalist crowd that once invoked the responsibility to
protect in Burma has learned to like the token ASEAN effort. To actually
go before the Security Council and then inevitably be rebuffed by China
would expose the empty internationalist posturing of the likes of Michael
Ignatieff and the European Parliment. In fact in January 2007 China
and Russia vetoed a resolution requiring the restoration of democracy
to Burma. It seems the principle of democracy is for the back pages,
but get in the way of crusading NGOs bearing rice and its front page
news. At least George W. Bush had the political acumen to ask only for
the vaguely worded Resolution 1440 before proceeding with the invasion
of Iraq, the guileless supporters of Burmese democracy apparently want
to go back to the Security Council for more abuse. What happens after
China delivers another big “NO” to those who feel the Security Council
is the answer to Burma’s problems? Obviously that would vindicate
those who feel the United Nations is merely a cozy club for dictators.
Therefore the token ASEAN effort succeeded in its mission of providing
political cover by forestalling a hopeless appeal to the Security Council.
Nevertheless there is something positive that could be done for Burma’s future.
A group could be formed to specifically address the issue of Burma.
The six-party talks with North Korea produced positive results the same
sort of approach might work in Burma. If the United States, China, Japan,
Australia, Singapore and Thailand worked together they could produce
positive results, if not democracy per se in Burma. Japanese firms have
not withdrawn completely from Burma and Aung Sun Syu Ki is still considered
her father’s daughter by rightist elements in Japan. Thus Japan has
a fair bit of leverage with the SPDC. In fact, the risk of offending
long-time associates in Tokyo may be what has kept the regime from physically
harming Ms. Suu Kyi all these years. China may not want to see a liberal
democracy in Burma, but the status quo has to be an embarrassment to
them. Obviously a situation where Burma was “open for business”
and could develop their resources would be in their interest.
Patient (if belated) diplomacy by Australia at long last resulted in independence
for East Timor and I feel Australia could once again be called on to
try to make a positive difference in the region. The East Timor outcome
greatly enhanced the image of Australian diplomacy in the region and
new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seems eager to test his mettle on the
world stage. Thailand would obviously prefer to have a peaceful and
prosperous neighbor and King Bhumibol has the same sort of moral authority
that Ms. Suu Kyi posseses. Futhermore Thailand is the nation that is
actually most directly affected by the Shan uprising in the form of
refugees. It seems many Shan prefer working for very little pay in Thailand,
to working for no pay in Burma. Singapore has an ongoing relationship
with the SPDC and would very much like to see the invesment climate
in Burma improve. The United States giving its blessing to investment
in Burma would do more than anything else to facilitate that, and there
would be no shortage of oppourtunities once Burma has even a halfway
respectable government.
General Shwe and his immediate cronies may be comfortable with their present isolation,
but other elements in the army may not be. Unlike the toothless ASEAN
or hamstrung UN, a Burmese engagement group could offer real incentives
and threaten real repercussions to the SPDC. An assurance of comfortable
exile and access to their loot may have to be tolerated, as much as
they deserve to swing at the end of a rope. Ms. Suu Kyi is on record
as being willing to work with anyone in the SPDC who is willing to work
with her, and it’s reasonable to assume she is as much of a pragmatist
as her father was. Consequently she might be to work with a younger
generation of army officers in a process that would see at the very
least a beneveloent, rather than an utterly loathsome junta in charge.
At the same time a process could be commenced to deal with the issue
of Shan autonomy. Ultimately Burma is an inherently wealthy country that has been reduced to poverty by bad government, and further impoverished by the sanctions that have been imposed against that government. In order for Burma to move forward there has to be a coordinated, consistent and patient diplomatic effort that is specifically concerned with Burma’s future. Empty posturing whenever Burma happens to make the news due to the latest natural or human-caused disaster will not achieve anything. |