Saturday, 4 April 2009
‘Resistance Day’ demonstration, 27/3/2009, UK: A few thoughts for consideration about 2010 elections
By Christopher Dowling
It has been a little while since I attended a pro-democracy demonstration for
Burma and I was glad to be able to support this event organised by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) held outside the Burmese embassy and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on the 27th March 2009.
The UK based event was synchronised with activities inside Burma, drawing together the Burmese Diaspora democracy movements to those that are struggling inside Burma, an important connection to always maintain. Inside Burma the BDC commemorated Resistance Day by distributing pamphlets and postcards calling for all Burmese people to work in order to restore democracy and to free all political prisoners. They also sent an open letter to Burmese soldiers calling for them to stand with the people if they are genuinely patriotic. The postcards had on them portraits of Aung San Suu Kyi, Khun Htun Oo, Myo Yan Naung Thein, Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Htay Kyawe and Aung Than. The synchronising of activities inside and outside of Burma sends an incredibly strong message to the people inside Burma and to the world, and it is also a sign of how the Burmese democracy movement is developing and expanding within an increasingly globalising world. At the UK Resistance Day demonstration it was good to see some familiar faces standing together: Dr Win Naing (Chairman of the National League for Democracy Liberated Area – UK branch), Myo Thein (Director of Burma Democratic Concern), Nurul Islam (President of the Rohingya Organisation in the UK), Thant Zin Htike (Unit 2 Victory) Zin Zin Myo Thant (BDC Campaigner Officer) amongst various others from Burman and ethnic minority groups.
The resistance day that is being remembered refers to the start of General Aung San’s resistance to the WWII Imperial Japanese forces in Burma, actions that led to Burma’s eventual independence. The focus of the UK demonstration was to highlight that the political figures who conclusively won the only general election that has been held for many decades, i.e. the 1990 election, should have a say in Burma’s imminent constitutional and overall development, representing as they do the voice of the Burmese people. The imminent development in question and a crucial rallying cry for the pro-democracy movement at the moment is to reject or significantly revise the constitution of the junta’s sham 2010 election and thus reject the sham 2010 election. Sham because the result is already constitutionally predetermined to strongly favour the military establishment no matter how Burmese people vote. The appearance of elections is a very striking gesture for the junta to present to the world and they hope to use this gesture to gain a lot for themselves as the world reshuffles its geopolitical agendas in the wake of the global financial crisis and the beginning of the Obama administration. However, what the Burmese democracy movement is trying to point out is that it is just a gesture with no substance, the problems that the SPDC present to the Burmese people, to the development of ASEAN and to the stability of the broader region in relation to Chinese, Indian, Thai etc interests is still largely unchanged by the 2010 election. Furthermore, before the 2010 elections take place represents a good opportunity to improve the situation in Burma through confronting the junta about revising the constitution. Since these elections represent a greater degree of international legitimacy that the junta craves, they also represent an opportunity to pressure the junta to make these elections more genuine. The demonstration in front of the FCO, part of the Europe-wide day of action for Burma was also highlighting about the sham nature of the 2010 elections and was calling for governments within the EU to strengthen sanctions on Burma. On this front I think the democracy movement is feeling a bit more pessimistic because the Obama administration seems to be in the process of revising its current policy towards Burma and we have yet to see what will come of this. More about this below but it may be that we are looking at the prospect of a post sanctions policy of some sort from Obama’s administration. Whatever happens the Burmese people have already shown that they can adapt quickly to new situations, whether this is internationalising their cause (not unlike the Dalai Lama), quickly harnessing new technology like in the 2007 Saffron Revolution, or taking every opportunity that is presented to them to improve the lives of Burmese people inside Burma. Obama may yet provide many opportunities if the US is to play a larger role in Southeast Asia once again, just when the junta has again shown it’s true colours to the international community through it’s reaction to Cyclone Nargis.
It has taken the SPDC military junta more then sixteen years to complete their constitution, whereas General Aung San, it is instructive to note, managed to complete an earlier Burmese constitution in roughly three to four months under much more trying conditions during WWII. Where there was a will, developments followed swiftly. General Aung San is remembered on Resistance Day by the democracy movement for a number of reasons. Not only did he liberate Burma from the British and the Japanese, he created the modern Burmese army which has developed into that which is now ruling Burma and, importantly for the democracy movement, he had very definite views as to what role the army should play in politics, i.e. that the army should stay in the barracks. Thus the democracy movement like to remind the SPDC of where they came from and the advice of the general who brought them to prominence while commemorating Resistance Day, not least through evoking that general’s daughter, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her call for a second independence struggle.
This military constitution leading towards an imitation democracy was ratified without most Burmese people having read it and the referendum for which was held a mere week after Cyclone Nargis, Burma’s worst recorded natural disaster killing up to c.146, 000 people, displacing millions, and to which the military were very slow to offer humanitarian help. They withheld aid from those who were in immediate desperate need while insisting to continue with a constitutional referendum that took several years to reach. It seems most peculiar for the ruling junta to try to declare that it is looking after the people’s constitutional welfare while simultaneously causing a second tragedy of untold death and suffering through their withholding of aid, on top of the horrendous tragedy of Cyclone Nargis itself. It is the opinion of many Burmese people that the SPDC used the devastation of Cyclone Nargis to weaken the ethnic minorities that were in the areas affected, in particular the predominantly Christian ethnic Karen. The SPDC is currently negotiating a peace treaty with the Karen KNLA (the armed wing of the KNU), which has the distinction of having been engaged in the world’s longest running civil war with the Burmese army. The KNLA’s position is further weakened because Thailand has closed down important Thai based Karen support networks, while simultaneously mediating the peace treaty between the SPDC and the KNLA; thus making Thailand’s contribution to peace in Burma something that has a sting in its tail. While the prospect of cessation of war, especially such a long fought one, is always good in that it means loss of life and destruction will lessen and peaceful reconciliation can begin, if the Karen have been forced into a capitulation because of a natural disaster used against them and they are still refused a legitimate voice in the up and coming parliament, how can the potential peace last? And very recently the KNU has demanded that the international community take a role in rescuing Burma, once again another effort to internationalise Burma’s problems.
“Saw David Takapaw, vice-president of the Karen National Union (KNU), which is waging the world's longest running civil war against the Burmese regime, on Thursday said the international community’s concerted and timely action against the junta is needed in order to address the political deadlock inside the country.”
According to official Burmese news sources, the military constitution apparently achieved an incredible approval rating from more then 92% of the Burmese population, even though it excludes Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, allows the Senior General to directly appoint 25% of the parliament with military personnel, requires the newly appointed civilian president to have military experience and gives this president the power to dissolve parliament whenever ‘necessary’. The Burmese people apparently wanted to give legitimate constitutional power to a military junta that was simultaneously withholding humanitarian aid from them. I think that instead of this military propaganda, the real referendum regarding the Burmese people’s desires for their constitution and their future were expressed during the September 2007 Saffron Revolution. It was expressed loud and clear for the world to hear and it was not a call for imitation democracy but real democracy. Therefore, standing on the shoulders of this people’s referendum in September 2007, there was a call on Resistance Day 27/3/2009 to transform the current military constitution into a genuinely inclusive one, to include all major political groups in Burma to better ensure the future prospect of stability within the Burmese state.
Proximity to the new emerging Asian economic centres of power and the current global financial crisis may work to the juntas favour at the moment but it also must be kept in mind that any success that they achieve will probably further expose weaknesses within the Burmese military’s fickle political structure. The military will need to evolve, that is, it will need to develop a more stable political culture to ensure it can benefit from regional developments and for this it will increasingly need the participation of the Burmese people. Sitting between India and China gives Burma a renewed geo-political significance but also places Burma under a more scrutinising international eye. Burma offers China a land-route connection to the trading networks of the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean, without exposing Chinese interests to the more precarious and longer route through the straits of Malacca, Indonesia. The EU is a large trading partner with China and so the EU may end up gaining their future Chinese goods through Burma, which is to say the EU has a voice that China may listen to concerning Burma. The Burmese military and people seem, however, not to be so happy about an increased Chinese presence within Burma. There are accounts of xenophobic reactions to an increasing Chinese presence in Burma, which again will place more pressure on the fickle political structure within the military, especially on generals who are increasingly relying upon Chinese trade to build up their personal fortunes.
However, most of all I think the SPDC is hoping to gain from the fallout of the current global financial crisis and realignment of US foreign policy under Obama and Clinton. The fear generated by this global financial crisis has offered Obama the opportunity to renegotiate US foreign policy with just about everyone that was off of Bush’s list, whether Iran and Syria or Cuba, and so, it seems from Clinton’s Asia tour comments, with the Union of Myanmar as well. The effect of placing Afghanistan and Pakistan at the centre stage of US foreign policy will also dramatically impact upon how the US views Burma. The AfPak initiative is trying to bring more stability to the region and Obama is calling for political and as well as military efforts to be made region wide. Obama does not use language like ‘War on Terror’ and ‘Islamofascist’ and is e.g. trying to negotiate with moderate Taliban groups, i.e. all options are on the table. India and the US have finally agreed to trade nuclear technology, throwing the NPT treaty out the window, which is currently being revived with Russia at the moment probably because of the effect of US/India actions. The US clearly wants to be a greater part of South and Southeast Asia again, although hopefully not following the Vietnam War model. There has been a recent report that the Obama administration “wants to forge a common strategy with Asia to coax military-run Myanmar out of isolation, a senior official said Wednesday, suggesting six-way talks with North Korea (to end it’s nuclear program) could be a model”, thus with ASEAN, China, India, Japan. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hNFsFTOzY4WNkOA3rcRkDIHJVN3Q
The Asian strategy is different from that of the US and EU, which uses sanctions. So, it would seem that the ground is being prepared to lift sanctions at some point in the future and that this will represent US re-entering Southeast Asia to a greater degree. Burma may be the opportunity that the US wish to use to re-enter Southeast Asia so they will want to make a real impact in order to maintain their renewed post Guantanamo Bay international reputation, and they know there is a democracy movement that wishes to breath freer air in Burma. India has allowed Sri Lanka to pursue its war with the Tamil Tigers to its bloody conclusion without causing the Sri Lankans any extra international pressure, even offering commando training to the Sri Lankan army according to the Guardian. India would seem to be trying to gain favour and strengthen the countries on its periphery, what during the British colonial age was called the Great Game, and which is what in the above weblink article is probably referred to when the Obama administration declares that “nations with sway over the junta should avoid "recreating a mini version of the Great Game."”. Taking all this in mind, it is with curiosity that I discover that Robert Blake, the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, is visiting Burma and has upped diplomatic relations between the US and the Union of Myanmar. What did he learn from the recent Sri Lankan experience that he wants to apply to Burma or for that matter to US involvement in Southeast Asia? Watch this space…
If the US is trying to re-enter Southeast Asia, the status of Burma will be a real concern, as it is for ASEAN, and Obama’s route into ASEAN looks like it will travel through Indonesia. It was the only, but largest of, ASEAN country that Hillary Clinton visited on her Asia tour and it holds a special place for Obama because he went to school there for four years, he has a personal connection to the country which Indonesia seems to be proud of. It also has the experience of transforming from a military dictatorship to a democracy, experience that a reforming Burmese military will most likely trust. Being a largely Muslim country and seeing that Obama made an explicit call to the Muslim world, it means that if Indonesia does play a larger role in connection with reforming Burma, the current Burmese Rohingya issue may act as a lightening rod bringing world attention to how the Burmese military state will need to reform to become more democratic. The Rohingya issue may also bring about a means through which Indonesia can comment upon what is happening in Burma, perhaps. In this respect it is heartening to see Nurul Islam speak on behalf of the Rohingya outside the Burmese Embassy for this year’s Resistance Day, standing with the National League for Democracy, Burma Democratic Concern, and Unit 2 Victory.
Creating regional financial stability within ASEAN has never been more important with the current global financial crisis upon us and in 2015 ASEAN is set to negotiate creating a stronger regional economic community, following the example of the European Union that led to the creation of the Eurozone. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office are very interested in this development indeed according to their website.
"The UK is watching with interest the developments that are already underway for ASEAN to develop into an economic community by 2015. ASEAN is at an important juncture and I hope that the new Charter will be a good basis for further ASEAN integration.”
I think that the SPDC also has its eye on this 2015 economic goal and that that is why it stopped at nothing, not even Cyclone Nargis, to get an imitation democracy in place so that it can benefit financially from this new proposed Southeast Asian economic community. This means, however, that once/if the credit crunch subsides before 2015 and the fear driving the current global effort to fix the world economy has reached safer and saner ground, there can be renewed efforts from US, China, India, UK, ASEAN etc to withhold the full financial benefits of the 2015 ASEAN economic community from Burma until it lives up to its promise of guaranteeing democracy to the Burmese people. The opportunities that the global financial crisis may create to increase links between Burma and ASEAN and with the international community, in addition to the increased links that were established through the disaster relief for Cyclone Nargis, may force the SPDC to reform even further. This reform may happen more quickly still if Burmese discontent peacefully boils over again in 2010 or leading up to 2015 like it did in 2007 and in 1988 and as ever, the world is ever watching.
There is another reason that was mentioned as I was walking from the Burmese Embassy to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how Burma has become more significant. The Burmese military may have been able to influence the Chinese government through their disaster (mis)management, i.e. comparing the response of the Chinese government to the Sichuan Earthquake disaster with that of the Burmese junta to Cyclone Nargis. These two horrendous disasters happened very close to one another, with the Sichuan Earthquake following Cyclone Nargis. The Chinese government responded to the Sichuan Earthquake in a very different manner to how it usually responds to natural disasters within China. Usually, the Chinese government acts very much like the Burmese junta in not allowing foreign NGO assistance and not allowing international media coverage of a Chinese disaster relief operation. This pattern changed totally with the response to the Sichuan earthquake. The Chinese government dramatically opened up to foreign assistance and foreign media coverage, it let the world in, in a way it had never done before. I think this had something to do with the fact that not only was this disaster so terrible that it was of international concern, not just Chinese, but also because the Chinese government did not wish to be compared in any way with the Burmese junta’s response to Cyclone Nargis. Any comparison to the shameful response of the Burmese junta to the desperate needs of the Burmese people, especially leading up to China’s big coming out party to the world at the Beijing Olympics, would have ruined China’s international reputation. If the Burmese junta influenced the Chinese government to be much more open and transparent in relation to disaster relief then they normally would because of the shamefulness of Than Shwe’s actions, then maybe it is in the interests of the Hu Jintao to make sure Burma dose not embarrass China in the future by supporting a more acceptable and stable Burmese government. An additional reverse argument is that Than Shwe’s shameful behaviour presented an opportunity to the Chinese government to be even more open and transparent to the world, demonstrating an example of when the international community was wholeheartedly supporting the Chinese people in a time of great need, and that having experienced the benefit of this Hu Jintao may wish to encourage Burma to be more open and transparent.
Continuing our discussions, we looked at some of the differences between Burma in 1988 and 2007-09. During the 8-8-88 demonstrations, the world found out about the killing of c.3000 pro-democracy demonstrators after the event. The world media would never again have the excuse of not having heard of or knowing where Burma was after such a harsh response by the Burmese military. By the 2007 Saffron Revolution, the internet was established and it was possible to see technology such as YouTube used to promote democracy. The Burmese people were able to tell the world as and before events happened. It was amazing and heartening to see the internet used for such egalitarian purposes. There was another difference that I thought was striking. In 1988 most Burmese still lived in Burma. By 2007 it was possible to speak of large Burmese Diaspora communities around the world, in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, USA, UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Germany, France etc. I could not help but think that while the World Wide Web had been put to amazing use by the Burmese people to inform the world about what was happening in Burma, the Burmese people themselves acted in tandem with the internet forming a human network around the world. This is a significant development, I think. The Burmese people have become much more internationalised and just by keeping in contact with relatives in Burma, they are breaking Burma’s isolation from the world and breaking down the wall of silence that the military rely upon to continue the abuse of their own people. This development alone must mean that the SPDC must reform in some way to take account of this Burmese Diaspora. Thus on all fronts, whether through ASEAN’s regional development and consolidation between the major emerging economic centres of China and India and through international disaster relief efforts, as well as through the movement of Burma’s own peoples around the world, Burma is slowing opening up to the world. I brought up the point that the Burmese people were internationalising themselves at a Burma discussion panel held by the BBC World Service and UK parliamentarians within the Houses of Parliament, Portcullis House, January 2008. I was answering a statement proposing that the military junta was the only effective institution to negotiate with in Burma and that the military was producing more cadets out of their military academies then the beleaguered democracy movement was producing activists. My contention was that we have to take into account the increasing Burmese Diaspora who are educating and training themselves to be the next generation’s professionals within Burma, balancing out the military academy’s achievements. When I retold this story to those at the Resistance Day demonstration they countered my argument as follows. While there may indeed be more formally accredited military cadets then there are formally declared democracy activists inside Burma, the direct experience that most Burmese people go through to organise resistance and for their own everyday existence within the difficult conditions of Burma, as well as creating networks of mutual support for each other, are worth a million lesser quality certificates from a military educational institution that relies more upon loyalty to Than Shwe then it does upon finding effective answers to Burma’s problems. The Burmese people may be learning within a severe school of bitter experience but their experience of what it takes to survive and organise themselves, especially in a way that informs the whole world, is a skill that no academy can offer a degree certificate for. The Burmese Diaspora can play an important role in supporting them. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the UN Secretary General U Thant and many Burmese Buddhist monks are the forerunners of this Burmese Diaspora because they have been able to gain the benefit of a more open education, a wide range of professional training and a global perspective of Burma, and they have struggled hard to improve life in Burma. While Than Shwe tries to ignore and sideline Daw Suu, and the military tried to refuse an official Burmese recognition of U Thant’s achievements, they may find it more difficult still to keep quiet the thousands of Burmese who have now lived and worked outside Burma. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s efforts to improve Burmese society and to start a second struggle for independence may be multiplied by many thousands and tens of thousands as the Burmese Diaspora returns to Burma, and because of the global financial crisis many of this Burmese Diaspora are indeed just now returning home. By 2010 they will have joined those that are angry in Burma about how the junta reacted to Cyclone Nargis and the Saffron Revolution will still be fresh in all their minds. Than Shwe is very aware of this new and increasing demographic within Burmese society and has made recent public statements in order to discourage Burmese people from being influenced by ‘foreign’ ideas. I believe this is precisely because such a large proportion of Burmese people have now seen Burma from the outside. However, while Than Shwe may try to contain this new demographic by comparing the outside world to an abstract mode of thinking to be rejected, it is less easy to take away the effect of Burmese people’s direct experience of viewing Burma from the outside and from seeing what it is like to live in other countries for other peoples. To what degree will this Burmese Diaspora follow in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s footsteps and try to support the Burmese people in Burma and help make Burma a better country for everyone? I like to think this Burmese Diaspora, which will include people that will become military figures and civilian professionals, will act in such a way as to resolve the differences between the military establishment and the Burmese people and build upon the foundations of hard work that the Burmese people within Burma have planted into Burmese soil.
These were just a few thoughts after joining the Resistance Day demonstration 27/3/2009.
Copy from,
http://ashin-mettacara.com/burma/articles/432-resistance-day-demonstration-2732009-uk-a-few-thoughts-for-consideration-about-2010-elections
It has been a little while since I attended a pro-democracy demonstration for
Burma and I was glad to be able to support this event organised by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) held outside the Burmese embassy and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on the 27th March 2009.
The UK based event was synchronised with activities inside Burma, drawing together the Burmese Diaspora democracy movements to those that are struggling inside Burma, an important connection to always maintain. Inside Burma the BDC commemorated Resistance Day by distributing pamphlets and postcards calling for all Burmese people to work in order to restore democracy and to free all political prisoners. They also sent an open letter to Burmese soldiers calling for them to stand with the people if they are genuinely patriotic. The postcards had on them portraits of Aung San Suu Kyi, Khun Htun Oo, Myo Yan Naung Thein, Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Htay Kyawe and Aung Than. The synchronising of activities inside and outside of Burma sends an incredibly strong message to the people inside Burma and to the world, and it is also a sign of how the Burmese democracy movement is developing and expanding within an increasingly globalising world. At the UK Resistance Day demonstration it was good to see some familiar faces standing together: Dr Win Naing (Chairman of the National League for Democracy Liberated Area – UK branch), Myo Thein (Director of Burma Democratic Concern), Nurul Islam (President of the Rohingya Organisation in the UK), Thant Zin Htike (Unit 2 Victory) Zin Zin Myo Thant (BDC Campaigner Officer) amongst various others from Burman and ethnic minority groups.
The resistance day that is being remembered refers to the start of General Aung San’s resistance to the WWII Imperial Japanese forces in Burma, actions that led to Burma’s eventual independence. The focus of the UK demonstration was to highlight that the political figures who conclusively won the only general election that has been held for many decades, i.e. the 1990 election, should have a say in Burma’s imminent constitutional and overall development, representing as they do the voice of the Burmese people. The imminent development in question and a crucial rallying cry for the pro-democracy movement at the moment is to reject or significantly revise the constitution of the junta’s sham 2010 election and thus reject the sham 2010 election. Sham because the result is already constitutionally predetermined to strongly favour the military establishment no matter how Burmese people vote. The appearance of elections is a very striking gesture for the junta to present to the world and they hope to use this gesture to gain a lot for themselves as the world reshuffles its geopolitical agendas in the wake of the global financial crisis and the beginning of the Obama administration. However, what the Burmese democracy movement is trying to point out is that it is just a gesture with no substance, the problems that the SPDC present to the Burmese people, to the development of ASEAN and to the stability of the broader region in relation to Chinese, Indian, Thai etc interests is still largely unchanged by the 2010 election. Furthermore, before the 2010 elections take place represents a good opportunity to improve the situation in Burma through confronting the junta about revising the constitution. Since these elections represent a greater degree of international legitimacy that the junta craves, they also represent an opportunity to pressure the junta to make these elections more genuine. The demonstration in front of the FCO, part of the Europe-wide day of action for Burma was also highlighting about the sham nature of the 2010 elections and was calling for governments within the EU to strengthen sanctions on Burma. On this front I think the democracy movement is feeling a bit more pessimistic because the Obama administration seems to be in the process of revising its current policy towards Burma and we have yet to see what will come of this. More about this below but it may be that we are looking at the prospect of a post sanctions policy of some sort from Obama’s administration. Whatever happens the Burmese people have already shown that they can adapt quickly to new situations, whether this is internationalising their cause (not unlike the Dalai Lama), quickly harnessing new technology like in the 2007 Saffron Revolution, or taking every opportunity that is presented to them to improve the lives of Burmese people inside Burma. Obama may yet provide many opportunities if the US is to play a larger role in Southeast Asia once again, just when the junta has again shown it’s true colours to the international community through it’s reaction to Cyclone Nargis.
It has taken the SPDC military junta more then sixteen years to complete their constitution, whereas General Aung San, it is instructive to note, managed to complete an earlier Burmese constitution in roughly three to four months under much more trying conditions during WWII. Where there was a will, developments followed swiftly. General Aung San is remembered on Resistance Day by the democracy movement for a number of reasons. Not only did he liberate Burma from the British and the Japanese, he created the modern Burmese army which has developed into that which is now ruling Burma and, importantly for the democracy movement, he had very definite views as to what role the army should play in politics, i.e. that the army should stay in the barracks. Thus the democracy movement like to remind the SPDC of where they came from and the advice of the general who brought them to prominence while commemorating Resistance Day, not least through evoking that general’s daughter, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her call for a second independence struggle.
This military constitution leading towards an imitation democracy was ratified without most Burmese people having read it and the referendum for which was held a mere week after Cyclone Nargis, Burma’s worst recorded natural disaster killing up to c.146, 000 people, displacing millions, and to which the military were very slow to offer humanitarian help. They withheld aid from those who were in immediate desperate need while insisting to continue with a constitutional referendum that took several years to reach. It seems most peculiar for the ruling junta to try to declare that it is looking after the people’s constitutional welfare while simultaneously causing a second tragedy of untold death and suffering through their withholding of aid, on top of the horrendous tragedy of Cyclone Nargis itself. It is the opinion of many Burmese people that the SPDC used the devastation of Cyclone Nargis to weaken the ethnic minorities that were in the areas affected, in particular the predominantly Christian ethnic Karen. The SPDC is currently negotiating a peace treaty with the Karen KNLA (the armed wing of the KNU), which has the distinction of having been engaged in the world’s longest running civil war with the Burmese army. The KNLA’s position is further weakened because Thailand has closed down important Thai based Karen support networks, while simultaneously mediating the peace treaty between the SPDC and the KNLA; thus making Thailand’s contribution to peace in Burma something that has a sting in its tail. While the prospect of cessation of war, especially such a long fought one, is always good in that it means loss of life and destruction will lessen and peaceful reconciliation can begin, if the Karen have been forced into a capitulation because of a natural disaster used against them and they are still refused a legitimate voice in the up and coming parliament, how can the potential peace last? And very recently the KNU has demanded that the international community take a role in rescuing Burma, once again another effort to internationalise Burma’s problems.
“Saw David Takapaw, vice-president of the Karen National Union (KNU), which is waging the world's longest running civil war against the Burmese regime, on Thursday said the international community’s concerted and timely action against the junta is needed in order to address the political deadlock inside the country.”
According to official Burmese news sources, the military constitution apparently achieved an incredible approval rating from more then 92% of the Burmese population, even though it excludes Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, allows the Senior General to directly appoint 25% of the parliament with military personnel, requires the newly appointed civilian president to have military experience and gives this president the power to dissolve parliament whenever ‘necessary’. The Burmese people apparently wanted to give legitimate constitutional power to a military junta that was simultaneously withholding humanitarian aid from them. I think that instead of this military propaganda, the real referendum regarding the Burmese people’s desires for their constitution and their future were expressed during the September 2007 Saffron Revolution. It was expressed loud and clear for the world to hear and it was not a call for imitation democracy but real democracy. Therefore, standing on the shoulders of this people’s referendum in September 2007, there was a call on Resistance Day 27/3/2009 to transform the current military constitution into a genuinely inclusive one, to include all major political groups in Burma to better ensure the future prospect of stability within the Burmese state.
Proximity to the new emerging Asian economic centres of power and the current global financial crisis may work to the juntas favour at the moment but it also must be kept in mind that any success that they achieve will probably further expose weaknesses within the Burmese military’s fickle political structure. The military will need to evolve, that is, it will need to develop a more stable political culture to ensure it can benefit from regional developments and for this it will increasingly need the participation of the Burmese people. Sitting between India and China gives Burma a renewed geo-political significance but also places Burma under a more scrutinising international eye. Burma offers China a land-route connection to the trading networks of the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean, without exposing Chinese interests to the more precarious and longer route through the straits of Malacca, Indonesia. The EU is a large trading partner with China and so the EU may end up gaining their future Chinese goods through Burma, which is to say the EU has a voice that China may listen to concerning Burma. The Burmese military and people seem, however, not to be so happy about an increased Chinese presence within Burma. There are accounts of xenophobic reactions to an increasing Chinese presence in Burma, which again will place more pressure on the fickle political structure within the military, especially on generals who are increasingly relying upon Chinese trade to build up their personal fortunes.
However, most of all I think the SPDC is hoping to gain from the fallout of the current global financial crisis and realignment of US foreign policy under Obama and Clinton. The fear generated by this global financial crisis has offered Obama the opportunity to renegotiate US foreign policy with just about everyone that was off of Bush’s list, whether Iran and Syria or Cuba, and so, it seems from Clinton’s Asia tour comments, with the Union of Myanmar as well. The effect of placing Afghanistan and Pakistan at the centre stage of US foreign policy will also dramatically impact upon how the US views Burma. The AfPak initiative is trying to bring more stability to the region and Obama is calling for political and as well as military efforts to be made region wide. Obama does not use language like ‘War on Terror’ and ‘Islamofascist’ and is e.g. trying to negotiate with moderate Taliban groups, i.e. all options are on the table. India and the US have finally agreed to trade nuclear technology, throwing the NPT treaty out the window, which is currently being revived with Russia at the moment probably because of the effect of US/India actions. The US clearly wants to be a greater part of South and Southeast Asia again, although hopefully not following the Vietnam War model. There has been a recent report that the Obama administration “wants to forge a common strategy with Asia to coax military-run Myanmar out of isolation, a senior official said Wednesday, suggesting six-way talks with North Korea (to end it’s nuclear program) could be a model”, thus with ASEAN, China, India, Japan. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hNFsFTOzY4WNkOA3rcRkDIHJVN3Q
The Asian strategy is different from that of the US and EU, which uses sanctions. So, it would seem that the ground is being prepared to lift sanctions at some point in the future and that this will represent US re-entering Southeast Asia to a greater degree. Burma may be the opportunity that the US wish to use to re-enter Southeast Asia so they will want to make a real impact in order to maintain their renewed post Guantanamo Bay international reputation, and they know there is a democracy movement that wishes to breath freer air in Burma. India has allowed Sri Lanka to pursue its war with the Tamil Tigers to its bloody conclusion without causing the Sri Lankans any extra international pressure, even offering commando training to the Sri Lankan army according to the Guardian. India would seem to be trying to gain favour and strengthen the countries on its periphery, what during the British colonial age was called the Great Game, and which is what in the above weblink article is probably referred to when the Obama administration declares that “nations with sway over the junta should avoid "recreating a mini version of the Great Game."”. Taking all this in mind, it is with curiosity that I discover that Robert Blake, the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, is visiting Burma and has upped diplomatic relations between the US and the Union of Myanmar. What did he learn from the recent Sri Lankan experience that he wants to apply to Burma or for that matter to US involvement in Southeast Asia? Watch this space…
If the US is trying to re-enter Southeast Asia, the status of Burma will be a real concern, as it is for ASEAN, and Obama’s route into ASEAN looks like it will travel through Indonesia. It was the only, but largest of, ASEAN country that Hillary Clinton visited on her Asia tour and it holds a special place for Obama because he went to school there for four years, he has a personal connection to the country which Indonesia seems to be proud of. It also has the experience of transforming from a military dictatorship to a democracy, experience that a reforming Burmese military will most likely trust. Being a largely Muslim country and seeing that Obama made an explicit call to the Muslim world, it means that if Indonesia does play a larger role in connection with reforming Burma, the current Burmese Rohingya issue may act as a lightening rod bringing world attention to how the Burmese military state will need to reform to become more democratic. The Rohingya issue may also bring about a means through which Indonesia can comment upon what is happening in Burma, perhaps. In this respect it is heartening to see Nurul Islam speak on behalf of the Rohingya outside the Burmese Embassy for this year’s Resistance Day, standing with the National League for Democracy, Burma Democratic Concern, and Unit 2 Victory.
Creating regional financial stability within ASEAN has never been more important with the current global financial crisis upon us and in 2015 ASEAN is set to negotiate creating a stronger regional economic community, following the example of the European Union that led to the creation of the Eurozone. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office are very interested in this development indeed according to their website.
"The UK is watching with interest the developments that are already underway for ASEAN to develop into an economic community by 2015. ASEAN is at an important juncture and I hope that the new Charter will be a good basis for further ASEAN integration.”
I think that the SPDC also has its eye on this 2015 economic goal and that that is why it stopped at nothing, not even Cyclone Nargis, to get an imitation democracy in place so that it can benefit financially from this new proposed Southeast Asian economic community. This means, however, that once/if the credit crunch subsides before 2015 and the fear driving the current global effort to fix the world economy has reached safer and saner ground, there can be renewed efforts from US, China, India, UK, ASEAN etc to withhold the full financial benefits of the 2015 ASEAN economic community from Burma until it lives up to its promise of guaranteeing democracy to the Burmese people. The opportunities that the global financial crisis may create to increase links between Burma and ASEAN and with the international community, in addition to the increased links that were established through the disaster relief for Cyclone Nargis, may force the SPDC to reform even further. This reform may happen more quickly still if Burmese discontent peacefully boils over again in 2010 or leading up to 2015 like it did in 2007 and in 1988 and as ever, the world is ever watching.
There is another reason that was mentioned as I was walking from the Burmese Embassy to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how Burma has become more significant. The Burmese military may have been able to influence the Chinese government through their disaster (mis)management, i.e. comparing the response of the Chinese government to the Sichuan Earthquake disaster with that of the Burmese junta to Cyclone Nargis. These two horrendous disasters happened very close to one another, with the Sichuan Earthquake following Cyclone Nargis. The Chinese government responded to the Sichuan Earthquake in a very different manner to how it usually responds to natural disasters within China. Usually, the Chinese government acts very much like the Burmese junta in not allowing foreign NGO assistance and not allowing international media coverage of a Chinese disaster relief operation. This pattern changed totally with the response to the Sichuan earthquake. The Chinese government dramatically opened up to foreign assistance and foreign media coverage, it let the world in, in a way it had never done before. I think this had something to do with the fact that not only was this disaster so terrible that it was of international concern, not just Chinese, but also because the Chinese government did not wish to be compared in any way with the Burmese junta’s response to Cyclone Nargis. Any comparison to the shameful response of the Burmese junta to the desperate needs of the Burmese people, especially leading up to China’s big coming out party to the world at the Beijing Olympics, would have ruined China’s international reputation. If the Burmese junta influenced the Chinese government to be much more open and transparent in relation to disaster relief then they normally would because of the shamefulness of Than Shwe’s actions, then maybe it is in the interests of the Hu Jintao to make sure Burma dose not embarrass China in the future by supporting a more acceptable and stable Burmese government. An additional reverse argument is that Than Shwe’s shameful behaviour presented an opportunity to the Chinese government to be even more open and transparent to the world, demonstrating an example of when the international community was wholeheartedly supporting the Chinese people in a time of great need, and that having experienced the benefit of this Hu Jintao may wish to encourage Burma to be more open and transparent.
Continuing our discussions, we looked at some of the differences between Burma in 1988 and 2007-09. During the 8-8-88 demonstrations, the world found out about the killing of c.3000 pro-democracy demonstrators after the event. The world media would never again have the excuse of not having heard of or knowing where Burma was after such a harsh response by the Burmese military. By the 2007 Saffron Revolution, the internet was established and it was possible to see technology such as YouTube used to promote democracy. The Burmese people were able to tell the world as and before events happened. It was amazing and heartening to see the internet used for such egalitarian purposes. There was another difference that I thought was striking. In 1988 most Burmese still lived in Burma. By 2007 it was possible to speak of large Burmese Diaspora communities around the world, in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, USA, UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Germany, France etc. I could not help but think that while the World Wide Web had been put to amazing use by the Burmese people to inform the world about what was happening in Burma, the Burmese people themselves acted in tandem with the internet forming a human network around the world. This is a significant development, I think. The Burmese people have become much more internationalised and just by keeping in contact with relatives in Burma, they are breaking Burma’s isolation from the world and breaking down the wall of silence that the military rely upon to continue the abuse of their own people. This development alone must mean that the SPDC must reform in some way to take account of this Burmese Diaspora. Thus on all fronts, whether through ASEAN’s regional development and consolidation between the major emerging economic centres of China and India and through international disaster relief efforts, as well as through the movement of Burma’s own peoples around the world, Burma is slowing opening up to the world. I brought up the point that the Burmese people were internationalising themselves at a Burma discussion panel held by the BBC World Service and UK parliamentarians within the Houses of Parliament, Portcullis House, January 2008. I was answering a statement proposing that the military junta was the only effective institution to negotiate with in Burma and that the military was producing more cadets out of their military academies then the beleaguered democracy movement was producing activists. My contention was that we have to take into account the increasing Burmese Diaspora who are educating and training themselves to be the next generation’s professionals within Burma, balancing out the military academy’s achievements. When I retold this story to those at the Resistance Day demonstration they countered my argument as follows. While there may indeed be more formally accredited military cadets then there are formally declared democracy activists inside Burma, the direct experience that most Burmese people go through to organise resistance and for their own everyday existence within the difficult conditions of Burma, as well as creating networks of mutual support for each other, are worth a million lesser quality certificates from a military educational institution that relies more upon loyalty to Than Shwe then it does upon finding effective answers to Burma’s problems. The Burmese people may be learning within a severe school of bitter experience but their experience of what it takes to survive and organise themselves, especially in a way that informs the whole world, is a skill that no academy can offer a degree certificate for. The Burmese Diaspora can play an important role in supporting them. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the UN Secretary General U Thant and many Burmese Buddhist monks are the forerunners of this Burmese Diaspora because they have been able to gain the benefit of a more open education, a wide range of professional training and a global perspective of Burma, and they have struggled hard to improve life in Burma. While Than Shwe tries to ignore and sideline Daw Suu, and the military tried to refuse an official Burmese recognition of U Thant’s achievements, they may find it more difficult still to keep quiet the thousands of Burmese who have now lived and worked outside Burma. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s efforts to improve Burmese society and to start a second struggle for independence may be multiplied by many thousands and tens of thousands as the Burmese Diaspora returns to Burma, and because of the global financial crisis many of this Burmese Diaspora are indeed just now returning home. By 2010 they will have joined those that are angry in Burma about how the junta reacted to Cyclone Nargis and the Saffron Revolution will still be fresh in all their minds. Than Shwe is very aware of this new and increasing demographic within Burmese society and has made recent public statements in order to discourage Burmese people from being influenced by ‘foreign’ ideas. I believe this is precisely because such a large proportion of Burmese people have now seen Burma from the outside. However, while Than Shwe may try to contain this new demographic by comparing the outside world to an abstract mode of thinking to be rejected, it is less easy to take away the effect of Burmese people’s direct experience of viewing Burma from the outside and from seeing what it is like to live in other countries for other peoples. To what degree will this Burmese Diaspora follow in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s footsteps and try to support the Burmese people in Burma and help make Burma a better country for everyone? I like to think this Burmese Diaspora, which will include people that will become military figures and civilian professionals, will act in such a way as to resolve the differences between the military establishment and the Burmese people and build upon the foundations of hard work that the Burmese people within Burma have planted into Burmese soil.
These were just a few thoughts after joining the Resistance Day demonstration 27/3/2009.
Copy from,
http://ashin-mettacara.com/burma/articles/432-resistance-day-demonstration-2732009-uk-a-few-thoughts-for-consideration-about-2010-elections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
