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

Burma as an international problem (r)



BURMA AS AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM 

by Garry Woodward

In 1973 the Minister for Cooperatives in the Ne Win Government which ruled
Burma for 26 years said to me that Burma was economically a poor country,
but the richest in insurgencies. After the military government changed hats
and become the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), it managed
to add new, interrelated afflictions to those perennial problems, making
Burma indubitably 'the sick man of Asia'. The illness cannot be cured merely
by a further change of hats, to the State Peace and Development Council
(SPDC) on the 15th of November. Skewed spending on military expansion at the
expense of the social budget, and long periods of suspension of tertiary
education, are having disastrous and seemingly irreversible effects while
military rule lasts. In particular, on unpublished official figures, 1% of
the population is HIV positive and the last Australian Ambassador to Burma
cited expert assessments that it was 'exposed to greater epidemic than
perhaps any other country', and that 15% of children die before the age of
5. Corruption, not usually a feature of Burmese society and traditions, is
rampant.  Profits from the narcotics trade equal all legal exports and
encourage fiscal indiscipline as well as degradation of business standards,
which has damaged the reputation of overseas investors.

	SLORC has achieved the distinction of being unanimously condemned every
year since 1991 in the United Nations for human rights abuses and rejection
of serious dialogue

Burma's neighbors are also directly effected by refugee outflows and the
environmental effects of the rape of its non-renewable resources. SLORC has
achieved the distinction of being unanimously condemned every year since
1991 in the United Nations for human rights abuses and rejection of serious
dialogue with the lawfully elected National League for Democracy (NLD). In
short, Burma quintessentially typifies the new agenda of international
problems (except for nuclear proliferation) which has succeeded the
ideological straitjacket of the Cold War. With Burma's admission to ASEAN,
its problems, including the problem of legitimacy, have become ASEAN's.
There has clearly been a mis-estimate on ASEAN's part, arising from allowing
the emotions involved in its natural desire to round out regional membership
on its 30th anniversary, and its commitment to the doctrine of
non-interference, to outweigh thinking through the wider implications of
expanded membership. For Burma, its hope that it would resolve the problem
of its illegitimacy through membership of ASEAN has blown up in its face,
demonstrated by the deadlock between ASEAN and the European Union (EU) over
Burma's status at the 1998 round of ASEAN-European Union Consultations
(ASEM). The stalemate is unlikely to be resolvable by diplomatic finesse.
But nor does it seem likely that the stalemate will be resolved by Burma
making the sort of moves which would make it acceptable to European (and
other non-ASEAN) opinion. The change of name from SLORC, which Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright has described as 'an ugly acronym for an ugly
government', is cosmetic. It is new wine in old bottles. Or rather a more
accurate metaphor is that it is a reordering of high-chairs on the
governmental gravy train, because it is clear that it was sparked by ASEAN
investors being ripped off. If 'constructive engagement' progressed to
marriage when Burma was admitted to ASEAN in July, the ASEAN partners are
now adjuring Burma 'thou shalt not cheat'.

The policy significance of the move is small but adverse. It was done at the
behest of General Ne Win after he had talked to President Suharto. Because
the realization has taken place at Ne Win's bidding, arguably the new
generation of leaders is locked into the dynastic struggle between Ne Win
and the Aung San family. This struggle arises from face, the strongest
faction in Asia, and goes back well over half a century to differences
amongst the 'thirty comrades', to which Aung San Suu Kyi referred just
before her arrest in 1989.  Ne Win's recent crucial role puts to rest
speculation that he may have actually given up power when he announced his
retirement in 1988 (which he stoutly insisted he had in replying to an
appeal from former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1993). Because
this reorganization has taken place at President Suharto's suggestion, it
reinforces the moral commitment of the ASEAN 'old guard' leaders to the
Burmese military leadership. An emerging younger generation of ASEAN leaders
could thus find their hands tied in trying to encourage greater pragmatism
and open-mindedness. There had been encouraging signs in blat direction,
notably Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's statement that ASEAN
needed to 'move from being a largely reactive organization' and to
'seriously consider the idea of 'constructive intervention', and his urging
that the SLORC should be 'moving forward with its national reconciliation'.
Anwar was associated in August with the new Thai Deputy Foreign Minister
Suukhumbhand Paribatra in convening a conference on 'constructive
engagement' which took account of criticisms of ASEAN's implementation of it
in Burma by President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto.

It is sad that President Suharto on the other hand should be involved in the
consolidation of the Burmese military regime. It gives credence to the
SLORCs claim that it models itself on Indonesia. But when General Suharto
introduced Indonesia's 'New Order' after the excesses of the Sukarno era, he
did what the SLORC has resolutely refused to do, he gave the direction of
economic policy to Indonesian technocrats brought back from overseas (the
Berkeley Mafia) and he met with them regularly (though the Indonesians quip
that it was not long before they were taking the notes). Sound economic
policies made possible the formulation of the donor group the
Inter-Governmental Group for Indonesia (IGGI), in which Australia played a
leading role, and speeded Indonesia's recovery from bankruptcy. Sukarno's
lavish spending on arms was abandoned. The World Bank's 1994 World
Development Report estimated Burma's ratio of defense expenditure to
combined health and education expenditure at 155, compared with Indonesia's
5. Burma's army, now larger than Indonesia's, is a force for oppressing, not
serving, the people.

Recent developments are unlikely to be welcomed by Australia, whose Foreign
Minister, Alexander Downer, had just sent an official envoy to explore with
the SLORC the possibilities of it conducting real dialogue with the civilian
politicians, and then another envoy to reassure Aung San Suu Kyi (who enjoys
strong support in Australia) when SLORC tried to drive a wedge between her
and her NLD colleagues. Australia wants to work with ASEAN to influence the
course of developments in Burma but has had little success. It can play no
role in ASEM, from which it has been blackballed by Malaysia, and in any
case Australian public opinion would sympathize with the EU on the issues
dividing it from ASEAN. It seems to have little choice but to wait and see
whether the new Thai Government can succeed in its aim that the SPDC should
be 'more open', both to the world and to internal dialogue. It will then be
a question whether ASEAN will follow traditional practice and fully back
Thailand as the front line state. Meanwhile, the evidence that ASEAN is not
immune from the afflictions of its new, sick partner is unwelcome news for
Australia, which in its first Foreign Policy White Paper has re-emphasized
its regional priorities.

[GARRY WOODARD is on the management committee of the Australian Chapter of
the FDL-AP. He is a member of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal,
Senior Associate in Politics at Melbourne University, Immediate Past
National President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, and
a former Australian Ambassador to China and Burma] 

CRUELTY AND COURAGE

ASIA'S STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM By Chee Soon Juan

Much has been written about Asian leaders who have led their countries in an
age of
unprecedented economic progress. The general ascent of the economic
powerhouses starting with Northeast Asia and later spreading to the
Southeast Asian nations have enabled authoritarian regimes to legitimize
their abuses of power and challenge the basic tenets of democracy. Many of
these leaders have claimed that democracy is not suited for the Asian way of
life and is, in fact, detrimental to economic growth. By virtue of their
being in positions of power and control, their views are widely promulgated.
But lest one forgets, there are also Asian leaders who have, not only
espoused the principles of freedom and democracy for their countries, but
paid for their beliefs with life and limb. Their stories have not been as
widely told. Some of these democratic fighters have succeeded and some have
not. Some are still in the midst of their struggles. But whatever fate has
dealt them, they have all left an indelible mark in the history of Asia
which must be recorded. Their titanic battles with their often capriciously
cruel governments must stand as a testimony to Asia's struggle for freedom.
Below are some key leaders of democracy in Asia.

Burma. Perhaps the most celebrated Asian democrat at present times, Aung San
Suu Kyi is the brightest hope yet for the Burmese people who have been
pinned down by a corrupt and brutal military dictatorship for decades. When
the National League for Democracy, led by Suu Kyi, won the 1990 general
elections by a landslide margin, the military generals quickly seized the
reins of power and refused a handover of government. Scores of elected
members of parliament and pro-democracy activists were arrested and
imprisoned; some were banished and an untold number murdered. Suu Kyi was
promptly put under house arrest where she remains today. Being the most
potent symbol of democratic resistance in Burma and indeed Asia she has
become the most watched Asian leader. Her struggle is far from over and her
personal safety is constantly hanging in the balance as an increasingly
nervous dictatorship ponders how to deal with her.

Philippines. During the years of the Marcos rule, one man stood in defiance
to the Filipino dictator. He was Benigno Aquino. For his temerity, he was
arrested and imprisoned for seven years during which he suffered
immeasurable pain. His physical condition deteriorated during his captivity
until his heart gave way requiring cardio surgery. He was sent to the U.S.
for treatment. In America the dissident continued to speak out against the
Marcos regime sealing his own fate. In 1983, Aquino resumed to his own
country only to be gunned down at the airport. His death rocked the
Philippines which led to a series of political upheavals ending in the
remove of Ferdinand Marcos from power. Aquino's sacrifice has not been in
vain as the Philippines is once again free.

 Singapore. Economically successful Singapore can boast of many things. But
a shame that it will never be able to erase is the detention of Chia Thye
Poh. Chia was an elected member of parliament in Singapore when he was
arrested in 1966. He spent Ste next 23 years of his life in prison often in
solitary confinement. He was repeatedly told to confess to being a communist
which was a requisite for his freedom. Chia has steadfastly refused, never
swaying from his position of advocating democracy for Singapore. All through
These years, Chia has never been given an open hearing in a court of law.
Today, he remains under restriction orders where he cannot write, associate
and travel freely.

Korea. For as long as South Korea has been divided from its communist
northern cousins, one man has been waging a relentless campaign for
democracy against Sough Korea's military dictators. Through his struggle,
Kim Dae-jung has had his life threatened no less than five times, was exiled
for ten years and imprisoned for another five. He was sentenced to death in
1980 by the government. Today he lives not only to see his efforts bearing
fruit as Sough Korea marches boldly towards democratic reform, but has also
seen for the first time in the 50 years of Korean political history a
transfer of power from the ruling party to the opposition. Kim Dae-jung,
once leader of the largest opposition party in Korea is now president-elect
of the Republic of Korea.

Taiwan. Being the vibrant and noisy democracy that it is today, it is often
forgotten that Taiwan was ruled under the totalitarian Kuomintang where
opposition to the government was a crime. During chat time, Shih Ming-the
came forward and led a small band of dissidents who worked perilously to
open up Taiwan. Shih became the most wanted man on the island during the
1970s and was ruthlessly tracked down by the authorities. He was sentenced
to life imprisonment when he was caught and was released only in 1990. By
then he had spent a quarter of a century behind bars. But never at anytime
did his commitment wane. Like Kim Dae-jung, Shih Ming-the lives to tell his
success story about Taiwan beyond martial law.

Indonesia. Pramoedya Ananta Toer is an Indonesian writer who works human
rights themes into his novels. He was primarily a historian and journalist,
and wrote extensively of national culturalism in Indonesia. In 1965, he was
arrested and detained without trial for 14 years. His years of struggle in a
prison on Buru Island stands as testimony to his commitment to literature
and freedom of expression. During this time, Ananta Toer never stopped
writing about freedom. Ever since his writings were published the Indonesian
government has labeled them subversive and banned them. His works have been
translated to English and is widely read all over the world. An old man
today, Pramoedya remains under city-arrest in Jarkarta.

But rather than despair, these leaders continue to bring hope to Asia.
Through the dark years of relentless and brutal persecution by their own
governments, they have kept faith with their peoples and, more importantly,
their beliefs - beliefs that democracy has a history and a future in Asia 

[Dr. Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party] 


>From The FDL-AP Quarterly
The Forumof Democatic Leaders in the Asia-Pacific

Winter 1998
vol. 3 no. 4
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/org/bigkarma/fdlap/
http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm