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

Sanctions Don't Bring Burma Democra (r)



I am very much impressed by the article written by Ma Thanegi. I also agree
with most of the points she made.  She said" It is not enough just to
criticize the military regime.  We have an obligation to seriously examine
our strategies --and if they aren't working, we need to find others that
will" How true this is.

 However, the military has ruled the country for 40 years, and how come we
are still -- as she said, "we are just at the beginning of economic
development". She also said, "Burma is a poor, agrarian country, and most of
our people live without even electricity or telephones"   Is this not the
choice the military took? In 1958, the first time the military took over the
power, Burma and Singapore had the same per capita income (GNP).  While
Singapore invited foreign capital for investment, the Burmese military
nationalized the economy and drove out Indian and Chinese merchants who were
the pillar of the Burmese econmy.  That is why today, " Burma is a poor,
agrarian country ..."

I am sure Ma Thanegi would respond, "The military is now different  They are
promoting free market econmy and inviting foreign investors".   It is true
the military is inviting foreign investment now, but what the military wants
is not development but to obtain money to build up its military- to buy
military hardware and to make the military the ruling institution.  In
Rangoon there might be a free market economy but in the country side, there
is none. The military confiscates at wiill cars and trucks from the owners
and used them without compensation.  The military simply take properties
from the people's households and shops without paying the shops or owners of
the house.  The military demand chicken and alcohol at will from the people
without paying. There is forced porter conscription whereever the military
stationed their units.  There is no place the people can complain to. Thus
it is impossible for the people to pursue free market economy or even
cultivate their hill side farming unless the military units disappear. In
the Chin State the people are not allowed to go to their filelds.  They are
not allowed to visit other villages. Is this what Ma Thanegi called
"Governments in modern, developed societies have to respond to the people,
rather than the other way round"?

Does Ma Thanegi really believe that the government of Burma (Myanmar), "it
now seems stronger than ever".  Indeed it is stronger by the number of its
soldiers.  Since 1958 the country is becoming weaker and weaker, while the
government is becoming stronger and stronger measuring by its number of
soldiers.  The country is the sixth poorest country in the world whereas
Burma has the sixth largest army in the world.  The military cannot feed its
own army and the villagers have to help feed the soldiers. If Ma Thanegi
really wants development in the country she should demand the decrease in
army population.

Ma Thanegi also said, "But sanctions are a path to nowhere." She is right.
But what have the military done to the investments coming from abroad? For
twenty six years the BSPP was kept alive by the aids given by the Japanese
ODA, German's Entwicklungslungshilfe, American DEA Drug Eradication Program,
and the money borrowed from the IMF and the World Bank--5 billion dollars.
Are all these money for making Burma the poorest country in the world?  The
Japanese ODA is about to give money to the military once again.  Japan will
be remembered in the history of Burma as the country
that goes against the people of Burma.  They had done in 1943, why not now?
Give the military some more years to destroy Burma by supporting them.

When the military's door was closed, the military opened its market and sold
out teak, hardwood, and fish.  What are the sources of money for the
military now?

The only source left is opium.  That is why the military is making new opium
fields in the areas where former insurgents is in control.  The military can
always say, "We are not in control of those areas". But the production goes
to the military because only the military has the means of transportation.
"The New Light of Myanmar" announces from time to time opium confiscated
from smugglers.  These opium were caught because they did not belong to the
main stream of transportation.  The military is in total control of Burma.
The military  arranges which consignment is to be caught and which not.

Ma Thanegi said, "Let's drop the platitudes and find realistic ways to help
the people of Burma, not condemn them to poverty in a senseless pursuit of
Utopia".  I wonder what she meant by that. The military rules the country
for 40 years.  How many more years will it take for the military to help the
people of Burma?  Who condemn the people of  Burma to be in this
situation? --Ma Thanegi!



-----Original Message-----
To: Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 6:53 AM
Subject: Sanctions Don't Bring Burma Democracy


>From: Thinzar Khine, <Thinzar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>Sanctions Don't Bring Burma Democracy
>by Ma Thanegi
>International Herald Tribune, Friday, 20 March 1998
>
>RANGOON - It is time for those of us in Burma's democracy movement to face
>up to a difficult truth: Ten years after the movement began, we have made
>almost no real progress toward democracy.
>
>More people are in jail, countless others are suffering from the effects of
>sanctions, and the military government seems stronger than ever.  The
>National League for Democracy may have won the moral battle, but it is
>losing the war.
>
>All of us should be deeply concerned about this.
>
>I joined the NLD in 1988, worked as an aide to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and
>came to know and lover her well.  I was arrested in 1989, on the same day
>she was put under house arrest.  I spent most of the next three years in
>Rangoon's Insein prison, and was released in a 1992 amnesty with about 100
>other political prisoners.
>
>We were all willing to go to jail, because our cause was so important --
>Burma had been isolated for 26 years, we were desperately poor, and the
>people were suffering.  But 10 years later, all we have produced is
>idealistic platitudes.
>
>I know that sounds harsh, but we need to be hard on ourselves.  It is not
>enough just to criticize the military regime.  We have an obligation to
>seriously examine our strategies -- and if they aren't working, we need to
>find others that will.
>
>Let's start with sanctions and boycotts.  The National League for Democracy
>has focused on these to pressure the military regime to enter a dialogue.
>
>Why didn't the strategy work?  It was based on the assumption that the
>military regime depends on foreign investment to survive.  But the regime
>did not topple when millions of us protested in the streets in 1988.  It
>did not topple when the United States and Japan cut off aid.  It did not
>topple when Washington imposed sanctions.  In fact, it now seems stronger
>than ever.
>
>The second claim about sanctions is that they hurt only the elite, since
>ordinary people do not benefit from investment.
>
>It is true that the elite is benefiting.  But so are ordinary people, who
>have found jobs in garment factories, construction projects, and hotels.
>Those may not sound like very good jobs, but we are just at the beginning
>of economic development, and even a low-paying job is better than no job at
>all.
>
>Most economists would agree that urban elites usually benefit more than
>rural farmers in the early stages of economic growth.  So it is sensible to
>deny everybody jobs, simply because some people will get richer than
>others?  In fact, many of us fear that sanctions are making the people more
>vulnerable.
>
>Burma is a poor, agrarian country, and most of our people live without even
>electricity or telephones.  This makes Burma easy to rule with military,
>rather than political, methods.  But if we encourage large, responsible
>companies to come in, they can be a strong influence for modernizing and
>opening the economy.  And if Burma develops economically, it will help
>promote political development.
>
>The old methods do not work anymore.  Governments in modern, developed
>societies have to respond to the people, rather than the other way around.
>
>There are no easy solutions for Burma, and there is no automatic path to
>democracy - Cambodia is proof of that.  But sanctions are a path to
nowhere.
>
>Politicians inside and outside the country need to set realistic goals and
>come up with pragmatic strategies.  Politics, after all, is the art of the
>possible, and the future of millions of people is at stake.  Let's drop the
>platitudes and find realistic ways to help the people of Burma, not condemn
>them to poverty in a senseless pursuit of Utopia.
>
>(The writer is a painter and writer living in Rangoon.  She contributed
>this comment to the International Herald Tribune).
>
>*******************
>
>