Asiaweek: THE TRAGEDY OF MYANMAR

[bll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

         THE TRAGEDY OF MYANMAR

    Asia's downturn threatens a reformist breakthrough 

                      GARRY PRIOR, a British businessman, 
                              has lived and worked
                      in East Asia for the past quarter century 
                        and is now based in Kuala Lumpur.


MUCH TO MY REGRET, a year-long stay in Myanmar ended in February when my
planned business venture was not able to raise the requisite funds because
of the regional economic
downturn. But I maintain my interest in Myanmar and I hope that its people
will be spared the pain
of purely exploitative modernization. No matter how unfashionable the view,
I believe that a strong
degree of central control is necessary to help nations make the initial
transition from agricultural
subsistence to a modernizing semi-industrial economy and that it is the job
of other nations, through
their governments, investors and commentators, to try to ensure that
oppression is ameliorated and
that the benefits of development are shared with the populace. 

Local oppositionists are inevitably weakened during such a transition, and
their audience is quite
rightly the international media, who do much to shape perceptions. In one
sense, that is an extension
of the marketplace. I do not share the view that Asian Values are dead or
never existed. They
served their purpose in most countries - without them Asia would not have
been taken seriously on
the world stage - and they should now be adapted to meet the new
circumstances. Myanmar is
among countries that still need to complete the initial transition. A
so-called open democracy will not
lead to a utopia but instead allow the economy to be hijacked by vested
interests who may prove
more unattractive than the military. Whatever its faults (and they are
legion), the military at least
recognizes that it is a transitional government.

Until I went to Myanmar (and despite spending 26 years in the region), I
believed what I read: that it
was ruled by a stupid, brutal regime. I was pleasantly surprised on nearly
all fronts. When I got to
know them, I found that most members of the State Law and Order Restoration
Council (SLORC)
wanted workable solutions. They juggled within a collective responsibility
to achieve a consensus
between the wildly disparate views of fighting generals who want the fruits
of victory and the genuine
reformers who want more durable benefits. The ensuing inertia led to the
virtual coup last November
which brought in the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) - and
possibly a temporary
victory for the moderates. This breakthrough came as Asia's economy
slumped, drying up
investment. Now there is a risk that without economic progress, the
reformers will be rejected by the
military, who were not pleased to see SLORC colleagues put under house arrest.

The tragedy: I believe that Lt.-Gen. Khin Nyunt, the SPDC's secretary-1,
was trying to create a
dialogue with the National League for Democracy that would have led to some
accommodation with
Aung San Suu Kyi. But she flatly rejected the overture for rather selfish
reasons and put him in an
impossible position in the SPDC and the international community. It is
never good negotiating tactics
to totally alienate the most sympathetic party in the opposing camp and yet
that is what she did,
encouraged by some but not all of the diplomatic community. The military is
a fact of life in
Myanmar. Although it is widely detested, even its hardcore opponents know
that sooner or later
they will have to negotiate with the soldiers and co-exist. 

That Suu Kyi is treated as an international icon who is above criticism and
therefore the SPDC is
seen as an international pariah, only makes it harder to reach a sensible
solution. The SPDC is no
worse than many regimes and a great deal better than some. By demonizing
it, the (mostly Western)
press makes a dialogue more difficult. SPDC members feel the abuse
personally and it warps their
perceptions of what is worthwhile and doable. I have talked with several of
the more moderate
figures shortly after an attack; deeply angry and hurt, they expressed
themselves in understandably
emotional terms. Repeated abuse makes it more difficult for them to defend
their moderate stance
and may force them to take a harder line just to stay in the game.
Myanmar's people are not helped
by this.

Disenchantment with the polarity of Suu Kyi's and the SPDC's positions is
evident among an
increasing number of former "radicals" in Yangon who want to see some
progress. In my year in
Myanmar, I came to admire the people's cheerfulness in the face of poverty
and the fear of
repression. It is testament to their decency that after 50 years of civil
wars, there is no general resort
to terrorism. In my year there were three bombs and one fatality. During
one week I was in Hong
Kong when there were bomb scares. No one in the media suggested that Hong
Kong was becoming
unsafe. But after the Myanmar blasts, the State Department warned Americans
against visiting, much
to the indignation of some I knew who went in anyway to find no troops on
the streets and smiles on
people's faces. 

U.S. Embassy reports are driven by a political agenda, not shared by the
embassy staff, that
interprets facts in the most hostile manner. Sadly, this is not unusual in
Western analysis of Myanmar
today. I suppose that is why the very small band of us who try to look
beyond stereotypes and
political correctness sometimes go too far in the other direction in trying
to present a more balanced
picture.