MY COMMENT ON TALK TO BURMESE GENER (r)

[dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Good argumentation well stated, thank you. These Washington DC
professeurs of this sort fueled the death squads in central american
policy under the carter-reagan administration. a bunch of self contented
hacks, i was there, at johns hopkins school of advanced international
studies, which by the way had some good profs, since departed elsewhere,
princeton, nyc...ds

Dr U Ne Oo wrote:
> WRITTEN 17 SEP 99; 6:00AM
> 
> > The BurmaNet News: September 15, 1999
> > FEER: TALK TO BURMESE GENERALS
> >
> > FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW: TALK TO BURMA'S GENERALS
> > 16 September, 1999 by David I. Steinberg
> >
> > THE WRITER IS DIRECTOR OF ASIAN STUDIES AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AND SENIOR
> > CONSULTANT TO THE ASIA FOUNDATION. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE ARE HIS OWN.
> >
> > Can anything alleviate Burma's political and economic problems? Foreign
> > countries and groups have tried contrasting approaches. The United States
> > is trying to strongarm the military into honouring the results of the 1990
> > election. Until it does, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on new investments.
> > But while this focus on democracy is morally appealing, it is unrealistic.
> > At the other extreme, Asean, which admitted Burma to membership in 1997
> > over strong U.S. objections, has been trying appeasement, though its
> > "constructive engagement" is nothing more than a euphemism for exploiting
> > economic opportunities. Both initiatives, along with others involving
> > nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations have failed.
> 
> I have dispute with Prof. Steinberg's conclusion of "nothing works
> with Burmese junta including initiatives by non-governmental
> organisations and United Nations". This conclusion is a rather
> superficial for a man of his stature. On the effectiveness of "Sanction"
> and "Constructive Engagement", I have less reason to dispute. However,
> with regards to UN initiatives, one needs to note that there is a lack
> of substantial pressure, such as from UN Security Council taking on
> Burma agenda. Oppression in Burma and situation of refugees are
> disturbing. But, for some reason, we've never been able to attract
> attention of UN Security Council. Are we talking about UN humanitarian
> initiatives ? Nothing of substance has been done by UN in this regards.
> 
> On the other hand, the UN General Assembly has been too slow to act upon
> many things we have requested. Sure, no one, including Americans, like
> to send their boys to faraway country such as Burma. Then, this could be
> compensated if we have properly constructed resolution passed by UN
> General Assembly. Otherwise, we will have to put up with sanction,
> sanctions and more sanctions but nothing else.
> 
> As an activist, I do not like economic sanctions. But, because of lack
> of other forms of leverage (require substantial political commitment by
> international community) myself have joined in the "sanction-band-wagon"
> in early 1998.
> 
> Given that the rationale for sanction is to weaken the government
> apparatus, I think we can now make even more justified call for economic
> sanction on Burma. Firstly, this is because every decent businesses have
> already left Burma and imposing international ban on new investments is
> quite timely. Existing businesses, of course, should find some ways to
> work with the parliamentarians.
> 
> I had reservation in earlier years to call for economic sanction on
> Burma because it poses unfair burden on Burmese people. My perceived
> rationale for economic sanction, rightly or wrongly, was weighted as
> of creating  dissent on the government (not necessarily of weakening
> government apparatus) by the population concerned, which leading up
> to violent overthrow of the government. Fortunately, it is proven
> that, despite current level of economic hardship experienced by the
> Burmese people, no signs of civil unrest. My estimate is that the
> Burmese people cannot get poorer than the current situation. It means
> that, any sanction we impose now, its effect would be all for
> SPDC/SLORC. In this regards, ASSK's comment is quite noteworthy.
> 
> > Kyi and the opposition National League for Democracy. Meanwhile, as the
> > military refuses to negotiate with the opposition, and as the opposition
> > itself creates conditions the military cannot accept, a stalemate ensues,
> > forcing Burmese to continue to suffer in misery.
> 
> I think, here, too, Prof. Steinberg is making an unfair judgment. The
> opposition NLD does not intentionally create conditions the Burmese
> junta cannot accept. On contrary, the NLD has given all necessary
> concessions, including ASSK to stay out in initial talks (before that
> Burmese junta was complaining about this poor-man Michael Aris, too).
> Whatever way around the junta choose to argue, the fact remains that
> unacceptable condition for Burmese junta is the result of May 1990
> General Election.
> 
> >
> > A Burmese organization of whatever stripe -- political, social or economic
> > -- that is independent of state control is a contradiction today. With
> > civil society destroyed, institutions exist only to serve state goals, or
> > if not then they are under strict surveillance. Thus, despite the initial
> > guarded approval of the Australian proposal, it would seem doomed to
> > failure. But then, note that the needs of Burmese society are ever growing
> > even as the government has neither the competence nor the ability to
> > deliver. Thus, as the population becomes more exposed to new ideas --
> > through the Australian initiative itself -- and as the regime begins to
> > recognize its limitations, it is possible that state control over any group
> > deemed not overtly political will gradually erode. This will herald the
> > reintroduction of facets of civil society, and even perhaps a modest
> > pluralism. The Australian initiative, thus, is potentially the start of a
> > tortured, tedious process, without which only stasis can be expected to reign.
> 
> This philosophy of "Civil Society first, Democracy second" essentially
> is that of "Constructive Engagement". In "Constructive Engagement", free
> market and economics incentives are utilised the governments to make
> reforms. At the same time, it expects a "democracy-minded middle class"
> to emerge from the population. The "Civil Society first, Democracy
> second" philosophy is the most gentle variety of the "Constructive
> Engagements". In worst case scenario, its contexts could be interpreted
> to sound like some colonial educators who said, "the Burmese population
> have to be brought to the level of civilisation that fit to enjoy Her
> Majesty Government". That sort of attitude is quite patronising to the
> Burmese. Like that of Australians, anyone is welcomed to help Burmese
> people in a forthright and straightforward manner: but no patronising
> please!
> 
> I think the task of encouraging civil society in Burma is certainly
> important. However, we must not confuse such issue with replacing a
> dictatorial government with a popularly elected one. Since societies
> tends to move slowly, even in the case of Burmese having a government
> that allows civil and political freedom, time taken to absorb various
> aspects of democracy and democratic rules, including development of
> civil society, can be many years. Closest example of that are the
> Philippines, Thailand and Taiwan: we begin to see in those societies
> totally free press, independent judiciary and a healthy mix of
> political, non-governmental and human rights organisations have emerged.
> What we need in Burma is the back bones of democracy--press freedom and
> a representative government. Starting from that, various aspects of
> democracy should have to be built.
> 
> Some academics seek to blame Burmese society for being too
> "authoritarian- structured" that it couldn't foster a democratic rule.
> On this line of discussion, one might look at Prof Pye or Prof Mg Mg
> Gyi's books (if you were to look at those book and make judgment on
> Burmese politics, the Burmese may well have to wait democracy for
> another 200 years!!). I don't see any difference amongst societies of
> those countries with ourselves. We can also look at India as example for
> our democratic inspirations, too.
> 
> My understanding about the emergence of a democratic rule is that it
> should be based on the ability of political movement and its leadership.
> On the subject of emergence of a popularly elected government, it is
> wrong to focus on the development of civil society as a substitute to
> the political movement. In other words, inspite of deficiencies within
> society, the politics must find its way through in establishing a
> democratic rule. So, the solution to the confused academics is simple:
> believe in the Burmese democracy leadership; believe in Aung San Suu
> Kyi; trust them and help them. We will certainly get there to democracy.
> 
> >
> > Even if the commission were to be established, its effective operation
> > likely will be delayed. Still, the very existence of a body to which human
> > rights protests can be lodged -- if not yet acted on -- can begin an
> > incremental process towards change. Many say that such a commission would
> 
> Well--- even in Australia, the Human Rights Commission, along with other
> human rights NGOs and activists, are frequently cited as "paper tigers".
> The HR Commission here doesn't appears to have the power to make a
> binding-rule
> on its own. It does have the power to investigate human rights
> complaints "freely" (I put it in quote because the Commission
> investigation depends on government fundings too). But, in the end, the
> Commission has to relied upon the judiciary-- i.e. independent from the
> government, of course. This is the only mean for HR Commission here to
> get a ruling on matters. The Constitution here does not include the bill
> of rights.
> 
> For some results, the Human Rights Commission here seems also relied
> upon the press, NGOs and GONGOs (Government Owned Non-Government
> Organisations). From these advocacy groups and through the public, the
> Commission's concerns are brought to bear upon the decision makings of
> the parliament. In addition, the Commissioner here can talk freely to
> any MPs and Government Ministers, I suppose.
> 
> In situation of Burma, operation of a Human Rights Commission may be
> considered effective if it has (1) the rights to investigate any human
> rights complaints (2) the rights to disseminate freely about the human
> rights information. But, it will be a waste of time to expect Burmese
> junta to set up an "independent" human rights commission.
> 
> > only serve as a propaganda tool for the military, as well as prove
> > ineffective. For the near term, they are likely to be right, But neither
> > Burmese nor foreigners are fools and over the longer term the military will
> > not be able to keep up the propaganda charade. Indeed, it is best to
> > remember that the initiative represents only a modest first step in
> > engaging the military -- a "toe in the water," as Sidoti put it. Others
> > worry that the Japanese, for example, may follow up on this to renew major
> > economic assistance. But this underrates donors' understanding of the
> > dynamics of power in Burma and the lack of economic reforms urgently needed
> > before assistance may be employed effectively.
> 
> Given that the elected representatives in the form of CRPP being
> recognised properly, any Japanese or Americans or Europeans or
> Australians can explore whatever assistance or developmental issues
> they desire (we would need plenty of that, wouldn't we). But, nobody,
> including United Nations, should try to cleverly "cut-the-deals" with
> Burmese junta -- it will not help Burmese people and will amounts to a
> simple short sightedness.
> 
> Recent ICRC operation in Burma was the junta's initiative. We are not
> overly critical to ICRC visits, even it is not being our initiative: we
> do trust the integrity of ICRC. Unfortunately, ICRC do not share their
> prison visit information to the public. But we now atleast know 18,000
> possible political prisoners in Burma.
> 
> On the other hand, the visit by Australian Human Rights Commissioner or
> initiatives to join up Asia-Pacific Human Rights Forums should not be
> claimed, especially at the UN General Assembly, as a positive step made
> on human rights. We've got to remember that the UN Human Rights Special
> Rapporteur, including ILO Commission of inquiry, are not allowed to
> visit Burma for 3-years now. Urgent and immediate cooperation to UN
> Human Rights mechanisms must be demanded of the Burmese junta.
> 
> Finally, everyone has the right to talk to Burmese junta as long as one
> knows what one is doing. But no one should waste the time of Burmese
> people who are under severe repression.
> 
> With best regards, U Ne Oo.
> 
> >
> > Australia, a mid-sized power, has taken a step the major powers have been
> > reluctant to take. It should be complimented. Even if this initiative
> > proves less successful than intended, or even fails, the effort is
> > nonetheless noteworthy and important. What Australia has done is to show a
> > way to deal with Burma that involves neither confrontation nor appeasement,
> > but rather engagement. Further engagement along this line may be the only
> > way to wrench Burma out of its political and economic morass.
> >
> 
> --
> HTTP://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~uneoo
> EMAILS: drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx, uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> POSTMAIL: Dr U Ne Oo, 18 Shannon Place, Adelaide SA 5000, AUSTRALIA
> [http://freeburma.org/[http://www.angelfire.com/al/homepageas/index.htm]
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =