The junta in Burma recently has been taking steps that appear intended to manipulate international opinion, and to provide false hope within the country of a move towards freedom. History suggests, and prudence dictates, that friends of freedom for Burma should remain wary.
Background
1988 Uprising and 1990 Election
Last month, demonstrators in Burma and around the world commemorated the twenty-third anniversary of the “8888 uprising.” The uprising is named after the mass demonstrations that began on August 8, 1988. During this period, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi emerged as a leader for democracy.
September 18th was the twenty-third anniversary of the military retaking power in Burma, in 1988, which ended the country’s “democracy summer.” The Irrawaddy discussed the significance of the uprising:
Nearly two and a half decades later, ‘8-8-88’ still echoes in the ears of Burma’s oppressors like a death knell. To drown out this sound, the military has tried everything, from bullets to ballots, to reassert itself as the sole holder of power. To the extent that it still holds that power, albeit now from behind a civilian guise, it has succeeded. And yet, the drum beat of the Burmese people’s desire for genuine democracy remains, as insistent as ever.
In 1990, the junta held an election, in which Daw Suu Kyi’s party won overwhelmingly. The government rejected the results, and kept Daw Suu Kyi jailed or under house arrest for most of the next two decades.
2007 Saffron Revolution
Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of the junta’s crackdown on the “Saffron Revolution,” led my Burma’s Buddhist monks. The Frontline Rough Cut video, Burma: Inside the Saffron Revolution, discusses the revolution; the junta’s brutal reaction, including the killing and imprisonment of monks; the flight of many monks; the government’s continuing attempt to restrain the monks; and the monks’ dedication to freeing the country.
The anniversary was commemorated by demonstrations around the world, including by Burma Democratic Concern at the Burmese Embassy in London. BDC explained the purpose of the demonstration: “To remember our fallen heroes, and to show our support for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for peace, dialogue, and national reconciliation …”
In Burma, police dispersed about 200 protestors in Rangoon. An organizer reported, “[The police] said that section 354 of the 2008 Constitution that says every citizen can assemble peacefully has not been approved by the Parliament, so we could be arrested under existing laws that say an assembly of more than five people is against the law.”
The legacy of the Saffron Revolution is the enhanced international recognition of the oppression in Burma, and the monks’ continued commitment to freedom for Burma. Buddhist monk U Agga Nya Na, who took part in the demonstrations and now lives in exile in the U.S., wrote in January 2010,
After 2007, the international community is more aware about the brutality of the Burmese military regime. I am happy to speak out and raise awareness. When in Burma we could not talk freely. As long as I am alive I will struggle for freedom and justice in Burma wherever I am and however I can.
2010 Election and 2011 Events
The junta held a sham election last November, and then released Daw Suu Kyi from house detention. The purported civilian government remains dominated by the military.
In the past months, the government has taken steps that appear intended to create a false impression of liberalization. The junta seeks approval by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to chair the organization in 2014. It also seeks an end to the sanctions imposed by the European Union and the U.S. and other countries.
Additionally, the government seeks to avoid the UN acceding to the longstanding call for a commission of inquiry to investigate possible crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the state in its armed conflict with ethnic minority insurgents. The UN special rapporteur on human rights, Tomas Quintana, repeated his call for a commission after visiting the country in August.
The junta’s steps have included:
- The president, U Thein Sein, has met with Daw Suu Kui.
- The government had Daw Suu Kui attend a conference in August on economic development.
- The president has spoken of values such as the rule of law and the rights of citizens.
- He also has invited political exiles to return to the country.
- The government allowed the UN’s Mr. Quintana UN to visit the country in August.
- At Mr. Quintana’s recommendation, the government has established a new human rights commission.
- The government unblocked some banned websites.
Assessing the Developments
The junta’s actions have not changed the reality of continued oppression.
Analysis of the Steps Taken
Each of the steps listed above is cosmetic, intended to suggest the appearance of change, while the junta clings to power.
- As I have previously written, the government’s ideas on the economy generally are misguided, and fail to include what Burma really needs—economic freedom coupled with political and civil freedom.
- It is hypocritical for the government to talk of the rule of law and individual rights, while continuing to hold over 2,000 political prisoners; engaging in violent conflict with ethnic minority insurgents, and committing abuses against civilians; opposing a commission of inquiry; and pressing on with the construction of the Myitsone Dam project on the Irrawaddy River despite widespread opposition.
- The government has not provided amnesty for political exiles, so they risk imprisonment if they return to Burma. The fact that the government has not released the political prisoners demonstrates the risks to returning exiles. Among the prisoners, for example, is the popular comedian, Maung Thura, known as Zarganar, who is serving thirty-five years in prison after criticizing the government’s response to the devastating Cyclone Nargis in 2008. The government not only has failed to commit to releasing political prisoners, but also denies there are any political prisoners.
- Regarding the human rights commission, Aung Myo Min, director of the Thailand-based Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, “said it was doubtful that a human rights body led by former officials who have defended the country against criticism of its human rights record in the past would act independently of the government.”
- While unblocking of some websites, the government can still prosecute people who access the sites. Freedom House, in a special report, “Freedom on the Net 2011,” ranks Burma as the second worst of the thirty-seven countries assessed, behind only Iran. The report estimates Internet penetration at only one percent, meaning that even any real liberalization would currently affect few people, at least directly.
- In addition, the government continues to imprison about twenty-five journalists. In fact, the same week the government unblocked the sites, it also sentenced a journalist to prison for ten years for circulating material online. In addition, it still heavily censors newspapers and subjects journalists to surveillance. It even censored an article by Daw Suu Kyi about her pilgrimage to the ancient city of Badan in July.
Positive Reaction
Nonetheless, some people within and outside Burma have reacted positively to the junta’s steps. Daw Suu Kyi spoke of “an opportunity for change” in her speech on International Day of Democracy on September 15th. Daw Suu Kyi apparently sees hope for change through cooperation with the junta, while avoiding the bloodshed that has come from nonviolent opposition in the past. The risk is that the junta will use her to gain credibility, only reinforcing its power. An article in The Irrawaddy reflects the concern of imprisoned leaders of the “88 Generation Students“:
“[They] have pledged their continued support for … Aung San Suu Kyi but warned she should treat her new friendly relationship with the Burmese government with caution.
….
‘One thing Suu Kyi should be cautious about is the other side misusing her benevolence,’ said a source closed to [imprisoned leader] Ko Ko Gyi.’
The International Crisis Group, on September 22, issued a report remarkably entitled “Myanmar: Major Reform Underway.” The report discourages skepticism (p. 15), calls for ASEAN to grant Burma’s government the chair, and opposes calling for an UN commission of inquiry (p. 12). The ICG is obtuse in failing to acknowledge the likelihood the junta is simply trying to manipulate international organizations.
A Wall Street Journal editorial, “Caution on Burmese Reform,” noted, “The ICG’s call prompted a resounding ‘huh?’ from Burma-watchers—not least because there is little evidence of the regime making reforms worth the name.” Whatever the positive or negative effect of sanctions, supported by the Journal, its recommendation of caution is well-grounded.
Skeptical Reaction
Many others, however, have urged skepticism. Yeni, the news editor of Irrawaddy, cautioned:
[A]t this point, a Burmese renaissance is a wish rather than a reality. It must be remembered that the same men running the current government ran the previous regime, and during their reign often paid lip service to reform without taking any meaningful and lasting action.
Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, also noted the junta’s history, while encouraging the international community to exert pressure for real change:
The dictatorship has successfully engaged in lies and delaying tactics for decades. They take superficial actions designed to present the impression that change could be round the corner, but that corner is never turned. All the evidence so far is that we are seeing more of the same. But what is taking place does present an opportunity. Now is not the time to adopt a wait and see approach, or for the usual softly, softly dialogue. A concerted international effort needs to be made, setting the dictatorship clear benchmarks and timelines for change. The international community has what the dictatorship wants, it has leverage. It is time to use it.
The organization The Best Friend, founded by Buddhist monks, warned:
Even though they have labeled themselves a ‘democracy’, Burma’s rulers are up to their same old tricks – playing another round of their favorite game – the ‘wait and see’ game.
They have become very skilled at this game. When Burma’s rulers want something from the international community — such as the ASEAN chairmanship for 2014, or for the UN not to establish a Commission of Inquiry into human rights abuses in Burma — they make a few cosmetic changes and make vague promises of ‘reform’ to charm the world into thinking Burma is on the path to positive change. Apologists for the regime then say, ‘We should wait and see if the generals will keep their promises, this time may be different. Now is not the time to push for change.’
Kelley Currie of the Project 2049 Institute, in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, cautioned:
After years of abysmal economic policy and severe political repression, it is tempting to believe it is sufficient that the Burmese regime is moving toward slightly greater political and economic openness. But Burma’s democrats have higher aspirations for their country, and their supporters should too.
Finally, U.S. Campaign for Burma characterized the junta’s moves as merely a public relations campaign:
Almost more than military equipment, public image and information are major tactics in any struggle. Recently, Burma’s new ‘government’ has been taking steps to paint a public facade of democratic reform. Reading the headlines it might be easy to hope, but looking at the full situation of Burma it seems to us the same old charm offensive the regime usually takes when they want to alleviate pressure.
Signal of Truth from Junta’s Words
It is not only the junta’s continuing oppression, and its failure to make real changes, that should cause skepticism. It is also the junta’s own brazen words.
Consider the junta’s response to an August 8, 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal, “Myanmar Considers Foreign-Exchange Overhaul.” The article included these observations regarding whether the government would really make economic changes:
Adding to the uncertainty is ongoing confusion over who actually runs the country. Although a former military commander named Thein Sein became the country’s president earlier this year, it is unclear how much power he holds. Many residents believe that military figures including former strongman Than Shwe, who controlled Myanmar from the 1990s until the latest election, continue to pull the strings behind the scenes.
People familiar with the matter say they believe a power struggle is developing within the new government between hard-liners connected to the military and ministers who are pressing for more economic changes. These people stress it remains unclear which side will win.
In a letter to the editor, U Ye Htut, director general of the Information and Public Relations Department at Myanmar’s Ministry of Information, responded as follows:
Since 1988, there have been many rumors and speculations about splits and power struggles within Myanmar’s leadership, which were mainly spread by opposition groups and Western media outlets that are happy to quote them. But nothing happened.
As I noted in my online comment, “The letter betrays the junta’s intention to maintain power, despite the pretense of democracy.” I continued:
The junta is not a “leadership”; it is a dictatorship. With democracy, governments can be held accountable, and true leadership is subject to change. The junta taunts that “nothing happened.” This is false. The people of Burma have sought change, but the junta has held on to power by brutal means, including imprisoning dissidents and massacring demonstrators. There have been defectors, but they have had to flee the country.
Despite the junta’s cruel efforts, something will indeed happen: Burma will be freed.
Conclusion
Friends of freedom for Burma should remain wary. The junta does not have solutions for the future of the country, because the junta itself is the problem. For progress to be made, and for Burma to establish the freedom that will allow for the happiness and prosperity the Burmese people deserve, the junta must relinquish its illegitimate power.
It is wise to recall the fable of the frog and the scorpion, popularized in the movie The Crying Game and included in the book, First Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.
The frog agrees to carry the scorpion across a pond after the scorpion assures the frog he will not sting him. But halfway across, the scorpion nonetheless stings the frog. The frog asks why he has done this, which will result in the frog dying and the scorpion drowning. The scorpion replies that this is his nature.
In the world of humans, the outcome is worse. The scorpions among us sting those who trust them, but usually live to sting another day.
The junta has long demonstrated its nature. Let us not get stung.
