Whether you know it is Burma or Myanmar, there is more at stake in this troubled “land of the pagodas” than meets the eye.
International media attention has focussed on Burma in recent days, as Buddhist monks have taken to the streets of the nation, demanding an apology from the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) use of force against the Sangha (Buddhist community).
See related news story: 100,000 join monks' protest
U.S. President George W. Bush has asked Chinese Premier, Hu Jintao, to address the “situation” in Myanmar more forcefully.
Laura Bush, the President’s wife, has been vocal on the issue, urging UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to keep the issue alive at the UN and identifying that now is the geo-political time for activists to exert tremendous pressure on China to act in the areas in which it influences, most notably Burma and Sudan.
Though the President and Mrs. Bush believe that Jintao can snap his fingers and make the SPDC fall in line, the geo-political reality of Burma is much more nuanced than this.
The Cold War is over, and the “big powers” have shown that they too are vulnerable, and it is Burma (Myanmar), laden with natural resources, that may have the Chinese dragon and the Indian tiger by the proverbial tail.
Resources aside, the politics of South and Southeast Asia have evolved in a distinct manner that deserves more attention to detail than Cold War interests. One could trace this story back hundreds of years to find the origins of Burma’s political struggle, however I will go only to the second world war.
Aung San, the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, conspired with other Burmese freedom fighters in World War II to seize the opportunity to obtain military training from the Japanese and overthrow the British.
As part of a Japanese puppet government in Burma, it became clear that Japan did not believe in Burmese freedom, rather, they believed in fighting the British. At the right moment, Aung San called on his fledgling coalition of forces to commit mutiny against the Japanese, as the British were reclaiming parts of Burma in the mid 1940s.
Though he was instrumental in negotiating the conditions for Burma’s freedom from colonial rule, Aung San and his senior cabinet were assassinated months before home rule was to come to Burma. Left in a political vacuum, U Nu, a colleague of Aung San, was left to form a government.
U Nu’s government was the first non-communist country to recognize communist China, and signed the “Five Principles for Peaceful Co-existence”.
The Cold War set the precedent for Burma’s foreign policy of isolation, however, they were plagued internally with pressure from the weak alliance of more than 16 ethnic groups vying for influence with an ever present threat of communist revolution in the north.
By the mid-late 1950s, ethnic struggle and communist insurgency had consumed Burma to the point that Prime Minister U Nu invited the army to restore the peace. In January, 1955 the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Communist Party of Burma were targeted by the military for a final attack. This attack, named Operation Aungtheikdi[i] mobilised thousands of troops to capture the “rebel capital” of Papun. By March, the mission was accomplished.
The KNU and the CPB eventually mounted an attack on the government together in 1956 and was defeated. The following year, a “Federal Movement” had started in Shan State as a way to address Burma’s constitutional problems democratically. In 1958, Ba Swe, a minister in U Nu’s cabinet who held the post of Prime Minister for nine months following the 1956 parliamentary elections while U Nu focussed on rebuilding the strength of the AFPFL, had a falling out with Nu.
Swe and thirteen other ministers resigned from government and formed their own socialist coalition opposition party. This new party introduced a motion of no confidence against the AFPFL four days after coming into existence. The motion was defeated by only eight votes. Fearing the collapse of the Union of Burma, Prime Minister U Nu invited Ne Win to lead a “caretaker” government to preserve national unity.
Though Win returned power to the AFPFL, he was outraged by Prime Minister U Nu’s revised position on negotiating with the Federal Movement. Nu agreed to limited autonomy for the Mon and the Arakan as well as to hold further talks with leaders of the Federal Movement in 1962.
In response, Ne Win, supported by his military staged a coup and began a reign that would last twenty-six years. The “Burmese Path To Socialism” and a foreign policy of isolation and non-interference would dominate Burmese politics until 1988.
Socialism, ethnic cleansing, oppression, and isolation were the cornerstones of the Ne Win’s government. By 1988, the people of Burma could take no more. Massive protests emerged throughout the country and the military responded with some of the most brutal acts of violence in history.
The military promised elections in 1990, and Aung San Suu Kyi, who cut short her overseas sojourn to return to Burma to care for her mother, became an icon for the coalition of forces seeking peace and democracy.
Due to state control of everything, the government did not fear her at first. But when it became clear that she would win a majority government, the military imprisoned her and her colleagues. Despite this, Burma went to the polls and voted, overwhelming, for the National League for Democracy.
Decrying the election as flawed, the military nullified the results and promised a new election, just as soon as the new constitution was ready.
It’s been 17 years, and we’re still waiting for the constitution. The legacy of military rule in Burma is not pretty.
Burma is one of Southeast Asia’s poorest nations, despite being endowed with rich natural resources that are the source of its courtship with India, China, South Korea, and until recently, even Canada through its national pension investments.
According the Human Rights Watch, Burma has the highest instance of child soldiers in the world. In seeking out what the Myanmar diplomatic mission to Canada calls “insurgents”, the military destroys villages and makes examples of innocent civilians.
Children watch their parents murdered in cold blood by overworked, conscripted soldiers who are addicted to drugs, which help them work 18-hour days. Villagers fleeing the destruction of their homes and their way of life find that their comparative advantage is their own bodies.
This country, scarcely the size of Texas, has one of Southeast Asia’s largest militaries and exceeds the world average in military expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
Although many Western nations have imposed limited economic sanctions on Burma, the strategic self-interests of Thailand, China and India mitigate its impact. The early part of the 21st century gave reason to be optimistic about the chances for democracy.
The rise of the “Generation 88” ex-student activists, the release of many democratic advocates, the declining health of leading General Thaw Schwe, and diminishing patience from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with respects to democratic suppression and forced labour were all reasons to be optimistic.
The subsequent attack on Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s motorcade in 2003(and her re-arrest) and the crackdown on activists in recent years however, reflect the degree to which the SPDC remain obsessed with the retention of power.
Though structural weaknesses are being revealed, the party is confident it possesses the political and economic means to maintain rule by force through strategic partners.
I agree with President and Mrs. Bush. Now is the time to exert pressure in the name of freedom and democracy. But it is a fool’s errand to look to China, or to India, for help in this venture.
These countries have proven time and time again that they care for their own strategic resource and security needs above and beyond the heinous crimes being committed in Burma. China, Russia, and most astonishing, South Africa, stood up for the SPDC and vetoed the Security Council resolution calling for strict action to bring an end to human rights abuses in Burma. This resolution was decades in the making, not some afterthought.
The people of the world have to speak up for Burma today. China will not, India’s new government has shown that it has no interest in the promotion of democracy beyond its borders. Both have been equipping the Burmese military with the means (through military and financial aid) to wage war on the civilians of Burma.
I encourage every reader to take the time to send an email to your respective Prime Ministers and members of parliament. The tremors of change are shaking in Burma, but freedom and democracy needs support the world over.
Ajay Parasram - Ottawa, Ontario - 24 Sept. 2007.
Ajay Parasram is a Researcher based in Ottawa, Canada. He holds a First Class (Hons) degree from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada and is a Masters candidate in the Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa. His research revolves around International Relations with special attention to South and Southeast Asian regionalism and regional integration.
No comments:
Post a Comment