13.12.2006
“Change of Course” in Burma
_ By Dr. Sein Myint
U.S. President George W. Bush had called consistently ‘to stay the course’ on his policy in Iraq until the November midterm elections for both the US Congress and the Senate. The outcome was that the Republicans lost control of both houses to the Democrats, given a mandate by the by the American people, calling for a “change of course” citing that the U.S. is not winning the war.
Long before the midterm elections, President George Bush appointed several groups to study the war. One such group was an ‘Iraq Study Group’ comprised of 10 distinguished bipartisan members, jointly headed by the former Secretary State James Baker, a Republican, and the former Chairman of the Committee on House Foreign Affairs and House Intelligence, Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.
The Report of the ‘Iraq Study Group’ (ISG) summarized, “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating” and made several important recommendations that “call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.”
Further, they believe that “two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America’s credibility, interests, and values will be protected.”
What effect this has on President Bush’s current policy on Iraq is yet to be seen. The recent changing of Defense Secretary, a key member of the Bush Iraq war cabinet, shows that serious policy shifts on Iraq are to be expected soon from the Bush Administration.
With nearly 3, 000 American troops dead and having spent billions of dollars in nearly four years, the U.S. public has finally voted against President Bush’s ‘Stay the Course’ Iraq policy and his commitment for total victory. Meanwhile, policy makers from both sides are trying to find ways to continue protecting strategic U.S. interests in the Middle East region in the aftermath of the Iraq war.
It is unfortunate that those policy makers in Burma, both in the current military government as well as in the democratic opposition -- inside and outside of the country -- have never commissioned similar distinguished bipartisan members of local and expatriate Burmese and ethnics groups to explore the political impasse in Burma and strive for a genuine national reconciliation process, similar to Iraq.
Many arguments, counter arguments, analysis, articles, statements, and commentaries have been put forward on how to help solve Burma’s current political stand-off in seminars, workshops, forums, news media, and on the internet by various individuals, both experts and activists alike, as well as by other organizations.
It is most unlikely, given the nature of the current military leaders in Burma, that they will take advice and opinion from independent experts to guide in their decision, either in political or economic matters. They would rather take biased opinions from selected close subordinates who are likely to offer suggestions in line with the mood and the direction the leaders take on the issue.
However, in some instances these military leaders sometimes are willing to give up their well-protected public access and seek advice of others. This is the only chance for these top leaders to get an honest and unbiased opinion of their policies and conduct as viewed by outsiders.
In contrast, the democratic opposition groups, as per nature, are more likely to obtain constructive and unbiased opinions from many experts, both local and expatriates on issues that they wish to seek. Failing to seek diverse opinions naturally categorize them as being an undemocratic and an autocratic dictatorship by the public.
The current course taken by the military rulers in Burma is quite obvious and well defined by their statements. By keeping key political and student leaders at bay, either in jail or under house arrest, they manage to marginalize activities of opposition parties while maintaining social and economic pressures on other active opposition parties’ members and ethnic ceasefire groups. At the same time increased military operations against armed ethnic groups in the border regions is carried out.
With more purchasing power to update the armory of the defense services -- generated from increased income derived by the newly established offshore gas fields in the western region -- the junta has successfully played the geopolitical and economic game between the two giant neighbors, China and India, to their benefit. They have managed to by-pass current selective economic sanctions imposed by the US and some Western nations.
Without giving a concrete timeline, the military leaders stay ‘the course’ with their seven point road map for democratic changes in Burma. Meanwhile, they use the visiting emissaries of the world body to their advantage by meeting them at the right times to circumvent any additional international pressures imposed upon them.
Regardless of any well intentions of the selected economic sanctions, most Burma watchers agree that the lives of those top ruling generals and their cronies have never been better. There has been very little impact upon their decision-making process. Granted they have been imposed with a travel ban to the U.S. or to the EU, but they seem quite satisfied in building their new capital in the midst of the jungle.
The main opposition party seems to have little or no power to persuade the recalcitrant generals to engage in any meaningful dialogue for possible political changes and to start a genuine national reconciliation process. While sanctions and supports have been provided by the U.S. and other Western nations to help these endeavors through exile opposition organizations, there has been very little or no progress made on the political dialogue between the two sides over the last decade. In actual fact, political impasse is entrenched deeper than before.
The current political landscape in Burma represents none other than the familiar cold war scenario. However, it’s now between the U.S. and the Western nations on one side, while China, Russia and India are on another. Meanwhile, ASEAN and Japan are playing both sides. The generals are quite emboldened by this power balance. Any resolution on Burma at the UN Security Council, proposed by the U.S. is likely to be vetoed by their two permanent member allies, China and Russia.
While many exile opposition groups have been supported financially as well as politically continuously by the U.S. and other sympathetic western donor nations to sustain a prolonged struggle to restore democracy in Burma, many international NGOs claim that lives of ordinary people inside the country have deteriorated. Soon the situation will be in grave danger if outside help is not forth coming, especially in the health and other social sectors.
With more than one million internally displaced people (IDPs) at the border with Thailand, and thousands more in the western border areas, no one can dispute the dire consequences of these refugees living under subhuman conditions; without any hope or help for their future.
The current political stalemate is unacceptable and it must be solved for the benefit of millions of people living in poverty inside the country as well as the million or so refugees along the border regions. They continue to live under harsh conditions. It is the moral obligation and political responsibility of the elected political leaders of the democratic opposition to find a way out of this quagmire. It’s high time to call upon all those independent and distinguished individuals -- both local and expatiate, similar in nature to the ISG -- to apply their strategic and out-of-box thinking, to formulate options to ‘change the course’ and find effective ways to have a dialogue or to confront the intransigent military rulers.
[Dr. Sein Myint serves as the directors of Policy Development of Justice for Human Rights in Burma, Maryland, USA, and AEIOU, Chaingmai, Thailand. He is also an adviser to Burma Digest, an Internet Publication from UK, and Honorary Member of Amnesty International Chapter 22, in Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., USA.]
.
Your Comments here_ can use win-Burmese fonts; but not symbols "(:/\<>!|{]@~#$)"
Last week's English article