By Trefor Moss
Burma’s government has pledged change, and there are signs something is really happening. But there are ways to measure the regime’s progress toward democracy.
Something is happening in Burma, and the world doesn’t know what to make of it.
Once so easy to condemn, Burma’s government—a quasi-democratic, quasi-civilian administration led by a former general, Thein Sein—now presents a dilemma. No one wants to snuff out genuine reform, if that is indeed what’s beginning to occur in Burma, by stonewalling a government that may finally be attempting change. At the same time, the international community is understandably wary of a regime whose atrocious record hardly entitles it to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Foreign governments and organisations have therefore been dispatching representatives to Burma with unprecedented frequency over the last few months to find out whether the country’s nascent reform process is indeed the start of something positive, and not a smokescreen for the extension of the old status quo. UN special rapporteur Tomas Ojea Quintana (who was barred from entering Burma only last year), EU humanitarian aid commissioner Kristalina Georgieva, and US special representative Derek Mitchell are among those who have just visited Burma and left sounding cautiously optimistic—echoing the upbeat statements made in recent days by Aung San Suu Kyi herself. Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, representing ASEAN, is due to arrive in October.
A debate now rages about whether, and to what extent, to engage with Naypyidaw. There are serious policy choices to be made. ASEAN must weigh whether to allow Burma to assume the ASEAN chair, as scheduled, in 2014. The EU and the United States, though hardly preparing to drop sanctions in the immediate future, can now at least contemplate a softening of their stance for the first time in years. And UN members responsible for drafting an upcoming resolution on Burma must decide whether to go further than previous resolutions in calling unequivocally for a Commission of Inquiry into human rights violations against the country’s ethnic minorities.
Despite all these pressing concerns, properly monitoring Burma’s progress, or lack of it, can only be achieved by measuring it over time. Moving slowly and deliberately will draw fire from critics on either side of the argument who either implacably distrust the Burmese regime or who argue that the time to open up Burma has clearly arrived. Nonetheless, ASEAN, the EU, and the United States have for now held out the prospect of rewards for real reform while withholding those rewards until measureable progress has been made. The question is which indicators to focus on, how much to expect, and which issues to de-prioritise in the short-to-medium term.
Derek Tonkin, the chairman of Network Myanmar, argues that the international community shouldn’t be too assertive for fear of forcing the Burmese government back into its shell. ‘You can’t set conditions,’ he says. ‘There’s too much positive news coming out of Myanmar. As long as the West doesn’t lecture too much and keeps its conditions general, then we can look at things and see what the Burmese themselves come up with.’
Benjamin Zawacki, Amnesty International’s Asia researcher, suggests that while ‘there is real movement afoot politically, or at least signs of it,’ meaningful change is so far confined to the political centre. ‘Even if these signs are qualitative, why aren’t they translating into improvements in the ethnic minority areas?’ he asks. For this reason Zawacki argues that pressure should be applied on several fronts, one of which should be the UN Commission of Inquiry.
A joint Australia-US communiqué issued last week made no mention of a Commission of Inquiry but spelled out other issues the two countries will be focusing on, namely: ‘the release of all political prisoners, cessation of violence against ethnic minorities, and the establishment of a process of dialogue with ethnic groups and opposition leaders.’ They also cited ‘the need for greater transparency in Burma’s engagement with North Korea.’ Following are some, but not all, of the benchmarks that might be used to plot Naypyidaw’s trajectory over the coming months:
1. Political prisoners
Monitoring the number of political prisoners the government releases is one of the more straightforward ways to measure its progress. There are questions over how many political prisoners are actually being held: Amnesty International cites ‘over 2,100,’ for example, while the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners counts 1,198. But reconciling these lists can be left for another time; for now, the release of the hundreds of prisoners we know about would be a concrete step.
A proposal for an amnesty on political prisoners has already been raised in the Burmese parliament, and the government may make a move before any new resolution is brought before the UN General Assembly in an attempt to earn some political breathing space. ‘If they release 400 to 500 there’ll still be people who’ll say that’s only a start,’ says Tonkin. ‘But it would make a big impression.’ From Zawacki’s perspective, ‘a wholesale release of political prisoners would be a welcome step … but should not come at the expense of other efforts.’
2. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy
The treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi is also easy for foreign governments to track, as are any instances of new arrests of NLD activists. The Burmese government appears to have learned that any threat to the safety or liberty of Suu Kyi becomes a lightning rod for international condemnation, and the breakthrough meeting between her and Thein Sein in August perhaps earned the government its best press in many years, courtesy of Suu Kyi herself. ‘I do believe that the president would like to bring about positive changes,’ she said after the encounter. With Indonesia’s Natalegawa planning to consult the NLD leader about Burma’s ASEAN chairmanship, her opinion now matters more to the regime than ever before. New measures against Suu Kyi and the NLD would therefore send the clearest message imaginable that Burma’s government has not changed.
3. Ceasefire and dialogue
The government signed ceasefire agreements with two ethnic minority armies in early September, but fighting against other groups, including the Kachin Independence Army and the Shan State Army, is continuing. It will be hard for foreign governments to credit Naypyidaw with real progress so long as the war between the Tatmadaw, or the Burmese Army, and the ethnic minority armies actively continues. But as well as calling a lasting ceasefire, the government needs to begin addressing minority concerns on such issues as the construction of the Myitsone Dam in Kachin State, a project that Naypyidaw appears intent on ploughing ahead with despite its destabilising effects.
So questions for the international community to ask over the coming year will be: has the shooting stopped; has a meaningful peace process been initiated; and do the talks involve all relevant parties (including the NLD and the ethnic armies currently fighting the Tatmadaw)? No such process exists today, and its initiation would be a very strong signal that the Thein Sein government is serious about changing his country.
Photo Credit: Marc Veraart
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
OoKyawMaung
Burma government lose its representation to ethnic groups. Why? Because of Coupe, sordid deeds by Military men in ethnic areas for a half century. Why do such kind of inhumane acts by military prevail in all Ethnic states? It can be prudent to say that Military want to hold its domination over them. So Ethnic people have the legal right to be free from inhuman deeds by Military by all means.
It is undeniable for any reasons that Myanmar is in the curse of Constitutional Virus. To unite under the national spirit, all politicians need to think of drafting all accepted constitution. The source of Ethnic problems in Myanmar is not just Democratization from Authoritarian. It is based on the rights of survival for Ethnic people.
KO THEIN HAN – INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS, YANGOON
Without courage there is no way to struggle for the country future.
We can feel the wind of changes in Myanmar. But Myanmar general public and world community still cannot trust 100% because there were many starts and stops in the past by Junta now change to nominal civilian government.
Please let me quote what Derek Mitchell, the US special representative and policy coordinator for Myanmar, said in Rangoon when he wrapped up his visit.
[ I think everybody who follows this country knows that there have been stops and starts, that expectations have been dashed, that things only go so far, and then they stop or they reverse themselves. And I really urge the leadership to prove the sceptics wrong]
ozivan
@Ko Thein Han. Isn’t there any wise and well-educated Burmese who have original ideas or independent views of their own, rather than be enamoured by Derek Mitchell’s quote or statement ?
The truth is that what you’ve said is a widespread view of many Burmese, but you have to give credit to a Foreigner or had to lent credence to your point through some American Special Representative, who have made only one visit to Burma.
Burmese have to start to do their own independent thinking. Change your Government by all means, hopefully the peaceful way, but be a Burmese first and recognise your own worth.
God bless Burma.
Lawrence TPA
I,m positive & Glad cause, transforming into a full Democracy could be a very sensitive security issue from the other angle ..
OoKyawMaung
It is sure that something is happening in Burma. Some said it positive and some negative. It is quite sure to conclude that Burma Government lose its legitimacy even it can hold power long time by means of Guns.
I feel that it is now crossing a very complex and sensitive situation in Burma.
ozivan
@OoKyawMaung. Give peace and your new Government under Thein Sein a chance.
Kaw Aung Sang Suu Kyi blew her chance when her party was overwhelmingly elected in 1990.
At that time, she unwittingly lost it due to her inexperience, unwise moves and her failure to take seriously into account the Burmese Generals’ entrenched interests, when the National Leaque democratic party she led overwhelmingly won the general elections in 1990.
Burmese Generals has always been involved deeply in the drugs trade, including corruption earnings for decades before the 1990 general elections. Amongst others, one of her strongest election promises then was (many would have forgotten) to get rid of corruption and the drug trade. She promised quick and immediate retribution against those involved, if she was President.
What would then obviously going to happen ?
Naturally, the Generals will overthrow her to safeguard their lives and interests regardless of what the Western free world would say or do by international boycott or sanctions.
Unlike the clever Vladimir Putin of Russia, when he was groomed and selected by President Yeltsin to take over the Russian Republic, Putin immediately announced that he would seek a total amnesty for Yeltsin (and a good number of top Russian elites) from prosecution for past misdeeds.
Had Suu Kyi said she would declare a general amnesty then, the Burmese Generals would probably let her form the Government. Anyway, that’s history now.
Hope she’ll learn the lesson (if she is aware), if her National Leaque party is given another opportunity to stand in any future elections.
Older and wiser now, and the current new Burmese Government which is less autocratic, let us hope Aung Sang Suu Kyi is given another chance.
Khin Than Htwe
Burmese army generals used to tag themselves ” Martyrs , heroes who sacrifice their lives for the causes of the nation and its people”.
Why they are worrying for their securities if they return peoples’ power to the peoples.? They should have courage and should be brave enough to do the right things for the country and its people. It is not courage to kill unarmed civilians. So brave? Funny martyrs!
yang zi
Burma had elections! a progress? no? I am confused.
Padova
You’re a reliable nearly unique asset in a part of the world where planted articles are a major crop, impervious to drought or flood as they’re nurtured by cash.
Maybe, just maybe, this time in Burma we don’t need a weatherman to know which way the monsoon blows.