Myanmar
Unending Bloodbath

ASEAN has singularly failed to take a stand on the bloodletting in Myanmar. This is in spite of the new ASEAN charter calling for respect for democracy and human rights, comments
Andrew Small

  How many monks have to die before democracy comes to Burma? The words, strangled with passion, were uttered by an activist who fled after the recent uprising from his sanctuary in Thailand. In reality, they might have been said at any time over the last 10 or 15 years. Such is the intractability of the situation.
   Once again Burma has sunk off the world media’s news lists. Once again, the responsibility for moving the situation forward has been put in the hands of the United Nations and, once again, the world body is showing a breathtaking record of under-achievement and flaccidity in dealing with the generals of Myanmar. It is hardly surprising that the last UN envoy, Malaysian Razali Ismail, was doing a little business on the side during his visits. Razali eventually resigned from the job after he was barred from the country for two years.
   His successor, Ibrahim Gambari, a Nigerian appointed in 2006, had an initial flurry of ‘success’ when he became the first foreigner in two years to meet the detained Aung San Suu Kyi, undying symbol of the hope for Burmese democracy, in May 2006 amid talk of a ‘breakthrough’. In May this year Gambari was appointed special envoy to Burma. Three days later the Burmese authorities indicated what they thought of the appointment by extending Suu Kyi’s house arrest. Long-term scholars of the arcane world of Burmese tactics know that the generals were following a well-worn strategy of throwing a titbit to the new man by giving the appearance of flexibility and then failing to follow up with any substantive move.
   When Gambari finally got into the country after the latest round of bloodletting he got a token meeting with Suu Kyi but was not offered a session with the senior general and the only government figure truly worth meeting, General Than Shwe. With all due respect to Suu Kyi, she was hardly at the heart of the latest anti-government protests and it would have been more relevant to meet religious leaders. But then the Burmese authorities have no real interest in changing the status quo and no incentive for so doing as long the heavy hitters of the UN fail to get the issue brought before the Security Council.
   But if charity begins at home so does diplomacy. There had been hope that ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) might find the courage to take a stand and pressure one of its members to live up to the principles set out in the new charter which it approved in November. ASEAN leaders from Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma approved the charter which called, among other things, for respect for democracy and human rights. In doing so, they did not bat an eyelid that they did not even reprimand the Burmese authorities for the brutal repression of their people. Under pressure from the Burmese delegation, led by Prime Minister Lieutenant Thein Sein, the association abruptly cancelled an address by Gambari. The only association member to come out with any credit at all was the Philippines under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who warned the Burmese leader in a one-on-one meeting that if Burma showed no signs of movement towards democracy the Filipino Congress would not ratify the new charter. Without unanimous ratification by ASEAN members the charter will not take effect.

   The Burmese line was that Gambari should only report his findings to the UN, something which did not find favour with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said it would have been desirable that the UN official brief East Asian leaders. Ban reiterated his commitment to help the democratisation of Burma but there was no doubt that an opportunity to pressurise the regime had been lost. The ASEAN official line was one that it has upheld for 40 years — non-interference in the internal affairs of members — which has consistently undermined any credibility to which the group might aspire beyond a loose grouping of well-meaning but ineffectual governments that shrink from the real challenges of governance.
   As a result, the undemocratic cadre — Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia — backed Burma’s stand and robbed the association of the potential for a real achievement. That did not impress the association’s most important interlocutors — the Americans — who warned that the lack of action against the regime threatened the free trade agreement proposed with ASEAN and worth a potential $168 bn, according to US Trade Representative Susan Schwab. ‘The reputation and credibility of ASEAN as an organisation has been called into question because of the situation in Burma’, she said.
   Fortunately, there are nations sufficiently concerned about the situation in Burma to take action and both the United States and Europe have been in the vanguard with new sanctions and measures.
   The European Union has approved bans on the import of timber, gemstones and precious metals and has left the door open to further moves, including a ban on members of the junta using Europe-based banks. The new moves follow an EU arms embargo — of little practical use since Singapore, Russia and China supply most of what is needed by the generals — and a travel ban on Burmese officials and a freeze on their assets in Europe. The effects of such trade bans are not to be taken lightly because they do affect the activities which impact the generals’ incomes the most — the sale of gemstones and other precious metals. The original cause of the latest uprising — sudden and traumatic increases in the prices of transport and other daily necessities — were occasioned by the government’s already severe budgetary problems. And it was the monks, in their daily contact with the people in their search for alms, who saw and appreciated their plight. What is perplexing is the government’s apparent failure to placate the monks who, after all, hold in their hands the after-life fate of their persecutors the generals.

top