SUBSCRIBE|ADVERTISE | DONATION
Irrawaddy CONTACT US|FAQ
BURMESE VERSION




CONTRIBUTOR
Engaging with Democracy or Authoritarianism?
By HTET AUNG Thursday, February 26, 2009

COMMENTS (5)
RECOMMEND (109)
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
 
MORE
E-MAIL
PRINT

The voices supporting engagement with the Burmese regime have been louder in some of the recent media coverage of the political crisis in Burma.

This new attempt to untangle a 20-year-old political knot seems to have coincided with the seventh visit of UN’s Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari to Burma on January 31 to February 3.

If we could point to any positive progress from this visit, it would be that it was the first time opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was able to meet the UN envoy together with her colleagues.

It is clear that the NLD are again urging the UN’s Good Offices to broker meaningful dialogue between the party and the regime. It is also clear that Gambari was aware that the NLD did not refer to the junta’s statement that “confrontation, utter devastation, economic sanctions and total isolation do not benefit the country or the people” in a manner that suggested the party concurred with the regime’s stance.

The NLD’s position was clarified in a Special Statement 2 issued on February 17, saying, “Daw Aung San Suu Kyi informed authorities through U Aung Kyi, Minister for Relations, that she was ready to cooperate and issue a joint communiqué to prevent these problems [misunderstandings] from happening.”

The NLD emphasized its position in an interview with The Irrawaddy. Spokesman Nyan Win said reiterated the party’s stand on “unconditional dialogue,” as well as emphasizing the NLD’s desire for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit the country.

The NLD, for its part, is ready to discuss and issue a joint statement on the country’s political problems, including the issue of economic and other sanctions. It is evident which party is avoiding meaningful dialogue.

During Gambari’s visit, Burmese Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein demanded that economic sanctions and visa bans be lifted if the UN wants to see stability in Burma.

The regime is playing a game of diplomatic ping-pong with the NLD and the UN in order to create a situation too complicated to be solved.

The generals have used—and will use—this same strategy time and again because they are confident they can manage the country without giving an inch to the opposition in any future political arena in Burma.

Meanwhile, a new US administration is reviewing its overall policy on Burma. The US, of course, is the main backer of economic and visa sanctions on the Burmese generals and their cohorts.         

But before declaring a new policy on Burma, the Obama administration should consider this: will the Burmese regime really share space with the NLD in the future affairs of Burma?

Soldiers who are trained only to defeat their enemy will never sit down and talk with them as long as there is a possibility of winning the battle. Today, the regime sits confident that it is going to win the battle in 2010.

In recent days, a handful of foreign scholars and diplomats have issued pessimistic and critical statements regarding Suu Kyi’s political party. The opinions that popped up in the media showed an overall support for promoting engagement with the regime, and even went so far as criticizing the NLD as some breed of black sheep that is somehow blocking the country’s development.

The comments would not be surprising if Burmese politics were just another business, beholden to its shareholders and with a natural appetite for profits. But it is more than that. Activists, students, monks, journalists, writers, poets and even housewives—the entire spectrum of the pro-democracy movement—have been sacrificing their lives since 1988 in the belief that only democracy can bring about peace, freedom and prosperity, and most importantly, a life with dignity that each human being deserves from his or her community.

I believe that only an open democratic society can bring about economic development in Burma. We Burmese are struggling not to usurp power for the party we support, but to establish a functioning political system in the country.

If the international community wants to see Burma as a country governed by the rule of law, then it must get behind the democracy movement. If they want to see Burma as a stable nation in a prosperous region, the paramount task is to pressure the repressive military regime to come to its senses—to realize that a democratic system will ultimately alleviate the socio-economic crisis in Burma and lead to social stability within the society. 

The author is a Bangkok-based independent researcher, graduating MA in International Development Studies at Chulalongkorn University.



COMMENTS (5)
 
Please read our policy before you post comments. Click here
Name:
E-mail:   (Your e-mail will not be published.)
Comment:
You have characters left.
Word Verification: captcha Type the characters you see in the picture.
 

KKK Wrote:
14/03/2009
To Thura: What would you do if you were in Daw Suu's position?

Eric Johnston Wrote:
28/02/2009
Sanctions by the West have not been applied throughout the SLORC/SPDC period. Was the earlier (pro-engagement) period more successful in encouraging reform by the regime?

Derek Tonkin, interviewed by Burma Digest, 24th July 2005, spoke in favour of 'engagement'. (the word has many meanings)

It is generally understood that politics and economics are intimately related, both at the national and international levels. Replace economic sanctions, by all means. But with what more effective means will you replace them?

It is necessary to examine sanctions individually to see where they can be applied most effectively against the regime. If sanctions block investment in industries where many jobs can be created for the poorer people, but allow investment where large sums of money produce few long-term jobs (and maybe much forced labour) and where the regime stands to make huge financial gains, this is a nonsense. Yet this is what the EU is doing.

Can we believe the regime when it says sanctions are not working? Why are they calling for their removal? Isn't the removal of sanctions what the "elections" are really about?

The generals' luxurious life style does not suffer from sanctions. They will be the last to suffer. But perhaps their plans for building the Fourth Burman Empire are not proceeding quite as quickly as they wish.

The removal of sanctions is a carrot. Will the generals in power bite that carrot? Most unlikely. But their successors ...?

Derek Tonkin Wrote:
27/02/2009
No one that I know is pressing for engagement with the regime. That is for governments to decide, in their own good time. But only yesterday the Thai Foreign Minister spoke to ASEAN representatives in Bangkok about more engagement with civil society which is what many of us would like to see. That engagement is targeted and morally justifiable. There is little point in the West putting all their eggs into the NLD basket because they are nowadays, alas, impotent and ineffective for whatever reasons. The West needs to spread its support for democracy in Burma around, where it can really count.

Thura Wrote:
27/02/2009
We all know the junta is bad, and NLD is sacrificing for the people. There is no doubt. However, what is being disputed now is the STRATEGY from the point of view of effectiveness and practicability.

If a company yields no positive results, the president will have to take responsibility irrespetive of how hard he/she tried for the company. How will NLD or Daw Suu justify sticking to their 20-years-long strategy that has not worked at all so far?

e.r. Wrote:
26/02/2009
Reasonable and quite obvious position. It's worrying that in some moments it's so necessary to reaffirm it. Evidently Junta is winning his "diplomatic" game with international community, with the kind help of some complaisant "experts".








Thailand Hotels
Bangkok Hotels
China Hotels
India Hotels

More Articles in This Section

bullet Don't Expect Much from Burma's Election

bullet 'Diplomacy by Stealth' Needed in West's Approach to Burma

bullet Dividing Political Parties into Groups

bullet With Neighbors Like These...

bullet An Open Letter to Than Shwe

bullet The Price of Privatization and Crony Capitalism

bullet The Shortcomings of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal

bullet More of the Same at Asean Meeting

bullet Stifling Democracy in Burma, the Junta way

bullet Building an Opposition to the Opposition


 

Home |News |Regional |Business |Opinion |Multimedia |Special Feature |Interview |Magazine |Burmese Elections 2010 |Archives |Research
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.