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




EDITORIAL
Clinton’s Flawed Burma Message
Wednesday, July 29, 2009

COMMENTS (13)
RECOMMEND (82)
E-MAIL
PRINT

Despite Aung San Suu Kyi’s insistence on her innocence, the learned support of her lawyers and the international community, it’s clear that the generals are determined to keep her locked up.

The final verdict in her bizarre trial in Rangoon’s Insein Prison will be announced on Friday, and security around Rangoon is being beefed up in readiness for possible protests.

Suu Kyi is charged with breaking the terms of her house arrest order by giving refuge to an American trespasser, John William Yettaw, and faces a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment if convicted.

Suu Kyi told her lawyers on the final day of the trial that the proceedings would show “whether or not the rule of law exists in the country.” The sad fact, however, is that Suu Kyi is fighting a losing battle in a country where the basic rule of law is not respected.

Analysts say the trial is politically motivated and is an attempt to exclude Suu Kyi from future politics and the 2010 election.

It is certain that the regime plans to hand out punishment to the Nobel Peace Prize winner and perhaps drag the court proceedings out still further.

High-ranking US officials recently said that Suu Kyi’s trial has complicated the Obama administration’s policy review on Burma. It is increasingly obvious that it’s a wrong strategy to tie the trial to a policy review and to a decision on whether to increase or renew sanctions on Burma.

Last week, at the Asean Ministerial Meeting in Phuket, Thailand, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made contradictory statements on Burma. She had earlier said that Burma’s relationship with North Korea would destabilize the region, and she offered incentives to the regime.

Clinton also said that if Suu Kyi were released, “this would open up doors for investment and for other exchanges that would help the people of Burma.”

It is naïve to expect that the regime would exchange Suu Kyi’s freedom in return for cash and investment. The regime leaders won’t compromise and such a deal is far from their thoughts.

It is safe to assume that the regime leaders are quite confident that they can weather the international pressure with the support of such friends as China.

According to a recent report from Burma’s Ministry of National Planning and Development, foreign investment jumped from $172.7m in the 2007- 2008 fiscal year to a current peak of $984.9m. The ministry said China accounted for 87 per cent of total investments—mainly in energy and natural resources.

With this level of Chinese support, Burmese rulers and their armed forces are assured of the financial and political backing to continue their crimes in the ethnic regions for decades to come. The oppressed people of Burma will continue to live in extreme poverty.

The regime’s ultimate goal is to remain in power as long as it can. Suu Kyi poses a real threat to the Than Shwe’s road map and his grip on power—and so do more than 2,000 political prisoners held by his regime.

Secretary of State Clinton should have learnt from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who had earlier delivered a firm message to the generals, telling them to free Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, to make the road map inclusive, to work for national reconciliation and to ensure that the 2010 election is credible.

Clinton and Ban were each acting as temporary negotiators in Burma’s hostage drama, where the Burmese feel themselves prisoners in their own country. Clinton’s message, however, failed to strike the correct tone.



COMMENTS (13)
 
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.
 

planB Wrote:
07/08/2009
Clinton is like most Western leaders who listen to aides who are generally sympathetic to DASSK, convincing her that DASSK=Burmese people's salvation.

A quick to conclude what to do approach. Just like a lot of opinionated people here. Shooting her mouth off even before meeting Nyan Win
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16384

If more cynically put, that absolutely false idea suits their decision towards without regards for the people.

At the end of the day she can always say:
I listen to your own countrymen here in US telling me that DASSK is the answer to your country's problem. Don't blame me if my policy unintentionally hurt the citizen more than SPDC!

Here is the further proof that I have from Turnell and BEW saying SPDC hurt the people not US policy of sanctions.

Clinton and BKM are guilty of not wanting to take the SPDC seriously using stronger carrots and making the present stick more effective.

Maung khine Wrote:
03/08/2009
I am just fed up with people blaming the US and the international community for not doing enough. Actually, the real power should be inside the country—the Burmese people. I am so sick of seeing people starving and poor.

George Than Setkyar Heines Wrote:
02/08/2009
That's your way of looking at the coin. Thanks anyway.

Daw Suu is Burmese and Buddhist. Right thinking gives right decisions, leading to right action and victory at the end. There is "think before you do" also.

Thus Burmese people never waver in their actions once started. Hence Burma stood as a nation on earth since 1044, way before England came under Norman rule on Christmas Day 1066 as a unified country.

And Daw Suu's father proved the point as well. He wrestled Burma's freedom from British rule.

George Washington's determination to fight and sacrifice also was pivotal in US independence from British rule. Thinking right and doing right certainly serves people right.

Look at the Dalai Lama. He is touring the world and that's it. Nothing happens since decades ago until today.

Gandhi, Mandela, Ramos Horta and even Castro made history in their own way while risking life and never giving up.

Trust me, Daw Suu will never give up much less run away from a monk murderer.

Garrett Wrote:
02/08/2009
Hi Ted,

Daw Suu has likely had many opportunities to leave the Burma over the years, and it has been her choice to stay with her people.

She asked them long ago for self-sacrifice and intrepidity, and has shown them what those words mean for twenty years.

Her agenda is clearly on record in her 1990 Freedom From Fear essay, however the Nobel Peace Prize award and the SLORC quickly snuffed out the flame of freedom, and the pro-democracy movement has lain dormant ever since.

While Daw Suu's agenda has been suppressed for 20 years by world liberals who think they can achieve freedom in Burma without protesters being hurt, millions have perished as the cost of inaction.

If the world has ignored Daw Suu's agenda to bring freedom and democracy to Burma for twenty years, why would her freedom suddenly make her agenda important?

At this point it seems clear that nothing is going to happen until the Burmese people stand up to the regime, whether Daw Suu is in Burma or not.


Ted Gugelyk Wrote:
01/08/2009
About Aung San Suu Kyi:

In your editorial titled Clinton’s Flawed message you state:

Despite Aung San Suu Kyi’s insistence on her innocence, the learned support of her lawyers and the international community, it’s clear that the generals are determined to keep her locked up.

I hate to see her a martyr for her country – and fearfully perhaps face death in prison in Burma. Often in photographs now she looks so tired and thin.

In strategic thinking about democracy for Burma, why not consider taking a one-way ticket out of Burma and return to England? She would quickly raise millions and millions of dollars and be able to speak out internationally, make her voice heard for freedom for her people. Now she acts as a symbol, a quiet determined symbol, but she may be putting her life in jeopardy by staying longer.

I simply think she should save herself and carry on her struggle onward outside her country.

Ted Gugelyk
Ubon Rachathani, Thailand
(I am an American)

Nat Ka Lay Wrote:
31/07/2009
The US Democratic government's policy is clear now. Russia is a priority for security concerns for both itself and the EU. China is priority for economy (its companies in China). India is for future alliance in the case of war with Russia and China combined forces. All three giants are priority as a whole. Asean is for lip service and Burma's case is being used as a tool to get the respect from the world. Burma's jeopardy cannot hurt US's security or economy.
In fact India should have more concern for Burma. But India took a wrong side to stand together. It will realize its mistake and turn to opposition only when China threatens it through Burma.

Kyaw Win Wrote:
30/07/2009
The US Secretary of State has to learn a lot about Burmese politics. The question is who really cares about the investment? The military junta and its cronies? The Burmese?
The U.S?

tocharian Wrote:
30/07/2009
Well, we just had a "G2" conference betwen the US and China recently. It's obvious that China has a lot of cash (almost a trillion $'s in US T-Bills) and the US even wants China to spend some of it, so Hillary offering US "investment" becomes a joke, if the Burmese junta can get that directly from China. I'm not saying that I agree with what China is doing to Burma, but Money and Guns talk!

Eric Johnston Wrote:
30/07/2009
What we have seen so far is posturing by governments to public audiences.

The democracies, if they "mean business," will start applying real pressure to the regime's backers, the kind of pressure that hurts. Of course this will also hurt the democracies.

But in the long term nothing hurts democracy more than dictators that succeed in getting their way. Sooner or later dictators must be stopped. Sooner is better than later. It is cheaper in human lives and material resources.

KKK Wrote:
30/07/2009
China and Burma have a G2G business. China gives guns to Burma and Burma gives gas to China. This G2G business will continue to grow and the Burmese people will continue to suffer for many years. Is there any hope for the Burmese? It is really up to the Burmese people.

Nat Ka Lay Wrote:
29/07/2009
By the message chosen for Burma, Clinton's understanding of Burma's affairs is very very low and could even be said to be "unqualified." Her offer to exchange Daw Suu and American investment is really a naive dream. Her thought that the junta cares for the country is ridiculous. She should have attended a class on Burma issues before coming to Asia. Her advisors should have done the same. She should have known that these generals are powermongers and working for themselves only. No concern for the country nor the people. I can imagine a roar of laughter among the generals when she made this offer.

Kyaw Win Wrote:
29/07/2009
Inevitably, the people of Burma are now living in the largest and the worst ghetto in the world. They are born with fear.They live with fear and die with fear after all. What does life mean for a Burmese?

Okkar Wrote:
29/07/2009
Why can't the opposition accept that no one is supporting their cause anymore? Everyone is engaging with the Myanmar government.



More Articles in This Section

bullet Engagement? It's Asean’s Shame

bullet Asean’s Never-ending Struggle for Relevance

bullet Halfway to a Handshake

bullet Don’t Let the Junta off the Hook

bullet Impotent China

bullet Tension in the North

bullet Webb’s Tangled Message

bullet Lay Off the Lady

bullet Ban—Empty-handed But Wiser

bullet The World is Ready for a President Aung San Suu Kyi


 

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