Friday, 12 March 2010 11:16 Nyo Ohn Myint (Commentary)
(Mizzima) - The Burmese military regime’s harsh party registration law has at last shocked both the domestic and international community. Western countries, recently given to reviewing Burma policy and willing to see national reconciliation in a different light, including the notion that Burma’s generals could be persuaded toward reform, are now forced to review their position.
Surely no longer can the international community deceive themselves that a policy of engagement is alive and democratic reform in the works? Thus far the international community’s unsupported lip service and ineffective approaches have only hindered chances at national reconciliation. The failure of national reconciliation is also a failure in two decades of international efforts.
The international community should know that the regime will never give up absolute power without a vast tradeoff.
Burma’s chronic political crisis has spun a myriad of problems, including millions of illegal immigrants and refugees, nuclear ambitions and the move of the regime’s administrative capital to the relatively isolated surroundings of Naypyitaw. Meanwhile, regional security and stability remains a big question.
Burma’s prolonged political crisis has only worsened in the last seven years following the regime’s unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi at Depayin. In 2007, the peaceful chanting of ‘loving kindness’ by thousands of monks was greeted with gunshots, leading to many monks killed and jailed, as well as protesters. Then, last year, an American swimmer’s intrusion into the residence of Aung San Suu Kyi provided the guise the regime needed to further detain the opposition leader.
In the United States, the Obama administration came into power with a mandate to review American foreign policy, particularly in the wake of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its policy on Burma occupies but a minor position in Washington’s greater global objectives. Even though President Bush could not correctly pronounce the name of Burma’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, he at least strongly took up her cause. If he had ordered United States naval vessels, anchored just miles offshore, to invade Burma following Cyclone Nargis, many Burmese would have been happy.
Obama’s administration started with a slogan of engagement with hostile regimes. As such the Obama administration maintains its willingness to engage with Burma’s generals while maintaining strict sanctions which could be eased depending on signs of positive progress such as the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.
But Burma’s generals, bolstered by strategic support from countries like China and India, know the United States does not have the teeth necessary to force their agenda. And policymakers in Washington also know it well, though they continue to call for the holding of free and fair elections later this year.
It is now clear that Burma’s ruling generals are not going to entertain the mood of American policy on Burma. For the generals, why should they allow Aung San Suu Kyi or anyone from the National League for Democracy to be in power when they are able to do what they want, albeit with the vital support from some veto-wielding governments such as China and Russia as well as businessmen benefiting from continued military dominance.
The electoral laws coming out now in Burma prohibit any dissident, including Aung San Suu Kyi and the more than 2100 political prisoners, to be associated in any way with the country’s electoral process. The regime will only allow selected individuals and organizations to participate in the country’s first election in 20 years. It will go ahead with its clearly defined “disciplined democracy”, while the National League for Democracy does not have much choice except to continue its struggle for democracy for years to come under even more difficult circumstances. In sum, the regime continues to slap the international community in its face, excluding The Lady from playing any role and moving unilaterally forward.
The Burmese military regime’s new law effectively declares a war against the international community. Burma’s military regime still believes it holds the crucial cards in the game: natural resources and strategic geographic location.
Yet, the bottom line is that the people of Burma do not deserve this harsh political development. As such, the international community has to decide whether it will accept the development of the electoral process as currently outlined by the junta - a process unlikely to solve the country’s political crisis. We Burmese do not want to see the end of the story, and because of this we do not want to see the international community allow Burma’s generals to defy the wishes of its people.
(The writer is Secretary of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the NLD-LA based in Thailand.)
Friday, March 12, 2010
Subscribe to email feed
