Monday, 05 September 2011 12:30 Benedict Rogers
(Commentary) - Two weeks ago, as Libyan rebels advanced towards Tripoli and the demise of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi became ever more certain, a surprising chain of events were taking place in another of the world’s worst dictatorships, Burma. Thein Sein, Burma’s new president and a former general, spent an hour in one-to-one talks with the country’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the first time the two had met.
Since her release from house arrest nine months ago, Suu Kyi has consistently called for dialogue with the regime. Indeed, ever since her struggle for Burma’s freedom began 23 years ago, dialogue has been her mantra. Despite spending more than 15 years under house arrest, she has never changed her core demand: let’s talk. Apart from a few stalled attempts a decade ago, the generals have usually met her call with stony silence.
So why now? There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical and cynical about the regime’s intentions. Is it a charade, designed to present a veneer of reasonableness to a watching world, particularly to the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean), whose chairmanship Burma is hoping to assume in 2014? Is it a trick, an astute divide-and-rule tactic used repeatedly by the regime? Or could it be that after the sham elections last November a power struggle ensued within the regime, emboldening the emergence of reform-minded generals?
It is worth recalling that the elections were so blatantly rigged that the regime remained almost entirely in military hands if not in military clothes. Few believed that the previous dictator, Than Shwe, had genuinely retired, assuming instead that he would pull the strings from behind the scenes. Either that analysis is wrong and Thein Sein is his own man, or Than Shwe is performing his ultimate piece of psychological warfare, as puppet master of tricks and traps.
In addition to talking to Suu Kyi, Thein Sein made two other announcements last month. First, he invited Burmese living in exile to return. By itself, that’s easy to ignore as a piece of typical propaganda. No Burmese I know feels ready to take him up on his offer. The second is more interesting. For the first time, the regime has called for peace talks with all armed ethnic groups along Burma’s borders. Unlike in the past, the offer applies to all the groups, simultaneously, rather than piecemeal deals designed to pick them off one by one and sow division. It is unclear what the mechanism for talks will be, and what will be on offer—and piecemeal deals may still be the plan, even if talks are occurring simultaneously. No nationwide cease-fire has been offered, as yet. It is, nevertheless, interesting.
So what should we make of all this? There are two dangers we must avoid. The first is to embrace these steps as some great breakthrough, and immediately ease all international pressure on the regime. That would be disastrous, though it would be what the regime is hoping for. The second, however, would be to dismiss these developments out of hand. Having called for dialogue for years, we cannot now write it off when it is offered. Instead, the international community must undertake the following steps.
First and foremost, listen to Suu Kyi and the ethnic nationalities. How are they responding? What is their analysis? What are their desires?
Second, spell out to the regime very clearly what must happen if international pressure is to ease. Benchmarks of progress are needed now more than ever. If Thein Sein’s talks with Suu Kyi are to amount to more than a cup of tea, there must be some outcomes. Another round of talks, for a start. The release of all political prisoners. A nationwide ceasefire. An end to the widespread, systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, forced labour, torture, persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, destruction of villages, killings.
When we see evidence of a real change of heart, and a corresponding change of policy, then we can talk seriously about lifting sanctions. Until then, the European Union, the United States, Canada and Australia must not only maintain sanctions, but must pursue the proposal of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate crimes against humanity.
Burma’s neighbours have a crucial role to play, now more than ever. Now is the time for China, India, Japan and Asean member states to tell Thein Sein: “Okay, good step—now where’s the substance?” For years, they have provided the regime with diplomatic, political, economic and in some cases military cover, often damaging their reputations. Now is the time to tell the regime: “Give us results.”
Thein Sein has undoubtedly watched the fall of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and now Gaddafi with growing horror. Mubarak’s trial and the arrest of Gaddafi’s sons for prosecution in the International Criminal Court must fill him with dread. For those reasons alone, he should take the chance now to chart a different course for Burma. In Aung San Suu Kyi, he could not have a more reasonable opponent.
Thein Sein can also look at history and consider the dictators that are remembered, and why. People today still talk about Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev and South Africa’s FW de Klerk, forgetting the bad things they did and remembering them as dictators who helped transition their countries to freedom. Leonid Brezhnev and PW Botha are consigned to the dustbin of history. Most people right now do not even know who Thein Sein is. Now is his chance—he could go the way of other Burmese dictators, into oblivion, he could go the way of Mubarak and Gaddafi, or he could take his place in history as the Gorbachev or de Klerk of Burma? Does he have the skills, the strength and the courage to do it? Now is his chance to surprise us.
Benedict Rogers is the East Asia team leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide, an international human rights organization, and author of “Than Shwe: Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant.”
(Commentary) - Two weeks ago, as Libyan rebels advanced towards Tripoli and the demise of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi became ever more certain, a surprising chain of events were taking place in another of the world’s worst dictatorships, Burma. Thein Sein, Burma’s new president and a former general, spent an hour in one-to-one talks with the country’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the first time the two had met.
Since her release from house arrest nine months ago, Suu Kyi has consistently called for dialogue with the regime. Indeed, ever since her struggle for Burma’s freedom began 23 years ago, dialogue has been her mantra. Despite spending more than 15 years under house arrest, she has never changed her core demand: let’s talk. Apart from a few stalled attempts a decade ago, the generals have usually met her call with stony silence.
 |
| Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein in a file photo. Photo: MRTV |
So why now? There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical and cynical about the regime’s intentions. Is it a charade, designed to present a veneer of reasonableness to a watching world, particularly to the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean), whose chairmanship Burma is hoping to assume in 2014? Is it a trick, an astute divide-and-rule tactic used repeatedly by the regime? Or could it be that after the sham elections last November a power struggle ensued within the regime, emboldening the emergence of reform-minded generals?
It is worth recalling that the elections were so blatantly rigged that the regime remained almost entirely in military hands if not in military clothes. Few believed that the previous dictator, Than Shwe, had genuinely retired, assuming instead that he would pull the strings from behind the scenes. Either that analysis is wrong and Thein Sein is his own man, or Than Shwe is performing his ultimate piece of psychological warfare, as puppet master of tricks and traps.
In addition to talking to Suu Kyi, Thein Sein made two other announcements last month. First, he invited Burmese living in exile to return. By itself, that’s easy to ignore as a piece of typical propaganda. No Burmese I know feels ready to take him up on his offer. The second is more interesting. For the first time, the regime has called for peace talks with all armed ethnic groups along Burma’s borders. Unlike in the past, the offer applies to all the groups, simultaneously, rather than piecemeal deals designed to pick them off one by one and sow division. It is unclear what the mechanism for talks will be, and what will be on offer—and piecemeal deals may still be the plan, even if talks are occurring simultaneously. No nationwide cease-fire has been offered, as yet. It is, nevertheless, interesting.
So what should we make of all this? There are two dangers we must avoid. The first is to embrace these steps as some great breakthrough, and immediately ease all international pressure on the regime. That would be disastrous, though it would be what the regime is hoping for. The second, however, would be to dismiss these developments out of hand. Having called for dialogue for years, we cannot now write it off when it is offered. Instead, the international community must undertake the following steps.
First and foremost, listen to Suu Kyi and the ethnic nationalities. How are they responding? What is their analysis? What are their desires?
Second, spell out to the regime very clearly what must happen if international pressure is to ease. Benchmarks of progress are needed now more than ever. If Thein Sein’s talks with Suu Kyi are to amount to more than a cup of tea, there must be some outcomes. Another round of talks, for a start. The release of all political prisoners. A nationwide ceasefire. An end to the widespread, systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, forced labour, torture, persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, destruction of villages, killings.
When we see evidence of a real change of heart, and a corresponding change of policy, then we can talk seriously about lifting sanctions. Until then, the European Union, the United States, Canada and Australia must not only maintain sanctions, but must pursue the proposal of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate crimes against humanity.
Burma’s neighbours have a crucial role to play, now more than ever. Now is the time for China, India, Japan and Asean member states to tell Thein Sein: “Okay, good step—now where’s the substance?” For years, they have provided the regime with diplomatic, political, economic and in some cases military cover, often damaging their reputations. Now is the time to tell the regime: “Give us results.”
Thein Sein has undoubtedly watched the fall of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and now Gaddafi with growing horror. Mubarak’s trial and the arrest of Gaddafi’s sons for prosecution in the International Criminal Court must fill him with dread. For those reasons alone, he should take the chance now to chart a different course for Burma. In Aung San Suu Kyi, he could not have a more reasonable opponent.
Thein Sein can also look at history and consider the dictators that are remembered, and why. People today still talk about Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev and South Africa’s FW de Klerk, forgetting the bad things they did and remembering them as dictators who helped transition their countries to freedom. Leonid Brezhnev and PW Botha are consigned to the dustbin of history. Most people right now do not even know who Thein Sein is. Now is his chance—he could go the way of other Burmese dictators, into oblivion, he could go the way of Mubarak and Gaddafi, or he could take his place in history as the Gorbachev or de Klerk of Burma? Does he have the skills, the strength and the courage to do it? Now is his chance to surprise us.
Benedict Rogers is the East Asia team leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide, an international human rights organization, and author of “Than Shwe: Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant.”
Subscribe to email feed
