The Myanmar quagmire

Colin Powell extended full support of the Bush administration to Senator Mitch McConnell's introduction in the Senate of Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives. He expressed the determination of the Bush administration to deny the actions of the military junta to stand "as the last word on the matter". Detailing the punitive measures taken against the Burmese rulers and their supporters Colin Powell concluded that by attacking Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters "the Burmese junta has finally and definitively rejected the efforts of the outside world to bring Burma back into the international community". He warned that the US response would be equally clear and "the thugs who now rule Burma" should understand that their failure to restore democracy would only bring more and more pressure on them.

Lorne Cranger US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour while testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed his "feeling of outrage and disgust" at the treatment meted out to Aung San Suu Kyi. He commended the Senate for passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and extended the support of the State Department to the intent and goals of the bill. But to be truly effective he called upon Burma's neighbours to join hands with the US in increasing pressure on the military rulers and on ASEAN countries to take responsibility for the actions by the military junta that could destabilise the region and smear the reputation of institution like ASEAN. He echoed the sentiments of Colin Powell and declared that the oppression of an entire nation must not stand and the international community should pull together as never before to put an end to the unchecked abuse perpetrated by the junta. " The generals must learn" Cranger told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "that such appalling behaviour will deny them the benefits of participation in the global community and eventually will deny them the ability to maintain the power they stole from the legitimate leadership of Burma in 1990".

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The British reaction to Suu Kyi's detention was equally sharp. FCO Minister Mike O'Brien called the detention appalling and particularly disturbing because she has been detained under the most draconian of the military laws of the junta which allowed for indefinite detention without access to family and lawyers and without any recourse to appeal. He too warned that the international community would not sit idly by while the military regime continued to abuse the democratic and human rights of Aung San Suu Kyi and of the Burmese people.

On 5th June the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the detention of Suu Kyi; reaffirmed its full support for democratic, judicial and political change in Burma; demanded that the military rulers relinquish their grip on power and respect the results of the 1990 elections which were won by a landslide by Aung San Suu Kyi's political party( eighty percent seats and sixty percent of the votes); called upon the ASEAN countries to take urgent actions to bring democracy back to Burma; and called upon the European Council to discuss the situation in the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Bali in July.

In an unusual departure from ASEAN's usual policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries the recently held ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Cambodia in a joint statement expressed the hope that restrictions imposed upon Suu Kyi would be lifted soon. While the wording of the Joint Statement was polite the language in the meeting of the Foreign Ministers reportedly was much more critical than the one used in the statement. Philippine Foreign Secretary expressed ASEAN countries' disappointment over Burmese government's failure to provide assurances about early release of Aung San Suu Kyi and promised that ASEAN would continue its pressure on Burma to secure her release and pursue democratic reforms.

It is, however, not very clear how firm ASEAN resolve will be given the fact that some of its members also suffer from democracy deficit though not as severe as in the case of Burma. Third world countries historically have a higher threshold of tolerance of democracy deficit than the developed countries. Poverty, tribalism, religious factionalism, underdevelopment etc contribute to slow development of democratic culture in these countries. Besides religious orthodoxy in developing countries' view some of the western values and permissive social practices are corrosive and contributory to moral degradation and hence to be opposed at all cost. Often real cause of resistance by the religious orthodoxy is due to their fear of losing power and influence, essential to live a life of abundance amidst a sea of deprivation and abysmal depth of poverty. Underdeveloped societies quintessentially being feudalistic deprived populace suffer from the dual curse of docility and fatalism i.e. their deprivation having been ordained by divinity cannot be changed, an unwavering conviction embalmed by the assurances by the religious orthodoxy that deprivation in this world will be rewarded by abundance in the next. Democracy, therefore, in these societies is an insurrectionary idea, a contagion to be avoided at all cost.

In case of Burma it is not religious orthodoxy but military oligarchy which has gripped the country and the people in a tyrannical totalitarian tentacle for more than forty years since General Ne Win's coup d'etat in 1962. European Union's Overview (updated in June 2003) describes it as a highly authoritarian military regime widely condemned for its serious human rights violations. Extra-judicial executions, massive forced relocations reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge/ Pol Pot excesses leading to the killing fields in Cambodia, compulsory civilian "porterage" for the army are on daily agenda. Countless reports of the Amnesty International/ Human Rights Watch have chronicled worst possible human rights abuses perpetrated by the military junta on the unarmed civilian population. In the backdrop of such cruelty it was not surprising that the Burmese people thronged the camp of Aung San Suu Kyi at the first available opportunity and gave her a landslide mandate in the general elections of May 1990. She was cheated out of her victory as the military refused to relinquish power and it has been refusing to do so till today.

After the tragic events on nine-eleven US administration has come to realise that "democratic exceptions" tolerated in the past on many grounds did not serve the American interest because closed political systems breed resentment which gradually transforms societies into failed or failing states. Population in Burma is composed of sixty percent Burmans and forty percent from other ethnic groups and sub-groups. Many of these ethnic groups have been waging insurgent wars since 1948 against the government in Rangoon denying major areas to government control including Burma's part of the Golden Triangle (a major supplier to the world opium market). Of late many of the insurgents have signed shaky ceasefire agreements with the military regime but some other continue to wage their war.

The question which has gained currency is how sacrosanct are sovereignty and territorial integrity if large scale violation of human rights continue to take place within the territory of a country. Ambassador Richard Haas of the US State department believes that sovereignty is not a blank cheque and its retention depends on the ruler's treatment of their own people and their attitude towards other countries. Otherwise territorial integrity becomes vulnerable to external intrusion who will come to set conditions right. The idea is that all countries should adopt a code of conduct acceptable to the international community. This doctrine has been articulated in the Bush Security Strategy of September 2002. Several US Presidents had in the past resorted to intervention e.g. Granada, Panama, Haiti etc. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia when Serb President Slobodan Milosevic resorted to large scale human rights violations in Bosnia, Croatia and then in Kosovo, NATO intervened to deny Milosevic the power to wage war against his own people who wanted to leave the Serb dominated Yugoslav Federation and form independent countries of their own. Hesitation to intervene in Srebrenica and Rwanda which resulted in the deaths of many civilians would haunt the conscience of the US and her European allies for a long time.

There is considerable force in the argument that those who can make a difference should do so to bring relief to a people enslaved by a tyrannical oligarchy albeit of the same origin as the people who are being oppressed. That Suu Kyi should be released immediately is not even debatable. The problem to be resolved is how peaceably power can be transferred to Suu Kyi and her party who were given a splendid mandate by the Burmese people thirteen years ago. Her non-violent movement against the military junta did not produce even a dash of contrition in their mind. Burmese civilians simply cannot be expected to stand up to an army determined to hold on to power. One wonders whether ASEAN should not require its members to sign on to a democracy charter like the African Union and OAS members have done pledging themselves to the uninterrupted practice of democracy. Example can also be taken from Commonwealth which had suspended Nigeria for its military rule till elections took place. Pakistan still remains suspended because of yet unclear picture of her political construct.

Bangladeshis should have natural empathy for Suu Kyi and the plight of the Burmese people because Bangladeshis have a glorious record of fighting military rule both before her independence and thereafter. The people of Burma are waiting for more than forty years to be free. It is the inescapable duty of the international community to help them to quench their thirst for freedom.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is former Secretary and Ambassador.