Burma: The ongoing tragedy next door

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/01/02/opinion/opinion_30092264.php

By The Nation
Published on January 2, 2009


Thailand's new govt must not pander to the Burmese junta as its predecessors have done


It is interesting to watch how the situation in Burma develops, as well as the behaviour and thinking of the key stakeholders, especially the Rangoon military junta and the international community including the United Nations. For the past two decades, the former has been able to outmanoeuvre the latter in all circumstances.

The UN and its special envoy to Burma have become the main tool the junta uses to buy time to further consolidate its power and tighten control over the population. Now, the UN is desperately trying to think of new ways to deal with Burma. But the conclusion so far is simple: all efforts since 1988 to revive the democratic process have failed to produce any tangible results.



The Burmese regime is stronger than ever, due in part to its increased foreign exchange through the export of energy resources plus the influx of humanitarian aid both in cash and in kind. All the junta has to do, it seems, is wait and be patient. The international community, especially the UN, wants to see democratic progress in Burma - but it is more than possible that the UN, through receiving gullible advice, has become more flexible with Burma. The trick, that the generals understand well, is that they do not need to change their hardline position. The junta can continue to arrest and suppress its own people. The outside world has to accommodate the cruel regime if it wants to see any progress.


Time and again, the UN and its envoys, both previous and current, have been used by the regime. These envoys and officials all want to achieve some degree of success in Burma so that they can appease their bosses or claim some credit for themselves. So, they are willing to bend to ensure that the Burmese generals continue to talk to them. The regime now holds the UN and international community hostage along with its own people.


The UN must be very clear of its role in helping to end the Burmese quagmire. The record of the UN under the leadership of Ban Ki-moon has not been palatable. He has to show more decisive leadership in handling the Burmese situation. The special envoy, Ismail Gambari, should have learned from his previous dealings with the Burmese leaders and how cunning they are. Now, he begs to be allowed into Burma as if he is at the junta's mercy.


The regime has benefited greatly from the post-Cyclone Nargis humanitarian assistance and rescue effort. Since the disaster earlier this year, international aid has poured into the country. It has even been suggested that some of the aid has reached the people who most desperately need it, although there can be no doubt that a good proportion of it has been siphoned off by the junta. Incoming assistance helped to link devastated communities during the cyclone and forged a new network of civil society groups. This trend should be encouraged as it could soon proliferate throughout Burma, beyond the Irrawaddy Delta, which was worst affected by the cyclone. For this to happen, more foreign assistance is needed.


To further rehabilitate the battered economy and guarantee future reconstruction projects, more commitment and financial contributions are urgently needed. Some countries are reluctant to give more because they do not trust the Burmese authorities. To mitigate this reluctance to engage with the regime, there is a strong advocacy emerging that the UN and the rest of the world should yield to Burma if they want to see the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and 2,000 political prisoners released.


The problem is, while they make a strong collaborative effort towards this, they all know full well that the Burmese leaders cannot be trusted whatsoever. In the past, they have lied through their teeth on many issues.


It is fortunate that Thailand has a new government that will be firmer with its Burmese policy. If history is any judge, a Democrat-led government will not kowtow or court the Burmese military like the Thaksin government and its nominees did. The previous Thai administrations since 2001 were desperate to do business with the generals and were willing to defend and speak on the junta's behalf.


As the frontline Asean state that shares the longest border with Burma, Thailand could bring some sense of realism to the current debate about what is the best way to deal with Burma.


For the past eight years, Thailand has not played an appropriate role at all on Burma because of Thaksin's vested personal interests in the country and his influence on Thai-Burmese diplomatic relations.


Of course, Burma is a member of Asean, and Thailand needs to both engage with its neighbour and cooperate with Asean on tackling the issue. The first step for this new government will be to carefully consider its policy on Burma with Asean's shared interest at heart.