[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
No Subject Given
To: reg.burma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:27:55 +0000
Subject: from India
CC: ncgub@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Confirm-Reading-To: [email protected]
X-pmrqc: 1
Return-receipt-to: [email protected]
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) & WPEGWAF v0.7
Organization: Forum for Democracy and Human Rights
INDIA AND MYANMAR
An Agonizing Relationship
On November 14, 1995, when the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru
Award for International Understanding was conferred on Aung San Suu Kyi
of Burma in the Ashoka Hall of Rashtrapati Bhavan by the President of India,
a friend of mine who is usually very sympathetic to the people of Myanmar
expressed some misgiving about the timing of this recognition, keeping in view
the current upward trend in the bilateral ties of the two countries. This
misgiving brought to my mind the fact that in the 1990, shortly before the
Iraq-Kuwait armed conflict, Rajiv Gandhi who was the Leader of Opposition
paid a visit to Baghdad in an effort to move, calling it foolhardy. When asked
for my views on this matter at informal discussions, I supported the former
prime Minister, saying that a leader of India can not effort to make his foreign
policy moves dependent solely on considerations of immediate national benefit
and diplomatic rectitude. India stands for certain values which transcend
immediate national interest. Indian leaders cannot afford to ignore them.
In fact, upholding these leaders cannot afford to ignore them. In fact, upholding
these values itself id a vital national interest of India.
India's relations with her immediate neighbour, the Union of
Myanmar, should also be examined from the same view-point. India and
Myanmar have concluded a number of bilateral agreements during the last
twelve months, the most important of these being the border trade agreement.
Two-way trade by the sea route has also picked up. The military cooperation
along the border has also developed in an unprecedented manner. For example,
recently, a huge consignment of arms which has being clandestinely taken
across Burmese territory to the separatist groups in the north-east was
captured with timely assistance from Myanmar Army. Ministerial visits
between the two countries have also been exchanged on a scale which is not
normal.
These enhanced contacts naturally raise a question __
Has the Government of Inida decided to normalize its relations with the
military regime in Yangon, rather than continue the policy of support to
the democracy movement under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi?
While in India this question is rising in the minds of mainly those who
have some interest in Burma., for the Burmese people inside and outside
that country, this has become a most vital issue. I have received a number
of quarries on this matter me of the statements made by Rajiv Gandhias
Prime Minister and several of his successors, expressing unequivocal support
for the cause of democracy and the admiration which Indian Government has
for Aung San Suu Kyi.
I tell my Burmese friends that there is no conflict between having
normal relations with the regime which is in real control of the administration
of that country and support for democracy. But unfortunately, the people at
the helm of affairs in South Block do not seem to realize this. The result is that
at international fora, India's voice is muted on the issue of restoration of
democracy. On the other hand, our leaders appear apologetic while trying
to explain the growing economic and military ties between the two countries.
They seem to forget that a country like the United States, while criticizing
China for its suppression of human rights, is having a burgeoning economic
relationship with that country.
It is, therefore, not an anti-Burma move to welcome the prospect
of democracy in that country. It has been an article of faith for every Indian
Prime Minister to support the cause of democracy in every part of the
globe. Seen from this angle, the signals from Yangon are not encouraging for
the present Indian leadership to express satisfaction with their ties with
Myanmar.
Aung San Suu Kyi's release has not been followed up with release
of other important leaders. Nor is there any further relaxation of control over
media and other avenues of self-expression. Moreover, the SLORC is trying
to keep Suu Kyi out of the political process. They have been trying not only
to work out a new constitution for Burma which gives the armed forces
permanent place in the stewardship of the country through a constitution
convention which they have called without any authority under any statutory
law, but have also stated publicly that Suu Kyi will not be allowed to contest
elections as she is married to a foreigner. To cover this move, they are quoting
none other than her own father, General Aung San.
The military regime in Yangon is closing its eyes to the fact that
1995 is not 1948, when Burma was emerging from British colonial rule and
there was a general dislike for foreigners. To expect that India which had a
Prime Minister married to a foreigner and the rest of the world where many
naturalized citizens have made to the highest political offices in
their countries of adoption, would accept their moth-eaten ideology
is almost an affront. Not content with this, the Burmese military leaders
have taken other steps to keep Burma's woman of destiny out of power.
It has been reported that the National League for Democracy has reinstated
Aung San Suu Kyi as a General Secretary of the party. But, the five-member
Election Commission of Burma which has been filled with hand-picked persons
has refused to accept the change which is a requirement under the rule
The Burmese Government is trying to hide these development
under an open-door scheme under which foreign tourists, businessmen and
media personal are being allowed to visit the country without any hindrance
and to see things with their own eyes. This change of policy in a country
where maximum length of visa used to be seven days and no citizen was
allowed to have a foreigner as a house guest, has elated many outside visitors.
A good deal of imported foodtuff and cosmetics have added to the attraction
of the local markets. But, a close look would reveal that this change is barely
skin-deep. The economic policy of the military government has been able to
attract only some short-term and fast money-making investors. It has not been
able to lure long-term investment in the manufacturing sector. The reason for
this is that major investors lack the confidence to start labour-intensive and
long-term investment in the manufactoring sector because the infrastructure
in the transport, communications and energy sector is still very poor.
Moreover, the constitutional and legal framework which can ensure safe
repatriation of profits and prevent expropriation is totally non-existent.
In addition, business rules and regulations are inconsistent and corruption
and nepotism continue to be widespread.
In a situation like this, for countries to rush to Myanmar to make
hay, disregarding the growth of the democratic process, would not be a wise
policy. Lasting economic growth based on free enterprise can take place only
under a democratic policy.
In fact, what the SLORC has done so far is to use all the available
resources of the country for the expansion of the armed forces. It has so far
invested in $ 1.4 billion for this purpose. The result is that the strength of the
Burmese Army has grown from 180,000 to 400,000 during the last half decade.
Burma has purchased mostly from China fighter jets, tanks, patrol boats,
anti-aircraft missiles, artillery pieces and other arms and ammunition. According to a UNICEF report, Burma's defense budget rose from 22% of its total expenditure in 180, to 39% in 1993.
It may be recalled that on her release from house arrest, Suu Kyi
had said that there was no occasion to rejoice over an individual's freedom,
as long as the Burmese people were not free to express their views and to
choose their own government. In view of this, she had advised foreign
governments not to rush with their investments. To do so would be to fall
prey to the game they have played by releasing her.
The irony is that countries have fallen in this trap. Japan, the
country which has provided the largest amount of economic assistance to
Burma, has already welcomed Suu Kyi's release as a positive gesture on the
part of Slorc. The Japanese Government which has frozen ODA credits when
military cracked down on the democracy movement in 1988, is seriously
thinking of resuming it, to the great delight of Japanese MNC's. In fact, it
is believed by many that the military authorities decided to release Suu Kyi
primarily with a view to influence Japan. If this is true, then the Slorc has
really succeeded in its game. There were, however, other factors which have
played a role in tilting Japanese attitude. Japan has been worried over the
growing importance of China in Myanmar and was looking for an opportunity
to rectify this tilt. In addition, Japanese diplomacy has always been hampered
by US attitudes and inclinations in respect of most countries in Asia. In the
case of Myanmar, USA has only a limited interest which does not go beyond
human rights and drug smuggling. Hence, Japan could play a free hand.
The ASEAN countries have been pleading for " Constructive
engagement " with Myanmar for long and even invited a Burmese delegation
at their Ministerial Meeting in 1994. But what Japan, ASEAN and the
developed countries of Europe are disregadrding is the recent history of the
success of democracy in the world, of which the Republic of South Africa
is a burning example. This history has shown that it is the economic pressure
of the democratic world which results in political wrongs being righted.
The result of this misjudgment on the part of develop democratic
countries is already visible. The Slorc seemed to be in no mood to relax its
group. It wants the political parties, particularly the NLD to succumb to its
pressure and accept a constitution which gives to the armed forces a
domineering place in the governance of the country. It seems to be dead set
on reconvening the so-called Constitutional Convention on 28th of November.
Suu Kyi, on the other hand, announced on 24th November at a large meeting
of students in front of her residence that her party cannot wait indefinitely for
the rulers to start a dialouge to restore the democratic process. Thus, any hope
that there would be a thaw in the situation in Myanmar has faded.
The question that rises in one's mind at this juncture is : Does the
above picture of Burma have any impact on the thinking of the policy-makers
in NewDelhi ? The answer is : " Perhaps, not " . An indicator of this was the
strange coincidence that at the Nehru Award ceremony for Aung San Suu Kyi
at Rashtrapati Bhavan, the two persons who were conspicuous by their absence
were the Ambassador of Myanmar and the prime Minister of India. It is ,
therefore, safe to assume that hard ground realities do not seem to be guiding
the thinking of the foreign policy makers of South Block*. According to a
press report, even China has promised to the Thai Defense Minister Chavalit
that it will cease supporting the build-up of Burmese armed forces.
It is high time that the mandarins in South Block wake up to
the gong from the great golden Shwedagon Pagoda of Rangoon.
* South Block - Ministry of External Affairs
************** END TEXT **************