Reply from S. Brookes

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Received: (from strider) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA08959 for conf:reg.burma; Thu, 16 May 1996 05:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 05:34:03 -0700 (PDT)


>From Yishane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx May 15 11:31:34 1996
Date: 14 May 1996 10:43:19 GMT
To: strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: from stephen brookes, asia times

(To all burmanet readers -- because of technical problems I face in Myanmar,
this is being e-mailed by an intermediary. If you'd like to respond directly,
please use my e-mail address: stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx All replies will be kept
strictly confidential.

Also -- the editorial that ran in Asia Times simultaneously with my "Open
Letter" was not authored by me, nor did I have any input into it. Any
comments on it should be addressed to the editors. Thanks -- SB)

To the Burmanet Editor:

I was delighted to hear from you. I spoke with my editor at Asia Times this
morning, who said he preferred just to run your letter without a reponse from
us. But he invited me to write my own personal note to Burmanet, so here it
is. (Let me stress -- these are just my own views, and not necessarily those
of Asia Times.)

There were indeed a couple of technical errors in the "open letter" which
were inserted during the editing process; there was no intent to misrepresent
Burmanet, which I believe serves as an important disseminator of information
about Myanmar/Burma, and also as a useful discussion group. And I tried to
imply that there was a wide range of views on Burmanet, by noting that many
well-informed readers agreed with my views.    

But what bothered me -- and the reason I wrote that piece-- was the "thought
police" tone of the Burmanet contributors. You note in your letter that
"individuals on burmanet-l did post critiques of Brookes' analysis."
Critiques? What critiques? I was accused of being a SLORC propagandist. My
analysis wasn't attacked -- I was. 

And despite the more reasoned and articulate tone that you adopt in your
letter, I still don't see a critique -- just a jibe at "journalists like
Brookes who apparently are not disturbed by the oppressive policies of the
military regime."   

But you see, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make -- that by
thinking only in tired, empty cliches, by standing piously on the moral high
ground and uttering platitudes, the NLD and its supporters are consigning
themselves to self-absorbed irrelevance.

Want the surprising truth? I am a profound supporter of democracy, freedom
and human rights -- yes, even in Myanmar! I'm a writer, I was a musician in
my first career, I was even a registered Democrat once (then I grew up). This
isn't to offer credentials about how hip I am -- only to note that freedom of
expression has been absolutely central to how I've lived my life. 

For me, it means questioning conventional wisdom, rejecting easy platitudes,
and paying real close attention to reality. That's what my "Open Letter" was
all about -- urging the pro-democracy movement to stop playing games, to get
its head out of the clouds, admit unpleasant truths and figure out how to
positively impact the changes that are now in full swing in Myanmar.  

Otherwise the whole thing will remain what a friend in Myanmar calls it -- a
"hobby issue" for people who just want to feel good about themselves without
needing to actually know anything. 

Before I came over here last July, I went to a party in Washington where
there were a number of people who'd recently been here on a two-week NGO
visit. "Oh, you'll love doing journalism in Burma," one woman told me. "It's
so clear who's wearing the white hats, and who's wearing the black hats.
There are no shades of gray."

Well, surprise -- everything here is shades of gray. There are exceptional
people in the government and buffoons in the NLD --and vice-versa. It's hard
to even talk about "sides" as if there were only two. There are people
working to improve the country in every social and political camp, and just
as many self-interested crooks. And nobody -- even ASSK -- is pure. (Uh-oh --
heresy. But come on -- she's a politician. When did THEY suddenly become
saints?) 

But that's reality for you -- messy. Obstinately refusing to fit into easy
categories. Darn that reality! 

You know what? Mostly, there are just ordinary Myanmars, living in a time of
amazing change. Sure, life isn't perfect -- but compare it with the total
standstill of a decade ago. A lot of things are in a muddle, but almost
everything's improving. Opportunities are opening up. There's an actual
economy. Are there human rights abuses? You bet -- just like there are almost
everywhere in the world. And would you rather live in Myanmar, where some
people are forced to work on road projects against their will for a few
months? Or would you prefer, say, Liberia, where you're lucky to make it
through the day? Or Uganda, where you're probably already dead? Or China? Or
the former Yugoslavia? Or Chechnya? Or...or...or....

Ok, brace yourselves. Things are much, much better in Myanmar than in dozens
of other developing countries in the world, and there's a government in place
which is moving the country rapidly from isolation and poverty toward global
engagement and growth. Is it America the Beautiful yet? No -- maybe never
will be. But it is changing dramatically. 

So why is Myanmar -- excuse me, Burma -- such a big issue on American college
campuses?

Because it's easy to reduce to sophomoric simplicity (even U.S. Congressmen
can understand it, sort of). Because Aung San Suu Kyi is gorgeous and female
and speaks elegant English and is A Lot Like Us Westerners, and the SLORC
generals are not. Because it's so much fun to protest against anybody wearing
a uniform. Because democracy is Mom and Apple Pie, and generals, as we all
know, are Mean and Bad --  unless they're Colin Powell, of course.  

And maybe also because, in the late 20th Century, when "victims" have been
elevated to "hero" status, here's a victim-hero to form a whole international
cult around, where the faithful can natter on to themselves about the future
of Burma while the future is galloping by without them.

Honestly -- sometimes I just want to take the whole pious, infantile lot of
you and give you a good spanking.   

I noted in my "Open Letter" that I would ask ASSK for an interview, to pose
the question of the NLD's self-isolation and apparent inability to form a
pragmatic plan to effect change in Myanmar. Her response? Theres been a
comical exchange of phone calls between me and her schedulers, but basically
the answer has been, "We'd French-kiss SLORC before we'd talk to the likes of
you." 

Which, sadly, only proves the point. She's preaching to the choir, fingers
firmly stuck in her ears, happily irrelevant.

Sincerely, Stephen Brookes