[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

IHT-Repressive Burma



International Herald Tribune
Paris, Tuesday, July 6, 1999
Repressive Burma
Two years ago the Association of Southeast Asian Nations took in Burma as a
member. This was a major diplomatic triumph for Burma, whose military rulers
now call the country Myanmar, and helped ease the isolation it earned after
it trashed an incipient democracy in 1990. ASEAN's logic was familiar:
Engagement with the outside world would persuade Burma's dictators to relax
their repressive rule.
The verdict on this test case of the engagement theory thus far is clear:
The behavior of the thugs who run Burma has worsened, and so has life for
most Burmese.

The latest testimony comes from Amnesty International, which has issued
three reports that detail the military regime's maltreatment of farmers and
other civilians of minority ethnic groups in Burma's country-side. Hundreds
of thousands have been forced from their homes, and many have been killed.
Amnesty's interviews with refugees also confirmed that thousands have been
forced into dangerous labor, among them many children.

Last month the International Labor Organization, a part of the United
Nations, condemned Burma in extraordinarily harsh terms and by an
overwhelming margin. Burma was essentially expelled from the group. The
organization found that more than 800,000 people have been pressed into
labor, which it described as ''nothing but a contemporary form of slavery.''

The person most qualified to speak of the success or failure of the
engagement strategy is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the political party
that swept the 1990 elections, the results of which the regime refuses to
honor. She says that repression of her party and arrests of its members have
intensified this year. She of all people does not favor the isolation of the
Burmese people, but she argues that any aid to Burma's generals only
strengthens their corrupt rule to the detriment of the population.

ASEAN, many of whose members are themselves struggling toward increased
democracy, soon may have to confront the failure of its engagement strategy
in Burma.