The BurmaNet News: August 13, 1999 (r)

[bina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Re: The BurmaNet News: August 13, 1999

Please allow me to comment on the following article, "CAUTIOUS DIPLOMACY
MAY HELP BURMA", 10 August, 1999, by David Steinberg, quoted in the
BurmaNet News of August 13, 1999

It is sad to see academics from widely-respected institutions such as
Georgetown compromising their integrity to act as apologists for the narrow
policies advocated by certain global business interests.  

The world looks towards the intellectual community, which is somewhat
insulated from the moral compromises that most people must make to survive
economically, to provide sincere and thoughtful comment on the politics of
the day.  

In contending that the Burmese military dictatorship should be treated in
any way as a legitimate government, Mr. Steinberg disregards both the
suffering of the vast majority people of Burma, and the moral-legal
principles of human rights and democracy.  In choosing to ignore the
reality of the freely-elected Burmese Parliament, he shows a cynical and
Machiavellian approach to human society that is inappropriate for one whose
profession is the institutionalized search for truth.

Further comments:


At 06:58 PM 8/13/99 +0700, BurmaNet Editor wrote:
>------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------
> "Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>The BurmaNet News: August 13, 1999
>Issue #1336
>
>ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL: CAUTIOUS DIPLOMACY MAY HELP BURMA
>10 August, 1999 by David Steinberg 
>The political stalemate between Burma's military junta and the opposition
>has been so prolonged that any foreign initiative to alleviate conditions
>seems almost quixotic, some believe even counter-productive. The United
>States position has consistently been that no action should be taken until
>the military honors the results of the May 1990 election overwhelmingly won
>by the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu
>Kyi. The NLD is skeptical of any initiative or accommodation that might
>lower foreign or domestic vigilance against the military or provide them
>with any added political legitimacy.
>
>In the face of such sentiments, the Australian government has taken a bold
>and positive step that should be welcomed as both innovative and
>potentially helpful. 


Helpful to whom, Mr. Steinberg?  Helpful in prolonging the military grip on
power?


Between Aug. 1-4, Australian Human Rights Commissioner
>Chris Sidoti visited Rangoon and met with a wide range of senior military
>officials and the opposition. 


Why did he refuse to meet with the leader of the party that won 82% of the
popular vote in Burma's only free election ever?  Burma has the greatest of
good fortune that, in the spite of oppression by a most brutal and vicious
regime, a freely-elected government does indeed already exist.  Why support
the dictators?


His discussions focused on the possibility of
>setting up an independent institution on human rights in Burma, also known
>as Myanmar, similar to those in other Asian countries, and related to the
>work of the seven-member Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights
>Institutions of which Australia is a member. 
>


What do the words "Human Rights Commission" mean in the context of a lying
government that brags about its policies of forced labor, racial dominance,
ethnic cleansing, complete annihilation of free speech, jailing its student
protesters, and so on, ad nauseam?


>According to Mr. Sidoti, the Burmese minister for home affairs was
>interested in pursuing discussions, and the attitude of the government was
>positive. The Burmese authorities characterized the visit as "fruitful and
>successful," and one that could lead to "better understanding and
>cooperation."


Did they give him a nice dinner, too? and a tour of the golf course?


>The opposition, according to Mr. Sidoti, was less negative than might have
>been expected, although they were skeptical about the Burmese government's
>motivation and the possibilities for improvement in the deplorable human
>rights situation through this action. To the opposition, negotiating with
>the military on these issues might simply provide added international
>recognition for a regime they regard as illegitimate, and result in no
>progress.


Who, pray tell, regards this regime as "legitimate"?  Except the few who
are making a pocket full of money from the rape of Burma?  What causes you,
Mr. Steinberg, to use your position and your verbal skills to make us doubt
the illegitimacy of this violent dictatorship?  Do you question the
opposition's judgment in the matter of legitimacy, Mr. Steinberg?  Then
please enlighten us with your learned understanding of political legitimacy.  


>No one, including Mr. Sidoti, is expecting immediate change. This
>initiative is, as Mr. Sidoti said, "barely dipping the toe in the water."
>But the hope is that successive talks will lead not only to the setting up
>of a human rights body in Burma, but also the development of curricula for
>the training of government officials, the military, and others in human
>rights issues, and the exchange of officials on this subject.


A useless and hopeless exercise in bureaucratic pomposity, while villagers
are being robbed, raped, and murdered under the orders of the very people
with whom Mr. Sidoti is laughing and drinking tea.


>In response to the cynics who believe no positive result is possible and
>say that any such activity would be used as propaganda by the military
>regime, Mr. Sidoti has pointed out that under President Suharto in
>Indonesia, the Indonesian Human Rights Commission defied its critics and
>played a positive role even under an authoritarian administration.


No comparison.  Burma under Ne Win and his cronies is much more oppressive,
and more effective than Suharto ever was at instilling a crushing fear into
every member of the populace.  Only the mountain people (too distant) and
the students (too young) have the courage to speak up in the face of such
brutal and arrogant behavior.  What evidence have you that a tyrant who
does not allow fax machines or political parties would allow a human rights
commission?


>Observers of Burma recognize that there are currently no independent
>institutions of significance in Burma; starting in 1962 the military
>effectively eliminated civil society by placing private groups autonomous
>of the state under state authority or surveillance. 
>
>So the very existence of a human rights body in Burma, should it be
>established, would be progress. 

Surely you mean "the illusion of progress."  Is there any indication at all
that this band of miscreants cares anything at all for human rights, in
principle or in practice?  At best, you are being deceived by them; at
worst, you are attempting to deceive us.


If formed, it would likely be ineffective
>for some time, but it could begin to chip away at some abuses at first less
>threatening to the regime, and then, as we have seen elsewhere, assume a
>more, proactive role.


"Ineffective for some time," indeed.  Yes, let us not be too "threatening"
to the poor lads.  There is no telling what they might do if we push them
too hard.  

But what more could they do then they are doing now?  They are already
heaping every abuse possible upon their people and their country.  Maybe
they will run away and leave the country without its military leaders.  Or
maybe in few more years, or a few more decades, if we are lucky, and very
nice to them, they might begin to change.

Only you, Mr. Steinberg, have the luxury of "some time."  For the unarmed
farmers, workers, and students facing the soldiers' guns, it is a bit more
difficult to wait for the military junta to come around to a decent way of
thinking.  Perhaps they never will.

I suggest, Mr. Steinberg, that if it were your son being beaten in the jail
for having made a speech, if it were your wife being gang-raped by the
troops in the jungle, if it were your farm being confiscated for "military
use", that your patience with the SPDC might also wear thin.

But perhaps, from your comfortable house in Washington, with your large
bank account, your dependable legal system, and your open society, the
problems of a few million poor Burmese seem insignificant, in light of the
potential corporate "business" to be done there.


>The Australian effort is important because in effect it recognizes that the
>attempted isolation of the Burmese regime has failed. 

Failed?  The isolation strategy has already had a significant impact on the
Burmese economy, the confidence of the dictators, and the morale of the
democratic resistance.  It has not achieved immediate success thanks in
part to multi-million dollar corporate investments from businesses in Mr.
Sidoti's and Mr. Steinberg's countries.  

This is how you kill the sanctions: First you make major exceptions and
leave large loopholes, then you say, "See, they are too weak to be
effective, let's dump them."


Burma's entry into
>Asean, strongly opposed by the United States, forces Burma into dialogue --
>a dialogue that may be prolonged, but one that may ultimately improve
>conditions inside the country. Australia, perhaps because it appears less
>threatening to Burma's military rulers, is able to play a positive role.


In fact, as any simple mind can see, the military junta leaders will never
change their thinking, as they have not in the past 37 years.  Even if they
could imagine a way to govern other than by sheer force and oppression
(which would not be in the character of an army), they have already created
so much hatred among the population that they believe they would quickly be
decimated should a democratic government ever come to power.  This fear
keeps even their moderate army officers in line.

Even a little bit of thinking, Mr. Steinberg, would suffice for one to
realize that the only way to resolve the Burmese tragedy is to do whatever
one can to see that the dictatorship is ousted, and that the elected
government is installed in Rangoon as soon as possible.  

A concerted effort to this end by the international community, which means
not just diplomatic lip-service, but a complete economic and political
blockade of the renegade usurpers, would be sufficient to do the job within
a year.

This is why attempts by people like you, writing commentary such as this
that distorts the truth and defeats the people, are unconscionable.  Please
come clean and tell us your motivations.  The world of the dumb and
innocent masses of humanity, who constantly suffer, in various forms, the
misuse of power by military and economic elites who are morally unfit for
the positions they hold, are patiently waiting for your answer.

>Foreign observers of Burmese affairs recognize how slow and tedious the
>process of change and liberalization in Myanmar is likely to be. Just
>bemoaning conditions is not sufficient, however. Despite all the dangers,
>of which the Australian government is well aware, this initiative should be
>welcomed as a small positive step. 
>
>MR. STEINBERG IS DIRECTOR OF ASIAN STUDIES AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY IN
>WASHINGTON, D.C.
>