The BurmaNet News: August 13, 1999 (r)

[bina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Please allow me to comment on the following AWSJ 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 ever allow a human rights commission to function? And what is the cost of pretending otherwise?


>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 are 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 officers in line.

Just 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.
>