What Canada Can Do for Burma
Without inflated self-importance, Canada must first reckon that considering geographical distance and lack of deep historical and economic ties, it can do very little, though not "nothing at all", for the Burmese democracy issue.
There is no Canadian embassy in Burma, a country that has passed its fiftieth Independence Anniversary and that it has a fifty million population, but only a Canadian Interest Desk first in the British Embassy, later in the Australian Embassy in Rangoon. The Canadian ambassador to Thailand is also accredited to Burma. Well-informed Canadians know Burma in relation with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Prize winner, the Burma/Myanmar name game and other, easy-to-understand, dichotomized contexts. The rest of Canadians innocently ask whether it is an island-nation in the Caribbean.
The overhanging universal controversy over the effectiveness of the affordable, action-oriented (not result-oriented), punitive measures against non-democratic regimes also moderates Canada's commitment. Lastly and partly, the middle power self-projection limits Canada's potential leadership in IR and causes acquiescence to the leading role of superpowers in most cases including the topic under discussion.
Given these, it is natural that Canada does not have "a policy" on Burma apart from bits and pieces of utterances that are reflections or follow-ups of what have been made across the Atlantic or in the south of the border. Canada can only, and it does, try to relate or engage with Burma, directly on the narcotics issue (Vancouver as Burmese heroin entry point to North America) and indirectly on humanitarian concerns. The official themes are termed in Ottawa's glossary as "good governance", "democratic development" etc.
But it is wrong to say that Canada has never had a relation with Burma. A river runs between Rangoon, the capital city of Burma, and Thar- Kay- Ta, an outlying working class city that is now becoming far more important than before. The major bridge that connects the two cities, named "Thar-Kay-Ta Bridge", built in 1966, was a gift of Government of Canada under Colombo Plan, built by Canadian engineers
By 1966, it was a "state of the art" bridge. Its middle section is in fact two, head-to- head, electric powered draw-bridges that can be disconnected by raising back whenever big ships come on high tide as there is a half a mile wide tidal river flowing under the bridge. Before the new bridge, the 200,000 population of the town had only one, single lane decaying bridge, a WWII relic, to commute with Rangoon. Thus the new Canadian bridge meant a lot to them, literally, their lifeline.
Much water has passed under the bridge since then. Burma is not any more a Socialist Republic today. The military junta government is building dozens of new bridges, large and small, far and wide in the country using forced labor, excusing economic development. The Burmese dictators seems to be aware of the importance of "politics of bridge- building", in their effort to win back the recognition of the population they kill and torture. But the Canadian bridge is still there standing and serving the people, truly a positive image of Canada, more importantly, a rare symbol of foreign benevolence in the face of the tense xenophobic propaganda by the military regime.
Lately, Canada's half brother in the East, Australia, took a bold-new path in dealing with Burma. On Rangoon's encouraging response, it has decided to open human rights education workshops for the Burmese penitentiary and security personnel. Australia seems to have grasped that changing Burma into the positive can be done in a much "less expensive yet more productive" way of taming the power incumbent rather than attempts to replace it with a clientele government
Evidences are that human rights improved only through regime-change, a long process that cannot be taken for granted through a government-change, how promising it looks. Canada's focus in Burma should be in that area. In league with Australia, Canada can set itself to the tasks of direct promotion of human rights and uplift the general welfare of the ordinary Burmese public. Build bridges, open human rights schools, distribute condoms, give youths vocational trainings, even extend offshore campuses of liberal Canadian universities to Burma. Keep the dollars in donor's hand if worries about being supportive to the junta. In transition economies, the state remains "employer" to the citizens, always longer than it should be. Help remove it from the "employer" position and the people will do the rest. But to build confidence, and to command respect as benefactor, refrain from (deep) involvements in the messy domestic power struggle. The bottom line is, so long as human rights are made safe, fully respected by whoever the power that be in Burma, it is legitimate for Canadians to do business with Burma, a resource rich / labor cheap / fifty million strong market, the last frontier for economic globalization.
But Canada still has no embassy in Burma, though it will open a new embassy in Iceland (pop. 270,000) in 2001. Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy said, ''a shared concern for human development and the environment has led Canada and Iceland to co-operate and support each other in regional and international organizations.'' Having no such declared shared concern for human development regarding fifty million Burmese does not mean Canada is minimally interested in Asia. Earlier on, in the last Asian Regional Forum-Bangkok, Canada has announced it will extend diplomatic relations to North Korea, a still full-fledged Communist state. It can be a coincidence but Canada's decision followed at the heel of Washington's softened attitude toward North Korea that shot a ballistic missile across over Japan. By the time the two Koreas are reunited like Germany - it is their patriotic, realistic and noble dream - Ottawa probably would have to shut down one extra embassy there. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Burmese dictators cannot shoot a ballistic missile yet, or Washington hasn't officially changed its policy on Rangoon.
If Ottawa's fear of Vancouver becoming Burmese heroin entry point to North America is true, the global organized crime has already built a link between Burma and Canada before the Canadian Government does. For all intents and purposes and in long-term vision, time is ripe to open an embassy in Rangoon. Needs a benchmark to save face, ask Rangoon directly and by Canada individually on something realistic and non-intimidating so that Ottawa can legitimately break the path. Who can alter politics beyond being "the art of the possible".
It would certainly be not only preparing the solid ground for effective engagements with Burma but also will give Canada a look of really having a strategic perspective in Southeast Asia. The main argument here is to see Burma as a country, not the continued wrongful identification of it with the military junta that happens to be the government of the day. It will depart the scene someday by somehow but Burma will remain. The current perception by the international community hurts the Burmese people more than it hurts the regime. There also is "opportunity cost" involved on the Canadian side.
Myint Shwe
Coordinator for Canadian Chapter
National League for Democracy (Liberated Area)
1209 - 8, Assiniboine Road,
North York, ON. M3J 1L4
Tel. (416) 650-2805
Email: yu148683@yorku.ca
Date. August 8th., Year 2000