Junta takes tentative first step
The generals have invited in Suu Kyi for discussions on their country's future. This is a first step on what may be a very long road, but one which must be travelled, to democracy.
Htun Aung Gyaw
The political deadlock between Burma's opposition National League for Democracy and the military junta has been broken through the efforts of UN special envoy Razali Ismail.
Many, including UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the European Union, Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Rattakit Manathat, the Singaporean Foreign Affairs Ministry and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright earlier had warned the regime to treat NLD head Aung San Suu Kyi as a national leader not as a little sister. British Foreign Office Minister John Battle also has announced that Britain would not ease its pressure on the junta until it respects democracy and human rights, and shows practical evidence of real progress.
The threat of sanctions late last year by the International Labour Organisation shook the regime which goes under the name of the State Peace and Development Council and forced arethink of its inflexible stance, but without Mr Razali dialogue could never have gone ahead this year.
Genuine peaceful change depends on building trust, forgiveness and sacrificing self-interest. If the two parties put aside their own interests and work together for the benefit of the people, they will successfully build on common issues, and this will ultimately achieve genuine long lasting peace for the whole country.
It is too early yet to say whether the secret talks between the NLD and the military regime will lead to real peace and a change in the political system in Burma. But Mr Razali is the first envoy to successfully break the deadlock.
His success is based on five factors:
- He is an adviser to Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir, who like Mr Razali has visited Rangoon this year.
- Dr Mahathir is the biggest supporter of the regime among the Asean members since the fall of Suharto as president of Indonesia.
Malaysia's influence on Burma is important for a number of reasons. From a political point of view, it is important for Asean to prove to the world that constructive engagement with Burma is working. Dr Mahathir took a leading role in bringing Burma into Asean
.From an economic point of view, newly industrialised members of Asean are competing with China. Labour costs in China are very cheap compared to Malaysia. As a result, Malaysia needs a modern colony which will provide raw materials including labour and a market to sell its products. Burma fits into this category.
- Its faltering economy and the threat of pressure from the West have brought the regime to its knees but have not killed it outright. The generals need a way out which will save them face. They will not start a dialogue with the NLD because of outside pressure but they are willing to compromise if the mediator is from a friendly country.
Also the regime wants to offer something to Asean and justify constructive engagement by accepting a mediator from an Asean member country. Mr Razali fits this bill well.
- The main driving force for the dialogue is legitimacy. Japan is the main donor to Burma. Sadao Ogata, the Japanese UN high commissioner for refugees until this year failed completely to influence the regime. Likewise her government's representatives. None convinced the generals to start talking to the NLD, even though Japan gave them millions of dollars in grants and loans. The regime just took the money and ignored the demands.
But when Mr Razali was appointed the UN special envoy for Burma, the regime's spokesman welcomed him as an acceptable negotiator and praised him as a fellow member of Southeast Asia.
Last year, the UN secretly offered the regime $1 billion (43.5 billion baht) to start talking with the NLD and to cede it the political power it won in a general election in 1990. The regime rejected the offer. This proves that even though Burma is poor, money is not enough for the regime. What the generals need is recognition, especially from fellow members of Asean and China, as a legitimate government.
The ILO sanctions imposed last year worry the regime because they could mean the isolation of the country. This would hasten their fall.
Their survival depends mainly on two factors: the strength of the army at home and their recognition abroad as a legitimate de facto government. The army, or Tatmadaw, is the main influence, and it is weaker than in the past. Proof of this is that the chain of command has been decentralised to a regional collective leadership. These regional commanders have become very powerful and operate like warlords.
Armed resistance groups also are well armed despite signing cease-fire agreements, and the regime cannot control the Red Wa which control the drug trade from just inside Burmese territory from Thailand.
The army is nowhere near as solid as it was, and this is adding to the problem of the regime's lack of credibility on the world stage. But then generals have not lost hope altogether of clinging on to power. After all, fellow Asean members Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos have governments which are not fully democratic.
The success of the dialogue between the NLD and the junta depends on the two sides having a genuine desire to reach an agreement which improves the welfare of the people.It has been obvious from the start that the NLD is sincere about engaging in genuine dialogue based on mutual respect. And there are signs the regime is now more receptive.
When the regime was trying to crush the resistance Karen National Union, its newspapers called the KNU leader Nga Mya (nga was used in the past with slaves). But when it started talks with the Karen resistance, the newspapers began referring to him as General Mya. When the talks failed, they resorted again to insult.
The military regime's mouthpieces have for years referred to Ms Suu Kyi as a democracy witch, a Western Mae Daw Gyi, Mrs Airs, a Western puppet and just Suu Kyi, dropping the name of her father Aung San, a national hero. But in December last year, the newspapers started using her full name Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a signal to all Burma watchers that there might be some positive news.
And there have been other healthy signs including a statement from U Lwin, an NLD executive, welcoming any dialogue while warning that both sides had to be careful not to undermine the process of confidence building.
The first step needed for building confidence is for the regime to release all political prisoners. If the regime is worried that releasing these prisoners will cause political instability, there is another option; it can recognise them as political prisoners until it reaches an agreement with the NLD and grant them special status like under British colonial rule.
How the NLD and regime handle this very sensitive issue depends on their ability, maturity, honesty, willingness for change and, most of all, concern for the well-being of the people. Both sides understand the delicacy of this matter.
Moving from dialogue to a peaceful transition to democratic government needs the building on common issues such as: the establishment of democratic government; defining the duties and responsibilities of the military in Burma; defining the duties and responsibilities of political parties; minority rights; and the establishment of an independent judicial system.
The two sides need to believe in the establishment of a democratic government which is accountable, transparent and has respect for the rule of law.
The military has played a prominent role in Burmese politics. Burma needs a strong military to protect the country. But the military needs to respect democratic institutions and the rights and existence of political parties, which is the total opposite of military rule.
The role of the military is to safeguard democracy and protect the country from foreign invasion, not to rule the country by force. The Burmese army in the future needs to be divorced from politics.
Political parties are crucial for the establishment of a democratic government. Political parties need to support the modern military establishment and upgrade the facilities of the army. Political parties need to respect the military and try to avoid attempts to influence the forces for political advantage. Most of all, each political party needs a written commitment to democracy in its party manifesto and it needs to promise not to eliminate the opposition if it wins government.
Minority rights need to be respected and apply across the whole county. The NLD needs to join a fully democratic national convention (as opposed to the sham held previously) and discuss with minority leaders the drafting of a new constitution. Without the agreement of minority leaders, any new constitution will not be democratic.
Many minority leaders see Ms Suu Kyi as a potential leader and fit to lead the constitution drafting process. But it is time she addressed the ethnic issue which divides the country and prolongs the civil war. Military leaders have been dealing with ethnic groups for more than four decades. They have a lot of experience in this field but, because of their use of force, they are regarded as the enemy by most ethnic groups even after cease-fires have been reached. Ms Suu Kyi does not have this experience, but she has charisma.
Establishing an independent judicial system is crucial to safeguarding democracy. Without an independent judicial system, there will be no freedom for the Burmese people. Without an independent judicial system, the people and civil society will suffer from government brutality.
Democratic government depends on certain steps: dialogue (bargaining, negotiation, compromise); transitional government; the constitution drafting process; elections; and the transfer of power to the elected government.
Dialogue will lead to the formation of a transitional government, one which will represent both the NLD and the military. The transitional government will draft a new constitution and hold elections, which will produce a winner hopefully able to form a democratic government.
Now Burma is taking the first step after more than a decade of hesitation. While the regime and the NLD talk, there are many non-political tasks that need to be carried out by foreign governments, NGOs, activists and academics from Burma living abroad.
The most important problem facing Burma is in the health area. This is on the verge of collapsing. Despite government denials, Burma is overwhelmed by HIV/Aids cases. According to the World Bank, there are up to 700,000 sufferers. HIV threatens to grow into a full-scale epidemic. The military regime needs to think about this dangerous disease and allow NGOs to enter and work now in Burma.
It also is time for Burmese patriots to set aside their grudges against the military regime and work together with international organisations as non-political social workers. There is no time to wait for political change; we have to help our people before it is too late.
The peaceful transition to democracy depends mainly on the military regime. The question of whether the army is for the people or for the generals will be answered very soon. It is time the regime proved how much it loves its country and how much courage it has in embracing change.
Htun Aung Gyaw is president of the Civil Society for Burma based in New York City. He also was the first chairman of the All Burma Students' Democratic Front.