How EU leaders sold out Burma

When David Cameron backed the suspension of EU sanctions on Burma in April 2012, he emphasised in no uncertain terms that they would return if President Thein Sein’s administration reneged on democratic reforms. Spelling out the difference between suspending the sanctions and lifting them completely he said that the EU’s stance would “make it quite clear to those who are against reform that should they try to obstruct the way of the reformers, then sanctions could come back."

One year on however, the Prime Minister has joined other EU leaders in a shock move to throw away their economic bargaining chip by scrapping sanctions permanently, leaving European businesses free to fill government coffers regardless of political conditions or human rights violations.

The decision has been met with anger from human rights groups who point out that the Burmese government not only continues to detain hundreds of political prisoners, but has recently carried out violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations and airstrikes on civilian villages in Kachin State, where over 100,000 people have now been displaced by conflict.

All the while, deadly communal violence against Burma’s Muslim population continues to spiral out of control. Mob killings began in Arakan State last June and were recently replicated in the Northern town of Meiktila where Mosques were burnt, scores of people were killed and hundreds were driven from their homes. A recent Human Rights Watch report noted that “frequently the police did nothing to stop the violence against Muslims and in many cases joined with Buddhist mobs to attack predominantly Muslim villages.”

However, rather than use the threat of reintroduced sanctions to pressure the Burmese government over prisoner amnesties, free speech, peace talks with Kachin rebels and protections for religious minorities, EU leaders are sending an absurd multi-million dollar message of support for the status quo. Particularly stomach churning is the betrayal of Aung San Suu Kyi by Cameron and his peers, who were quick pose with the inspirational opposition leader for photo opportunities but flagrantly ignored her pleas not to permanently lift sanctions.

Germany it would appear, played the largest part in securing this sorry state of affairs. For though almost all member states now support the end of economic sanctions, the stage was set by Angela Merkel’s morally bankrupt administration seeking to trash the EU arms embargo on Burma, in-spite of continuing military atrocities including extrajudicial executions and gang rapes by government troops. Consequently, states that oppose selling weapons to fuel the abuses were forced into a compromise over economic sanctions, in order to save the arms embargo.

Things do not come much more ironic than the EU hanging Burmese democrats out to dry just six months after the bloc received a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet for the political prisoners, the Kachin children in IDP camps and the Muslim civilians fearing for their lives, the irony will be trumped by the tragedy.

 

Technorati Tags: Burma,EU,European Union,Sanctions,arms embargo,Burmese,government,Thein Sein,President,David Cameron,William Hague,Angela Merkel,Aung San Suu Kyi,National League for Democracy,NLD,Kachin,civil war,KIA,Kachin Independence Army,KIO,Kachin Independence Organisation,communal violence,Muslims,Muslim,Islam,Mosque,Rakhine,Meiktila,persecution,Letpaduang,copper mine,protest,Nobel Peace Prize

Burma’s airstrike on democracy

The Burmese government airstrikes on Kachin State over the past week are the latest escalation in a one-sided conflict that drags the country’s reform process further into disrepute and raises fresh questions about how the international community should deal with President Thein Sein.

It was mid-2011 when government troops broke their 17 year ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA); a defensive rebel group which despite its name seeks autonomy and human rights for Kachin State rather than secession from Burma. The precise motivations behind the initial ceasefire violation remain murky, but are widely regarded as stemming from the government’s business interests in exploiting natural resources from Kachin State, and the KIA’s refusal to disarm without a political solution to end the decades-long marginalisation of the Kachin people.

Regardless of the driving force, over the following eighteen months well resourced Burmese troops have relentlessly pounded the ill equipped KIA and their allies in the All Burma Student’s Democratic Front (ABSDF). They have also brutalised Kachin civilians, more than 50 000 of whom have fled to squalid IDP camps to escape the rapes, torture and extrajudicial killings. Reports from human rights groups on the ground reflect the very worst days of Burma’s various military dictatorships, with troops hacking the limbs of suspected rebels, drunkenly abusing women and destroying entire villages seemingly at random.

The attacks by military aircraft and helicopter gunships over the past week added a horrendous new element to the violence, with shocking video footage from the Free Burma Rangers sparking strong international condemnation. However, the offensive has not eased and fears abound that a ‘final assault’ on the KIA headquarters at Laiza may be imminent.

This perhaps provides the biggest blow yet to the reformist credentials of Thein Sein’s administration, which had already been sullied by the army’s apparent role in stoking sectarian violence against Rohingya Muslims, and the violent dispersal of protestors at Letpadaung copper mine. The International Crisis Group - due to present the President with its Pursuit of Peace Award in New York, and the UK government – set to welcome him on an historic state visit, will both now be considering whether such moves were overly premature. After all, heaping such respect upon any other leader so closely associated with pogroms, crackdowns and all-out warfare against ethnic minority groups would be almost unthinkable.

Yet there is another possibility regarding the situation in Kachin State which raises a whole new set of concerns; namely that the President is not actually in control of the situation at all. Whilst his government has now acknowledged the airstrikes, initial reports were met with confusion and denial based upon conflicting messages from the front line. It is all too reminiscent of earlier stages in the conflict when the army seemingly ignored orders from Thein Sein to cease its offensive. An army acting out of government control –one key indicator of a failed state, may present an even larger problem for Burma than a President with a dubious commitment to reform. Whilst international and political pressure can be brought to bear on a head of state, it is far harder to influence faceless military officers who may hold the real power. 

Finally as is so often the case in South East Asia, the influence of the Chinese dictatorship must also be taken into account. It is widely recognised that the offensive against Kachin State could not have taken place without approval from Beijing. Burmese ground troops and aircrafts have launched attacks from the Chinese side of the Kachin-China border, whilst the Chinese government has remained uncharacteristically quiet about shells straying into its territory.

This is of course to be expected: the vast majority of natural resources stripped from Kachin State are either directly extracted by Chinese firms or sold to China by Burmese government proxies.The Chinese government would therefore like nothing better than to see the Kachin resistance destroyed; yet it remains unclear whether Beijing is encouraging Thein Sein to crush the KIA, supporting his own ambitions to subdue Kachin State, or undermining his authority by dealing directly with officers in the Burmese army.

When asked last year where Burma’s democratic transition was on a scale of one to ten, Aung San Suu Kyi replied “we’re approaching one”…it is becoming ever more apparent just how right she was. 

Technorati Tags: Kachin,Kachin State,Kachin Independence Organisation,KIO,Kachin Indepdence Army,KIA,All Burma Student's Democractic Front,ABSDF,airstrike,Laiza,China,Beijing,CCP,Thein Sein,President,USDP,Aung San Suu Kyi,NLD

Mines of Monywa- what are the limits of Burma’s reform?

Over recent weeks, events around the Letpadaung copper mine near Monywa have sent shockwaves through Burma’s fragile reform process. For months local people including Buddhist monks, had been demonstrating against the environmental damage and land seizures associated with the operation- a joint venture between a Chinese company and another owned by the Burmese military. Then, in the early hours of 29 November, riot police swarmed into the protest-camps, setting them on fire and injuring dozens of civilians.

In the ensuing days, a number of those who had escaped hospitalisation were held on charges of illegal demonstration, whilst across the country prominent activists such as U-Gambira were rounded up in an apparent attempt to stem the spread of solidarity protests.

The whole incident reflects the continuing absence of rule of law in Burma; which alongside the military abuses in Kachin state and the state-sponsored sectarian violence in Arakan state, presents a stark reminder that the worldwide embrace of President Thein Sein’s administration may have been somewhat over-enthusiastic.

The President was last month recognised alongside Aung San Suu Kyi as Foreign Policy Magazine’s top political thinker of 2012. And having recently visited Washington at the invitation of Barak Obama, he will return to the US next year to receive the International Crisis Group’s eminent In Pursuit of Peace Award at a lavish ceremony in New York. The ex-general will also be jet-setting to London, as part of a rapidly blossoming friendship that this week saw the first UK trade delegation to arrive in Rangoon for decades.

In the wake of events around Monywa, more people than ever are quite rightly questioning whether this is all a bit lavish for the boss of an administration that protects its environmentally disastrous money-making operations by crushing dissent with fire-bombs, tear gas and waves of arbitrary arrests.

They are right of course, yet at the same time it would be naive to overlook aspects of the saga that demonstrate just how far Burma has come. For whilst images of burnt monks on hospital beds naturally stir up memories of the crackdown against the Saffron Revolution in 2007, the differences between the two situations could not be more significant.

Back then the military regime massacred people on the streets without even a cursory nod to due process; but following the violence of 29 November Thein Sein’s administration set up a commission of inquiry and placed none other than Aung San Suu Kyi in the Chair. The authorities also heeded her request for a formal apology, undoubtedly in part out of fear that solidarity protests would escalate, but nonetheless illustrating a more conciliatory approach to the propaganda and lies of five years ago. The overall situation is therefore not so much a clear-cut illustration that nothing has changed, but rather a continuation of the complex and messy governance that has characterised the reform process so far.

The cold hard fact remains that Burma is nowhere near democracy and the abuses taking place across the country on a daily basis should be judged against basic human rights norms, not merely in comparison to the more flagrant violations of previous governments. This means that Thein Sein must be held to account for the attacks on protestors and the ethnic pogroms in Burma, not sycophantically lauded as a reformist hero just because he is less tyrannical than his genocidal predecessors.

However, despite the on-going abuses activists should resist the temptation of completely writing-off this administration’s reformist credentials. In just a few short years Aung San Suu Kyi has gone from being a political prisoner held in near total isolation, to chairing an inquiry into the government’s behaviour in front of both Burmese and international media. Developments like that were previously unthinkable and there are undoubtedly many people waiting in the wings of the government who would like to take Burma back there. Balancing scrutiny and encouragement of the more reform-minded elements will be hard, but it is essential.

Technorati Tags: Burma,Monywa,Letpadaung,copper mine,monks,protest,crackdown,tear gas,fire bombs,Thein Sein,Aung San Suu Kyi,International Crisis Group,ICG,Foreign Policy Magazine,U-Gambira,Arakan,Rakhine,Rohingya,Kachin,UK,USA,Barak Obama,Hugo Swire

Burma’s earthquake- a tragedy and a test

Details of the earthquake that struck Burma on Sunday morning are still sketchy. Various initial death tolls are relatively low (between four and twelve) but the true extent of damage is likely to be far worse; at 6.8 magnitude it is larger than the quake that devastated Christchurch last year, and Burma’s emergency infrastructure is nowhere near that of New Zealand’s. Ominously the epicentre lies near to Mandaly, a city of over one million people second only in size to Rangoon. Tremors were felt as far away and Bangkok and at least two strong aftershocks have been reported.

As things pan out in the comings hours and days the earthquake may represent the biggest test yet for President Thein Sein’s reformist USDP government. Just over four years ago, when Cyclone Nargis decimated Burma’s Irrawaddy Delta region, the military government in which Thein Sein served, covered up early warnings then flagrantly lied about the scale of the disaster once it hit.

As the floods, death and disease spread, they exacerbated the problem further by physically blocking the delivery of relief, expelling aid workers and seizing a large proportion of any assistance that was able to get through. In a fit of paranoia and callousness the regime refused entry foreign to boats full of food and medical supplies, leaving the international community to seriously consider flying unauthorised military aid drops to the desperate population.

Of the 140 000 who died, many were direct victims of the regime’s actions: a Crime Against Humanity in most eyes. 

The response to Sunday’s earthquake then, is a chance for Thein Sein’s new administration to prove that things have really changed. Accurate information about the impact, dedication of resources towards relief and unhindered access for external agencies are nothing short of essential if the President is to prove that his is a government serious about taking Burma forward.

Two years into the reform process serious doubts continue to linger about its authenticity. Despite significant political prisoner releases, fair by-elections and the easing of censorship, several familiar dictatorial traits remain. The ongoing military attacks against civilians in Kachin State, the 238 political prisoners still behind bars, and the abhorrent sectarian attacks stirred up by the government in Arakan State have led many commentators both inside and outside Burma to question just how much things have really progressed.

The official response to this natural disaster may go some way to providing an answer.

Technorati Tags: Burma,Myanmar,earthquake,cyclone,Nargis,government,regime,USDP,aid,relief,blocked,Crime Against humanity,November,2012

8888–the struggle goes on

8 August 1988 – the key date in the nationwide democratic uprising that catapulted Aung San Suu Kyi to prominence before being brutally crushed by Burma’s military regime, is commemorated with protests around the world every year.

Inside Burma itself however, such demonstrations have long been muted. Publicly remembering the thousands who gave their lives and liberty in an attempt to free their country was until recently, enough to land you in jail.

This week things could not be more different; with the young pseudo-civilian government of President Thein Sein both allowing and financing rallies held by veterans of the uprising and other democrats. The events, which drew thousands of supporters, have generated a sense of optimism that the government may finally be moving towards ‘national reconciliation’ over the massacres.

In some cases commentators have pointed to reports that Thein Sein, as a young army officer during the uprising, released captured protestors rather than arresting them. They hope that he may show similar compassion in his Presidential capacity over the coming months and years.

However all is not well in Burma, and the government’s accommodation of a few commemoration rallies should not be allowed to disguise the fact that twenty-four years on, the human rights and freedoms that people demonstrated and died for are far from being realised.

Perhaps the most obvious symbols of just how incomplete change has been, are the hundreds of political prisons who remain behind bars, many of them facing torture and gross mistreatment. Tellingly the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners stated in July: “As no significant shift in the Government's policy towards political prisoners is in sight, the past month is once again marked by a contrast between an international rush to commend the limited political reforms underway …and the reality of continued human rights violations.”

Meanwhile tens of thousands of the long-persecuted minority Rohingya population are still suffering in the fall-out of brutal communal violence, which evidence from Human Rights Watch indicates was fuelled by the government itself. Those who evaded the murderous mobs and soldiers by escaping across the border into Bangladesh are now facing a dire humanitarian situation as the Bangladeshi government, in a shocking and open violation of international law, obstructs aid agencies from delivering essential medical and food supplies.

In amidst such circumstances it is clear that whilst 8888 can now be commemorated, the goals set by those on the streets all those years ago are still a long way off. Some change has occurred and more may be imminent but the struggle must – and will – go on. 

Technorati Tags: Burma,8888,88 Generation Students Group,8/8/88,uprising,protests,human rights,Rohingya,political prisoners,Arakan,Aung San Suu Kyi,Thein Sein

Book review: Burma–a nation at the crossroads

After more the five decades of dictatorship Burma has reached an historic juncture, with a gradual democratisation and liberalisation process giving a glimmer of hope where none previously existed.

Yet things are not so simple as the headlines often suggest: political uncertainty, ethnic tensions and external actors mean that the chances of genuine and lasting progress fluctuate by the day.

Given these constant changes there is a greater need than ever for a thorough and balanced analysis of the underlying issues. Enter Benedict Rogers, one of the UK’s most prominent Burma activists, with his third book: Burma – a nation at the crossroads. In this fundamentally important work Rogers draws upon his years of experience to examine how Burma got to this point, the prospects for further progress and the obstacles that lie in the way.

As any serious commentator must, Rogers extends his focus beyond Aung San San Suu Kyi, the mainstream opposition and the military-dominated government. Delving into Burma’s ethnic minority regions he discusses issues as diverse as the ingrained social prejudices against the predominantly Muslim Rohingya population, the widespread military rape in Kachin State and the crippling poverty blighting the Chin region.

And whilst clear in his support for the democracy movement, he successfully avoids the simplistic ‘good vs evil’ narrative that so often shapes reporting on Burmese politics. A Nation at the Crossroads pulls no punches in describing the barbarity and corruption of the country’s leaders, but refrains from blaming them for all of Burma’s problems, highlighting the failings amongst democrats and others in society, particularly on minority issues.

Perhaps most crucially of all Rogers clearly highlights how recent changes have not occurred in isolation, but are the direct and indirect results of various events and decisions over previous years. It is only by understanding these that activists and others following the situation in Burma can effectively make sense of what is now unfolding.

Through his previous works: A Land Without Evil (focussing on the situation in Karen State) and Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant (a biography of former dictator Than Shwe) Rogers has already made a significant contribution to academic commentary on Burma. A Nation at the Crossroads, may however be his most timely and essential piece yet.

Technorati Tags: Burma,a nation at the crossroads,Benedict Rogers,Rohingya,Kachin,Karen,Aung San Suu Kyi,NLD,National League for Democracy,democracy movement,Arakan,sanctions,dictatorship,democracy

Arakan and the dangers of extremist exploitation

Earlier this week a coalition of organisations from around the world came together to warn that the horrendous communal conflict blighting Burma’s Arakan State is rapidly evolving into a fresh wave of government-led violence against the heavily persecuted Rohingya population.

Whilst no one denies that members of both the (generally Buddhist) Rakhine community and the (generally Muslim) Rohingya community have been involved in sectarian killings over previous weeks, it is becoming ever more apparent that the government is using the chaos as an excuse to launch its own military assault against the Rohingya people, who have long been denied citizenship and subjected to some of the worst abuses anywhere in the country.

The present humanitarian crisis, which has left tens of thousands displaced, is being compounded by the Bangladeshi government’s appalling refusal to accommodate Rohingya refugees in clear violation of its international commitments. Meanwhile the political fall out continues to pose what many commentators regard to be the most serious risk to Burma’s reform process so far.

Within this there is a particular danger, should the violence continue, of which all sides should be acutely aware: namely the situation being exploited by foreign-based Islamist extremists as part of their own agenda.

Despite the severity of the persecution that the Rohingya population has faced throughout the decades, armed resistance has been distinctly limited and external involvement utterly minimal. Yet even a quick scour of the internet shows how various groups are currently trying to turn the present crisis into a quick recruitment drive.

One extremist site carries ‘A call to every young Muslim to save the Muslims of Arakan’ , another ‘Jihadi’ youtube account hosts a video entitled ‘O Muslim of Bangladesh, Arakan is calling you’. Meanwhile the Indian fundamentalist group Darsgah-e-Jihad-O-Shahadat  (roughly translated as ‘Centre for Holy War and Martyrdom’) and the Bangladeshi Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami have both taken to the streets in protest against the Burmese government. Anecdotal reports suggest that extremist organisations in the UK are making similar attempts to gain support off the back of the unfolding conflict.

This involvement will bring nothing but further hardship for the entire population of Arakan State: it tarnishes perceptions of the predominantly peaceful Rohingya population, playing into the hands of those who seek to demonise them as Islamists and terrorists; it presents an unacceptable sense of threat to the predominantly peaceful Rakhine population, many of whom already fear for their safety; and it injects a violent and volatile element into Burmese politics at a pivotal point in the country’s incremental shift away from dictatorship.

Above all it reduces Arakan’s complex historical social, ethnic, religious and political issues into a crude propaganda tool. Restraint and dialogue will not come quickly or easily but they are the only solution to the current crisis; further violence will only empower the extremists – and that is the worst possible scenario for everyone.

Technorati Tags: Burma,Arakan,violence,Rakhine,Rohingya,Darsgah-e-Jihad-O-Shahadat,Jamaat-e-Islami,Islamism,extremism,communal,sectarian

The last thing Burma needs is Shell

It has been hectic week in Burmese politics. Whilst Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s debut in parliament was a cause for celebration, things elsewhere were far more ominous: the government locked up student activists ahead of a key anniversary for the democracy movement, armed conflict dragged on in Kachin state and police brutally cracked down on Muslim Rohingyas in a brazenly sectarian response to the communal violence blighting Arakan.

In amidst all of this, a British trade delegation slipped in with surprisingly little media coverage. 

British businesses had been explicitly prohibited from seeking deals in Burma during the commercial tour of Asia led by David Cameron in April (a welcome move not matched by his promotion of trade with the Yudhoyono regime in Indonesia.) Back then he was in Burma for only one reason – to help the nation down the reformist path on which it has so tentatively begun.

That is not to say of course, that foreign investment in Burma is necessarily a bad thing per se. Ms Suu Kyi herself has welcomed the suspension of sanctions, which have helped encourage President Thein Sein to continue his program of liberalisation process, and have arguably strengthened his hand against hardliners in the government. However, she has also stressed in no uncertain terms that any investment should be cautious and ethical, particularly when it comes to the energy sector.

That is hardly surprising: for more than a decade Total and Chevron have tapped into Burma’s oil and gas fields whilst bankrolling the regime, devastating the environment and generating a litany of human rights abuses including reports of brutal acts by the soldiers drafted in to guard their assets, and the use of forced labour on their pipelines.

Further maverick investment by big oil right now would be seriously irresponsible and could significantly damage Burma at a critical crossroads in the democratisation process. And that is exactly why Royal Dutch Shell’s presence in this week’s trade delegation is so concerning.

It has been more than sixteen years since Shell’s complicity in the execution of Nigerian environmentalist and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, yet after all this time the company continues to perpetuate environmental degradation and human rights abuses in the Niger Delta, whilst consistently meddling in Nigerian politics. Back in April, Amnesty International called the company to account after it emerged that officials had lied about the impact of a devastating seventy-two day oil spill, which Shell waited some ten weeks before even beginning to clear up. Tens of thousands may be affected through the pollution and contamination of their water and land.

Such irresponsible practices in the pursuit of profit would go largely unchecked in Burma whilst the rule of law remains week, corruption remains rife and military proxies remain in ultimate control. The last thing Burma needs right now is for Shell to start filling government coffers whilst trashing the nation’s fragile environment and undermining the human rights of local people. Yet ever since there was even a hint of sanctions being relaxed, the company has been chomping at the bit to dive in.

Investment can be a hugely positive force for stability and development, but Burma’s government is nowhere near conclusively proving its intention nor its capacity to establish a transparent rights-based framework. Neither has Shell proved its corporate responsibility or the prioritisation of people over short-term financial gain. Until these things happen it must stay away.

Technorati Tags: Burma,Shell,Royal Dutch Shell,oil,investment,UK,British,trade,David Cameron,environment,human rights,Nigeria,Niger Delta,Ken Saro Wiwa,Amnesty International,Aung San Suu Kyi,Thein Sein

Burma, sectarianism and speculation

The sectarian crisis gripping Burma’s Arakan State is brutal, tragic and poses a serious threat to the entire country’s future.  Yet alongside the horror, a sense of confusions reigns regarding exactly what is unfolding and where the various political actors actually stand.

We know that long-lingering racial tensions were tipped into violence last week when, following the rape and murder of a Arakanese Buddhist woman in Taungup, a mob putting the blame on local Ronhingya Muslims killed ten returning from their Mosque. We know that riots quickly spread, deadly retaliatory attacks broke out along ethnic lines, over a thousand homes were set ablaze and many people fled.

However, the number and identity of those killed remains shrouded in confusion and speculation. Whilst the official death toll stands at just over twenty, other sources put it at hundreds or even higher. Bizarre rumours circulate about the bodies of Muslims being dressed in Buddhist robes to skew media perceptions of the aggressors and victims. And across social networking sites, available inside Burma for the first time, residents and members of both diasporas vociferously defame each other, whilst pushing their own interpretation of events.

Political positions have also become clouded beyond the old discourse of democrats on one side and dictators on the other, that has dominated Burma for so long. Ominously, though perhaps not unexpected given how deep racial and religious division run, even some prominent leaders of the 1988 democratic uprising have taken sides and fuelled tensions by publicly declaring that the Rohingya are not an ethnic people of Burma, but rather Bangladeshi immigrants.

The government’s role is even murkier still and the subject of considerable speculation. On the one hand this could be pose a significant challenge to the fledging pseudo-civilian administration, after all ethnic pogroms are not constructive for a regime seeking to change its country’s image on the international stage. Additionally the organisation of violent mobs could be a threat, for whilst they are attacking other ethnic groups today what is to stop them turning on the authorities tomorrow?

On the other end of the spectrum, some commentators are arguing that this could seriously work to the government’s advantage. For once they are not the villains of the piece and surreally civilians are making unprecedented calls for more troops on the streets. Meanwhile the Rohingya people, who successive regimes have actively persecuted for so long, are facing their largest threat in recent history. And of course, the supposed dangers of free communication and organisation are being highlighted, obstinately legitimising future attempts to slow down reform.

The biggest advantage for the government however, is the horrendously difficult position that the situation poses for Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD). Unlike the 88 Generation leaders, the NLD has so far stuck to calls for restraint and compassion, yet will come under increasing pressure to make an intervention, particularly during Suu Kyi’s European tour which gets underway today.

Should the NLD mount a defence of the Rohingya, they risk alienating themselves from the vast numbers across Burma who hold detrimental views of the community, particularly those Arakanese involved or caught up in the violence. It is a sad fact that merely by supporting the Rohingya people’s right to live peacefully in Burma, Suu Kyi and her party will lose the respect of many who currently support them. On the contrary, remaining silent or joining others in the anti-Rohingya camp, will mean comprising the party’s core principles of human rights and tolerance, whilst dealing a serious blow to their international support.

So great is the government’s potential to benefit from the NLD’s catch-22, that several Burma-watchers have gone as far as to suggest the violence has been deliberately orchestrated by Naypyidaw, an assertion supported by rumours of government troops disguised as civilians stoking mob attacks on either side. Of course, even these theories are complicated further by the realistic potential of divisions within the government and military, meaning that even if aspects of the army are behind this, it does not necessarily follow that President Thein Sein and his confidents are.

In amidst the confusion one thing is clear. With an unknown death toll, an unwinnable decision for the NLD, splits in the broader democracy movement and a wholly unknown government involvement that may range from sheer panic to calculated incitement of violence – Burma is undoubtedly facing its most serious challenge since the democratisation process began. 

Technorati Tags: Burma,democratisation,Aung San Suu Kyi,Thein Sein,National League for Democracy,NLD,Muslims,sectarianism,bus attack,racism,vigilantes,Taungup,Sittwe,Arkan,Arakan State,Rohingya,Arakanese,riots,murder,European visit

Burma’s bumps in the road

At the start of June, shortly after arriving in Bangkok for her first international trip since 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi warned against ‘reckless optimism’ over Burma’s reform process.

Sadly, the intervening days have demonstrated precisely how seriously that warning should be taken. For though the nation’s impressive liberalisation continues onward, the bumps on the road ahead have been starkly highlighted.

The week’s troubles began at Mae La refugee camp where some 40 000 Karen civilians live, having fled ethic cleansing by successive Burmese regimes. Suu Kyi’s visit to the camp was one of the most highly anticipated parts of her Thai trip, but whilst she was cheered by thousands of refugees who had gathered on the streets since the early hours, it quickly descended into something of a shambles.

Heavy handed Thai security detained journalists and forced supporters away from Suu Kyi’s entourage, amidst rumours of assassination plots and pressure from the Burmese government. Many camp residents were already divided over who was taking credit for the day’s organisation, whilst others complained as the schedule broke-down, leaving no time for Suu Kyi to visit the famous Mae Tao clinic and its iconic physician Dr Cynthia. Things then took a farcical turn when it emerged that no stage or microphone had been arranged for Suu Kyi’s speech, leaving the Nobel Prize laureate standing on a chair and literally shouting to the thousands assembled.

Though Suu Kyi summed up the Thai trip as positive overall, the Mae La leg revealed the kind of intrigue, infighting, organisational hazards and image risks that the NLD faces as an engaged player on the political scene.  

Moods were dampened further just days later, when news of a horrendous sectarian incident emerged from the Western Burmese town of Taungup. Following the gang-rape and murder of a young girl, allegedly by Burmese Muslims, one hundred citizens set upon a bus returning from the local Mosque. Ten innocent Muslims were beaten to death before the bus was set on fire. Minor rioting followed, as unfounded rumours spread that Muslims had kidnapped and murdered a local politician in a possible revenge attack. Further protests and tensions have followed since, raising tensions and fear of further violence.

Racial and sectarian fault-lines have of course been part of Burmese politics for as long as Burma has existed. Stoked by the government over the years they are prone to turn violent and could well reflect an ugly side of liberalisation. After all, new freedoms to speak, gather, organise and demonstrate are just as beneficial to mobs and racists as they are to democrats and human rights activists.

Whilst this is not a criticism of such freedoms, it is a real issue that needs to be addressed as Burma continues down the rocky path to democracy, not least because the government has used racial conflict as an excuse for crackdowns in the past. Underlying tensions are unlikely to be resolved quickly and tit-for-tat violence is a constant threat.

Ultimately the past week has also brought positive developments; Suu Kyi has been allowed to leave the country and return freely; she has been unprecedentedly  praised in the state-run press; and the government has publicly terminated its ominous nuclear venture. But there have been bumps in the road….and there are likely to be many, many more before Burma finally achieves its freedom.

   

Technorati Tags: Burma,democratisation,Aung San Suu Kyi,Thein Sein,Thailand visit,National League for Democracy,NLD,Mae La,Mae Tao,Dr. Cynthia,Muslims,sectarianism,bus attack,racism,vigilantes,Taungup,Sittwe,Karen,Karen Peace Council,KPC

Burma- a constitutional crisis?

Burma’s fragile democratisation process may be about to hit its next major stumbling block: a single word in the parliamentary oath.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD), which dominated recent by-elections, has announced that its newly-elected MPs will not be swearing in at Parliament’s opening session on Monday due to the on-going controversy over the oath requiring them to “abide by and protect the Constitution”.

Their objection is wholly understandable. The 2008 constitution was drawn up by the military in a rigged process that involved imprisoning outspoken critics and was adopted through a sham referendum marred by violence, intimidation and fraud (including throughout the Irrawaddy Delta region just weeks after it had been devastated by Cyclone Nargis).

The document itself serves to enshrine military rule by reserving a quarter of parliamentary seats and a number of key posts- including the Ministers and Deputy Ministers of defence, security, home affairs and border affairs- for military personal. It also places the military beyond the control of the executive and the cabinet, gives it broad powers in the selection of the president and two vice-presidents, and creates a wide range of exceptions to citizens’ fundamental rights.

In its pursuit of a democratic Burma the NLD has no other option than to challenge the constitution, or at least aspects of it, yet under the current parliamentary oath elected representatives would automatically be violating their commitments were they to do so.

Obliging MPs to ’protect’ the constitution would also significantly hinder their ability to effectively engage with Burma’s ethnic minority groups. The Kachin Independence Organisation for instance, has explicitly refused to engage in any negotiations based on the constitution, a perfectly reasonable stance given the failure the incorporate any aspects of the 1947 Panglong Agreement, the document’s explicit prohibition of “any act which is to the detriment of national solidarity”, and the evidential dangers posed by an army effectively free from government control. Were NLD representatives to commit to protecting the constitution they would, officially at least, be prevented from pushing for changes that could allow resolution of the conflicts in Kachin State and elsewhere.

In a show of the party’s determination to negotiate, the NLD has proposed changing the word ‘protect’ to ‘respect’, so that representatives can take the oath, then debate the constitution whilst still acting within it. However, the government has refused the alteration, stating that the request came to late for this session.

What remains to be seen is whether this is genuinely an bureaucratic glitch that will be imminently resolved or the first sign of the government hitting the breaks on the reform process. For now Suu Kyi is publicly distancing the party from talk of ‘boycotting’ the Parliament, whilst incoming NLD MP Ohn Kyaing has expressed his belief that the issue will be ironed out quickly. Given the military’s previous form however, others may be far less confident…. 

Technorati Tags: Burma,election,referendum,parliament,oath,respect,protect,Ohn Kyaing,Aung San Suu Kyi,NLD,National League for Democracy,military,constitution,2008,Kachin,Kachin Independence Organisation,Kachin Independence Army,KIO,KIA,ethnic minorities,president,Thein Sein,democratisation,reformer

Cameron’s Asian confusion

The cover of the first ever Conservative Human Rights Commission report, produced whilst David Cameron was leader of the opposition, bore a striking picture. It showed a banner hanging in a Burmese Internally Displaced Persons camp, bearing the words “ARE YOU FOR DEMOCRACY OR DICATORSHIP???”

Last week the Prime Minister may have been asking himself exactly the same question.

As the first British Premier to set foot Burma for over sixty years, he built on the marked success of his Foreign Secretary William Hague and other international visitors, not least Hilary Clinton, in helping to keep Thein Sein’s government on its reformist path.

The tactical suspension of sanctions, warmly welcomed by Aung San Suu Kyi as she stood alongside Cameron, simultaneously rewards the President for his progress whilst maintaining the threat of renewed economic isolation should hardliners seek to impede further liberalisation.

The Prime Minister also made a thoroughly welcome move by inviting Suu Kyi to London in June, for what would be her first trip out of Burma since she returned from England in 1988. Until now the iconic democracy leader has been unable to leave, at risk of not being allowed to re-enter her country. However, in the current climate Cameron’s offer could provide a long overdue opportunity for Suu Kyi to take her inspirational politics abroad; and if all goes smoothly, her free movement could increase the growing trust between the opposition and government.

Yet immediately before this brave democratic politicking in Burma, Cameron was in Indonesia playing an altogether different game. His shocking call for the renewal of arms sales to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s despotic government drew headlines from around the world, in light of the well documented human rights abuses in occupied West Papua and Indonesia itself. Perhaps even more outrageous however, were the flagrant misrepresentations and downright lies that the Prime Minister sought the sell the world in a desperate bid to justify his push for British commercial contracts.

Audaciously Cameron claimed that Indonesia is a society which ”neither compromises people's security nor their ability to practise their religion" ignoring the fact that Ahmadiyah Muslims are prohibited from publicly worshipping and viciously beaten to death by mobs who subsequently walk free with impunity.

As if to rub salt in the wounds, he went on to hold the state up as an inspiration for others to aspire towards, casually overlooking the army’s taste for burning and executing dissidents. If nothing else, such nonsensical attestations marked a tragic end to the optimism with which the Papuan people greeted his election two years ago, hoping that unlike previous British leaders he would take a stand against the occupation of their land and slaughter of their countrymen.

Overall the paradoxical diplomacy presented by these two trips may not be surprising. No one doubts that Cameron’s government admires Suu Kyi, supports the NLD and wishes to see reform in Burma, but at the same time it is consistently clear that any underlying universal democratic tendencies are in strict competition with British business interests; even when that means currying favour in Indonesia by publicly defending what is clearly one of Asia’s most intolerant and authoritarian societies. So is Cameron for democracy or dictatorship? That depends on the price.

Technorati Tags: David Cameron,Asia,Burma,Indonesia,West Papua,Ahmadyyia,Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,Aung San Suu Kyi,Thein Sein,William Hague,Hillary Clinton,arms sales,arms trade