Thitinan Pongsudhirak on the 20 year stalemate in Burma
By Jon Fernquest[Introduction|Article]
[Reading Questions|Answers]
 |
Outraged, gruesome, heinous, shocking, very unpleasant, fed up with, unacceptable, defiant, intransigent, repressive, hunkered down, cut off from the world, isolated, paranoid, delusional, still in play, resilient, an albatross, the Achilles' heel, morally bankrupt, outrageous, suffering, brutal, uncivilized, revulsion, nauseated, appalled...these are some of the the words and emotions used to describe Burma in the news recently, but have these words and ephemeral emotions helped the situation at all?
In one sense, words are cheap. Actions that achieve results are more difficult. They require action by powerful vested interests and the loss of considerable sums of money that have been invested in business ventures.
In the past economic sanctions by the US have done little good when other countries (China, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) stepped in to fill the shoes they left behind. The biggest businesss news story today is "Burma crisis delays natural gas talks," a delay to an otherwise cosy business relation. As for trade with Burma:
"Thailand received 49 percent of Myanmar's exports last year, while India and China received 12.8 percent and 5.3 percent respectively, the U.S. says."In the past, with a quick change of labels, clothing exports from Burma have entered the US via third countries."China provided 34.6 percent of total official imports valued at $1.98 billion last year, while Thailand provided 21.8 percent and Singapore 16.2 percent, according to the U.S." (Source:Bloomberg)
Even if there are any economic sanctions left for the US to sanction Burma with, won't there be new and equally effective means for evading them, as there has been in the past? Economic sanctions have been in place for over a decade now and the common people in Burma have suffered more than the generals have, as Malaysia's Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, after which he was roundly criticized for not displaying the proper standard emotional response.
In the end, actions speak larger than momentary emotions.
Today Thitinan Pongsudhirak, head of the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS) at Chulalongkorn University provides takes a look at the deplorable political situation in Burma.
ephemeral - lasting only a short time
Reading Questions
Here are some questions to guide your reading (See answers at end):1. Why are there street protests in Burma?
2. Who led the protests?
3. How many people have died in the current protests to date compared with protests almost 20 years ago in 1988? (Outside research required)
4. How long have political problems plagued Burma? For a short or long time?
5. What does the current crackdown reveal about the effectiveness of the past responses by the international community's to junta oppression?
6. Have international expressions of outrage achieved much in the past?
7. Will the military junta ruling Burma likely change?
No, it remains defiant, intransigent, and repressive.
8. How long ago did ASEAN accept Burma as a member?
9. What exactly is the "Great Game" that Burma's military junta uses to remain in power?
10. What major powers are innvolved in this "Great Game" ?
11. Why are these major powers interested in Burma?
12. How does the junta maintain relations with these major powers?
13. What are the only conditions under which political change will occur in Burma?
14. What is the major factor behind the current spate junta economic mismanagement?
15. Has ASEAN benefited from the military junta's membership?
16. Has ASEAN been able to put an end to political oppression in Burma through a policy of "constructive engagement" ?
17. How promising do the human rights provisions of the new 40th anniversary ASEAN charter appear in light of the current events in Burma?
(Express your opinion)
18. What is Surin Pitsuwan's idea of "flexible engagement" ?
(Outside research required)
19. What was Thaksin's policy towards Burma?
20. Who did Thaksin's policies benefit?
21. When was Thailand's Burma based on moral ideals rather than business interests?
22. Under what internal conditions within Burma is political change likely to happen?
23. What can the Thailand's government do right now to avoid complicity in the violence being perpetrated against Buddhist monks by the military junta?
(Express your opinion)
Bangkok Post Article September 28, 2007
FOCUS / BURMA : CRACKDOWN ON PROTESTERSAsean's failure and Thailand's shame
Burma's entrenched military remains defiant, intransigent and repressiveBy THITINAN PONGSUDHIRAK
The Burmese military regime's ongoing crackdown on street demonstrators fed up with economic mismanagement and oppression appears inevitable. As days of spontaneous nationwide protests over steeply rising consumer prices grew into weeks, the Burmese people took to the streets in the major cities and remote townships, spearheaded by monks.
It was only a matter of time before the entrenched military, in the name of the State Peace and Development Council, struck back gruesomely.
The violence harks back to heinous parallels witnessed by the international community nearly two decades ago, when military gunfire mowed down several thousand street activists.
fed up with - tired of or bored, after doing something for a long time
inevitable - certain to happen, cannot be avoided
spontaneous - done suddenly without planning or arrangement
spearheaded by - lead by
only a matter of time before -
entrenched - firmly established and difficult to change
State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) - name of group that rules over Burma
gruesomely - shocking and very unpleasant
harks back to - is similar to
heinous - very bad and horrible
mowed down - make large numbers of people fall down dead
Previous Responses have Failed
At issue now is what measures are still in play to avert further violence and to promote a change in the SPDC's mindset and government.
Unlike the similar violence in 1988, the SPDC's brutal suppression this time reveals the limitations of the outraged international community, betrays Asean's failure, and highlights Thailand's shame in its foreign policy dealings with the rogue junta.
International condemnation has achieved little, exhortations from Washington and Brussels even less.
Economic sanctions, in particular, have not produced their desired effect, and may have hurt the Burmese people more than the military.
Previous pressure from the United Nations for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition figures and the return to dialogue and democratic rule, has come to naught.
The SPDC remains defiant, intransigent and repressive. Burma has been a knot of frustration and despair.
at issue - what is being debated and argued about
in play - might still be used, remaining options
avert - prevent
mindset - attitudes, the way someone thinks about things
outraged -
rogue - someone who behaves differently from others
condemnation - saying that someone's actions are very bad and unacceptable
exhortations - trying to make someone do something
economic sanctions - economic punishment (freezing assets, lasw against doign business with, etc)
dialogue - official communication and negotiation
come to naught - not successful, failed efforts
defiant - refusing to obey, independent
intransigent - will not change
The SPDC's Great Game
International pressure has been focused on the major powers surrounding Burma and on Asean, which accepted Rangoon as a new member a decade ago.
However, the SPDC has virtually invented its own "great game" in which it has become a masterful manipulator and has been winning at it to the consternation of the wider world.
Thanks to abundant natural sources, especially natural gas deposits, the SPDC has played the major powers off one another.
China is Burma's largest economic partner, and has extensive geopolitical and energy interests at stake. India's energy interests are no less substantial, an irony for the world's largest democracy to be so engaged with an outdated military-authoritarian regime.
An energy exporter itself, Russia is keen to remain in play so long as New Delhi and Beijing are making inroads into Burma.
Unless and until Beijing, Delhi and Moscow stand in unison in pressuring the SPDC for change, little will change in Naypyidaw, Burma's new capital handpicked by junta leader Senior General Than Shwe, whose construction costs underpin the junta's economic mismanagement.
the Great Game - the rivalry between the British and Russia for dominance in Central Asia and Afghanistan (See Wikipedia)
to the consternation of x - made x feel anxious and afraid
play off one another - use the weakness of one to gain from the other (for example, give the natural gas field to South Korea but the pipeline to China)
geopolitical - politics with geography as teh factor (for example, burma may be strategically important for China because it stands between it and the Bay of Bengal)
remain in play - remain part of the action
making inroads - getting more involved with
in unison - together, united
handpicked - personally chosen
underpin - care the cause of, are the reason behind
ASEAN's Complicity
The SPDC's great game is not confined to the big players. Asean is culpable for what has happened in Burma over the past decade since its membership in East Asia's most resilient but increasingly less relevant grouping.
The current spate of violence in Burma exposes Asean's Achilles' heel. Burma's membership has been an albatross from the outset. It has not brought what it promised. The logic of constructive engagement is dead.
Propelled by its cardinal norm of "non-interference" in the domestic affairs of other member states, the "Asean way" is being put to the test in Burmese streets in the coming days.
Always full of sound and fury, Asean has done too little to be taken seriously by the international community.
The SPDC's crackdown is particularly poignant for the 10-member grouping because this year marks its 40th anniversary and its planned promulgation of a binding charter with a human rights component.
Incoming Asean secretary-general, Thailand's former foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, should be given a chance to broach his bold idea on "flexible engagement", espoused and quickly doused in the early 1990s.
culpable - guilty
resilient - strong, recovers easily
spate of - short period of
Achilles' heel of - the most weak point of
an albatross - causing great problems from which you cannot escape (in a poem by Coleridge a character has an albatross bird hanging around his neck that is rather difficult to live with)
constructive engagement - maintaining relations with in order to solve problems and make bad situation better
Propelled by - driven by, guided by, conducted according to
full of sound and fury - lot's of talk (but no action)
poignant - causes deep emotional response
promulgation of - making law officially active
binding - must follow, not optional
broach - mention an idea or subject
espoused - believe in, support, argue for
doused - pour water over a fire to stop the fire
Thailand's Response
Thailand under former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra did plenty of business with the SPDC.
Indeed, Mr Thaksin's Burma policy of trade and investment ostensibly for the benefit of his satellite business at the expense of Thai taxpayers was partly responsible for his downfall.
The only time in the contemporary period when Thailand's Burma policy was based on principles and moral underpinnings more than trade and economic gains was the 1990s under Mr Surin and former prime minister Chuan Leekpai, who did not visit Rangoon as a Thai leader.
The interim government of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has much to answer for on its Burma policy. This government is supposed to be all about morality and ethics, but it has turned out otherwise. In view of three cabinet members' constitutional violations over conflicts of interest and Prime Minister Surayud's own allegedly questionable land possession, his government is morally bankrupt at home.
Its close post-coup dealings with the SPDC, including the Thai military junta's personal visits with Senior Gen Than Shwe, are deplorable in the light of what has taken place.
ostensibly for - appeared as if
underpinnings - reasons for action
morally bankrupt - has no moral basis at all
deplorable - think it is bad and unacceptable
in the light of... - considering...
What to do?
Short of a mutiny of sorts within the apparently solidified Burmese army, and in the absence of a vibrant middle class, labour unions and private sector, the Burmese protesters are likely to confront more bloodletting in the immediate term.
While the international community can do little and the major powers around Burma will not want to do much, Asean can certainly exert more pressure, ultimately the threat of a sequenced expulsion, to palpably change the SPDC's tune.
For Bangkok, the least we could do is to avoid future complicity in the SPDC's suppression of its own people.
a mutiny - when soldiers or sailors refuse to obey their commanding officers
vibrant - full of energy
sequenced - step by step, not all at once
expulsion - kick out, end membership
palpably - noticeably
complicity in - involvement in illegal or immoral activity
The writer is Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
Answer Key:
1. Why are there street protests in Burma?
a. Economic mismanagement
b. Oppression
c. Steeply rising consumer prices
2. Who led the protests?
Buddhist monks.
3. How many people have died in the current protests to date compared with protests almost 20 years ago in 1988? (Outside research required)
Several thousand died in 1988. At most 30 have died in the current protests.
4. How long have political problems plagued Burma? For a short or long time?
For a very long time. The current run of problems started in 1988, almost 20 years ago, but military rule and isolation from the rest of the world go back to the coups of 1962 and 1958, over 45 years ago.
5. What does the current crackdown reveal about the effectiveness of the past responses by the international community's to junta oppression?
a. The limitations of outrage in the international community.
b. ASEAN's failure.
c. The extent of Thailand's foreign policy and business dealings with Burma.
6. Have international expressions of outrage achieved much in the past?
No, absolutely nothing.
("International condemnation has achieved little, exhortations from Washington and Brussels even less.")
7. Will the military junta ruling Burma likely change?
No, it remains defiant, intransigent, and repressive.
8. How long ago did ASEAN accept Burma as a member?
10 years ago.
9. What exactly is the "Great Game" that Burma's military junta uses to remain in power?
10. What major powers are innvolved in this "Great Game" ?
China, India, and Russia. (South Korea is also involved in a major way.)
11. Why are these major powers interested in Burma?
One major factor is Burma's natural resources such as natural gas deposits, but Burma also has a strategic position between India and China and provides ocean access to China.
12. How does the junta maintain relations with these major powers?
It plays these major powers off one another.
13. What are the only conditions under which political change will occur in Burma?
If China, Russia, and India together pressure Burma to change.
14. What is the major factor behind the current spate junta economic mismanagement?
The building of the new capital in Naypyidaw.
15. Has ASEAN benefited from the military junta's membership?
No.
("Burma's membership has been an albatross from the outset. It has not brought what it promised. The logic of constructive engagement is dead.")
16. Has ASEAN been able to put an end to political oppression in Burma through a policy of "constructive engagement" ?
No, ASEAN has "done too little to be taken seriously by the international community."
17. How promising do the human rights provisions of the new 40th anniversary ASEAN charter appear in light of the current events in Burma?
(Express your opinion)
Not very promising.
18. What is Surin Pitsuwan's idea of "flexible engagement" ?
(Outside research required)
19. What was Thaksin's policy towards Burma?
A policy of trade and investment.
20. Who did Thaksin's policies benefit?
His own satellite business interests.
21. When was Thailand's Burma based on moral ideals rather than business interests?
During the 1990s under the Chuan Leekpai administration with Surin Pitsuwan as Foreign Minister.
22. Under what internal conditions within Burma is political change likely to happen?
a. A mutiny in the Burmese army.
b. Development of an energetic middle class, labour unions, and private sector.
23. What can the Thailand's government do right now to avoid complicity in the violence being perpetrated against Buddhist monks by the military junta?
(Express your opinion)
