November 29, 2011
The Situation in Myanmar is not without Hope, says Deva Ridzam
“ASEAN must pursue realistic goals with patience as well as perseverance, Myanmar can have a stable central government to hold the country together to ensure the overall development of the country. The decision to allow Myanmar to chair the regional grouping in 2014 is a far-sighted move by ASEAN”.–Ridzam
MYANMAR’S woes all these years have been a classic case of the leadership there being unable or unwilling to get its politics and economics right. Successive leaders, since 1962, never allowed parliamentary democracy envisioned by independence leader General Aung San to evolve and take root.
And in the context of both its own history and in terms of a politically evolving Southeast Asia, even the exercise of a flawed “democratic process” currently under way in Myanmar is better than what existed there until a few months ago.
Every member state of ASEAN must manage its socio-political and economic transition at its own pace. And this is what Myanmar’s new nominally civilian government seems to be attempting to do. Hopefully, its new constitution can provide the basis for a shift from authoritarianism towards a democratic path.
The junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), virtually gave up on ASEAN when it was forced to relinquish its chairmanship in 2006. The SPDC viewed it as an affront to Myanmar’s integrity. It created an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion of the regional bloc.
Asean’s so-called policy of “constructive engagement” failed miserably to start a dialogue with the junta. Hence, there was little understanding of the problems facing the generals there and the country.
Some ASEAN countries, while continuing their own business and other interests in Myanmar, tried to deflect lack of success by asking China and India to “exert influence” on the junta.
But these two neighbours of Myanmar also have their own national interests there. ASEAN and its partners should instead work on the basis of the junta’s seven-step plan.
The situation in Myanmar is not hopeless. Change there is inevitable sooner or later. Senior Gen Than Shwe is 74 years old. The generals seem to accept the reality that the entire country may not survive for long under intense domestic (monks, students and insurgencies) and international pressure.
The generals seem keen to move towards some sort of a “guided democratic” path, that is “soft authoritarianism” and may even find some sort of accommodation with the Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party applied to re-register last week.
It would be wrong to view Myanmar solely through the lens of human rights and democracy or, for that matter, through any particular narrow perspective. More importantly, it is about “peaceful transition through national reconciliation”, which is key to solving their problems.
The point is to get all parties, especially the minorities, representing a third of the population, to talk together and explore common interests. Therefore, relying on Suu Kyi alone and ignoring realities on the ground could lead to a Yugoslavia-type situation of civil war in Southeast Asia.
The international community should look to the future, nudge the generals towards greater flexibility, less negativity towards national reconciliation, better autonomy deals with insurgent groups as well as some arrangements with Suu Kyi.
Instead of imposing external standards of democracy, the international community ought to be thinking in terms of transition from the present situation towards a “democratic path”, one that could lead to power sharing, multiparty elections and pluralistic democracy in the long term, with emphasis on capacity building and governance.
ASEAN should also encourage the generals to focus on the economy (investments to create jobs) as well as foster social cohesion, including social programmes relating to health and education, along with physical infrastructure. These are areas where the international community can and must help.
The evolving situation in Myanmar offers ASEAN and its dialogue partners a unique opportunity to allow the junta and all the other local parties to work out their own solution without outside interference or pressure.
ASEAN must pursue realistic goals and with patience as well as perseverance, Myanmar can have a stable central government to hold the country together to ensure the overall development of the country. The decision to allow Myanmar to chair the regional grouping in 2014 is a far-sighted move by ASEAN.
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
“..to allow the junta and all the other local parties to work out their own solution without outside interference or pressure.”
The situation in Burma is extremely difficult to resolve due to the tribal affiliations and internecine conflicts generated by decades of genocide, perpetuated by the Junta. The Panglong ‘Agreement’ (1946) by Gen. Aung San with the Shan, Kachin and Chin leaders has been heavily modified by ‘pragmatists’ on both sides has been co-opted by the regime and is now without resolution.
Burma is longer viable as a coherent nation unless there is serious attempt to reconcile the differences between the majority Barma Tribe and others, who control more than half it’s land mass. That’s human nature.
Having been to Burma on several occasions and an avid Burmese watcher, the picture ain’t pretty. Poverty and discrimination is rife and Apartheid like. The differences are not only on racial lines, but also with socio-economic and religious realities.
They will need outside help to trash out the details. Anything less, would be a further dereliction of moral authority which ASEAN never had in the first place. The Swedish, Germans and Norwegians are respected voices among the Tribes, and perhaps the could be the mediators/moderators.
When it comes to the adherence to the principles of democratic rules of governance ASEAN in sitting on very thin ice. In this regard, most of them have had the last forty to fifty years to show their mettle in the democratic governance of their respective countries. The mixed results is there for all to see. The sacred cow of ‘non interference in the internal affaires’ of its members ASEAN tolerated whatever they had to tolerate since its inception. Forty years is not enough to lay the foundation of strong institutions of governance based on democratic principles and, hence, the inference is that another forty years may be need to take us to the promised land.
Now all of a sudden as the United states, which sees the strategic value of Burma vis a vis its economic containment of China policy, has jumped on the Asean bandwagon . It is time we all take a lesson from what is happening in the Middle East. Economic prosperity alone is insufficient to build a stable state. Timely political reforms based on strong institutions of government based on democraric principples backed by market driven policies are the best bet for the building of a stong, stabel and viable nation.
The challenge for the present leadership of ASEAN is to demonstrate vision in its approach to good governance and not get into the sysdrome of giving in too much, in terms of reforms, too late at a time when news travels around the globe at the click of a mouse
The Luxury of Time has now become an even more invaluable commodity in this internet age.
Myanmar remains a difficult nut to crack but before outside help is considered (including that of ASEAN) local solutions must be tried. I know many will say :”but the best local solution was the election which was voided” by the generals. Not necessarily so.
After the election fiasco the ball was firmly in the Lady’s court. She made the fatal mistake of trying to go via the external route – the well voiced but unworkable formula of human rights and democracy. What she ought to have done was to ignore the junta’s reaction to the elections and open negotiations with the generals and put on the table an offer of power sharing that they could not refuse… the armed forces to guarantee peace while a coalition ruled the country.Two decades would not have gone to waste.
But the ball is still in the Lady’s court and although she is, much to her credit, making the right noises, she badly needs to shift to a higher gear.
The generals cannot be wished away … that is why negotiations for power sharing offer a sensible solution. The people of far away Egypt are about to learn a similar lesson.
In history there is no example of a group holding on to power negotiating with the opposition to share power. If they did in all cases the incumbent remained the incumbent.There is no such thing. Give and take means that those in power give and those ouside power take. There has been too many examples in the Third World where the forms of democratic principles have been used to undermine the democratic process.
If the generals want to remain power please change the constitution. The operarative principle is that the nation must be governed in accordance with the consitution and the rule of law. And in any case we should know that you can never argue on bended knees.
The writer makes a convincing case for ASEAN and the international community to engage Myanmar. However by agreeing to let Myanmar to take over the ASEAN chair in 2014, ASEAN has allowed an asymmetry to emerge as it has put its reputation online in exchange for a verbal promise and hope that the junta will make some progress. ASEAN should have set certain benchmarks against which Myanmar’s progress would be measured.
Certainly nothing is cast in stone and ASEAN should re-visit the question of Myanmar’s chairmanship regularly to see that changes are taking place. ASEAN, Myanmar and the international community must indeed engage in this dialogue to establish the benchmarks.
If by end of 2012 no significant progress is made, Myanmar may have to give itself more time to take over the Chairmanship.
All said and done little has been mentioned about Myanmar’s capacity to handle the ASEAN Chairmanship. It is a costly affair for the Chair, particularly as under the new institutional arrangements, the Chair is expected to host two summits a year, in addition to countless substantive and preparatory meetings. Is it right for the country to expend so much funds that could be better utilised for its citizens benefit?
I cannot say what history has to teach us about adversaries sharing power but examples abound about coalitions of groups that were or are once at opposite ends of the political spectrum. And coalitions are definitely going to be the way forward.
Myanmar’s case is interesting, where a military apparatus has worked its way to an almost total grip on the country. Such a power maintained over such a long period cannot be wished away.
Is it not sensible, therefore, that there be negotiations to end the impasse? If only the Lady had seen this two decades ago Myanmar would today have been well on its way. That is also why I mentioned Egypt where its people, having sacrificed so much, are now about to realise that getting rid of the tyrant was the easy bit. I believe that there too negotiations will be an increasingly practical option.
So keep talking and both sides give a little… so that everyone saves face…. so important for us Easterners.
Dato Deva Ridzam’s well articulated and timely commentary contains some useful pointers for American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who will be in Yangoon tomorrow to meet members of the ruling junta and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
Mrs. Clinton should be willing to discuss democratic reforms with the military there on the basis of mutual respect, and try to understand why reform in Myanmar will not take root by coercion. She knows that international isolation has not worked, and neither has ASEAN’s constructive engagement, because the military leaders will not allow themselves to be humiliated in the eyes of their own people.
What is required is soft diplomacy with incentives for “good behaviour.” At the end of the day, the US must join hands with ASEAN, India and China to try to resolve the Myanmar dilemma. It will be good for the US (and Europe too) to accept the name Myanmar and stop referring to the country as Burma. –Din Merican
Burma it is, Dato, if you talk to the 8888 generation (some of whom, who are my buddies). They will eschew the term “Myanmar”, for it implies Myanmarization, which is actually the process of ‘Bamar-nization’. Until and unless, there is real progress in the direction of loose federalism with semi-autonomy for the Shan, Chin and Kachin States, there will be no peace. The Junta is in fact genocidal; and i think there’s a lot of misconception of how things work in Naypyidaw.
I was there last December and saw for myself the sheer paranoia, delusions of grandeur, parochialism and insular thinking among the government honchos. The present ‘civil’ admin still takes it’s orders from the Paramount Tatmadaw (Military) where almost 24% of the 2011 budget goes. I have some hope for Madame Secretary’s mission, but not too much. It’s a balancing act on behalf of the Tatmadaw, who have lost support of their erstwhile ‘friends’ from the North.
It is to be noted that it is NOT US that is conciliatory, but the Burmese themselves who are responsible for the initiative. It started with the cancellation of the Myitsone Dam, when they realized the Kachin were more than ready to subvert it’s completion. PRC was furious! But they also have a pipeline running the length of the country from Sittwe, on the Andaman Sea and need the gas-fields.
So they have little trust in both PRC and India (with whom they have historical bad blood), When it comes to reconciliation within the country, only Daw Aung San has the moral authority to get the different tribes to sit down together on the negotiating table. No one else. The Tatmadaw can’t because the hatred is palpable.. And to mediate disputes, requires foreign intervention by Neutral observers.
Malaysia and the rest of ASEAN are deemed ‘tainted’ due to their unconditional support for the Junta and the rapacious attitudes of their businessmen. Our Goons treat the refugees worse than mangy dogs.
Am i missing something here?
At this stage the best option is for the Lady and the Junta to keep talking and for everybody else to stay out.
Burma taking the Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014 is in ASEAN language a done deal. And our Practitioners of Foreign Policy will say that that decision was a master stroke in the conduct of foreign policy. But the situation in Myanma is too set to see any change in the near or distant future and for the same reasons those of us who advocate that the Egyptian Spring should negotiate with the Military are providing unsustainable advice.
We may be taken up by the visit by the Secretary of State to Burma. But the situation in US, too, is changing and their interest is also changing. After that long Cold War they have to deal with China and what better way to do that than take a softer approach towards a nation that may be useful to their interest.
To my mind ASEAN countries themselves must adapt quickly to the changes that are taking place not only in the Middle East but also in Europe where the debate between the 1% and the 99 % is beginning to gain momentum. If I am not wrong, more than 50% of the citizens in ASEAN are working in the morning to feed their families yesterday’s dinner while another 25% is just one pay cheque away from bankruptcy. With that kind of burden we will arguing on bended knees when we try to make a dent on global or regional political issues.
“.. the Lady and the Junta to keep talking and for everybody else to stay out.”
Really? That’s like asking Anwar to negotiate with UMNO, on a smaller scale. But neither side will give ground. So much for your hypothesis of a ‘unity’ coalition.
Let me give you a sample of the Acronyms of insurgency groups fighting against the Junta (some are defunct, but can easily be reactivated):
NUFA,CNF,KIO, KNU, KNPP, LNO, NMSP, PSLP, PAO, SSPP, WNO and. CPB (Communist). They have their own militia, most armed by the narco-trade and the black market (which is the actual underlying economic system there). There are also many ragtag breakaway armed groups, loafing at the margins. All these are ethnic in composition but not in their common resistance to Naypyidaw; and each have their own agendas. Within each, are factions as is wont to happen.
Daw Aung San can make them sit together with the Tatmadaw, but she cannot make them work together, after all these years of conflict. They need help. If that is not forthcoming, it will remain status quo. The prize is the enormous wealth and resources in the hinterland, controlled by the ethnic Minority. They aren’t concerned so much with mere economics, but are fighting for identity, freedom and liberty. Sounds familiar?
The Chin and Kachin for instance, have a Christian majority; the Rakhines Muslim. But the center is Buddhist. Do you have any idea of the complexities involved? Malaysia will devolve into this (or has it already?), with the constant goading of UMNO.
UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, FAO etc are holed-up in Trader’s Hotel Yangon, under siege. What is needed are professional mediators and diplomats who are Neutral for the nitty-gritty of getting Burma back on their feet. Political stability is conditional to settlement of all outstanding issues of Autonomy. For that the UN has to step in, like in Timor Leste and Yugoslavia. But don’t hold your breath.
Naypyidaw only sees oil & gas, teak, rubies, jade and other minerals. From what i gather, they are trying to remodel themselves after Vietnam. That requires re-engagement with the West.
ANONYMOUS Your views make perfect sense but how do we solve the impasse between those who have assumed an entrenched position over decades and the vast majority clamouring for CHANGE NOW.The only way I see is where we inch forward and not even try the Big Bang solution for the latter will only make things a lot worse.
CLF : Anwar Ibrahim negotiating with UMNO? Why not, if that is what will take the country forward and maintain peace and stability? He has after all been in an exactly similar position when in ABIM. And did you say the UN? That body has now become a problem and cannot therefore be part of a solution… in Myanmar or eleswhere.
ASEAN was spot on in announcing their stance on Myanmar. It is precisely such attutudes that will coax adversaries in their home countries to sit together.
Heard of the expression, “Line in the Sand?”
That’s what a Roman Senator of antiquity said to a Seleucid Tyrant, on his way to conquer Egypt. UMNO through it’s paramount leader, JIbs, has stepped out of the Line, although some of his Tatmadaw didn’t.
The last time i heard, Anwar was huddled together with some of UMNO warlords in Singapore and elsewhere. That’s where politics meets with pragmatism – in secret. That’s why UMNO is desperate. Same trick-or-treat. Selangor and the opposition states will not return and Diam2 Diam’s prediction, is true for now.
No, i’m not saying UN can ever hope to mediate in Burma’s problems. But ASEAN is particularly useless in this, seeing their Lembekness. The conflict can only be resolved with integrity and honesty which the Generals don’t have. They may discard their uniforms and wear suits, but the attitude remains. The sanctions will have to continue in milder form and the mediation has to be done in Geneva, Saigon (not Hanoi), Helsinki or Stockholm on multilateral terms without the influence of the old generation of Nee Win’s cronies. In other words, Than Shwe and his coterie has to croak first.
It is not a question of the integrity and honesty of the generals. The junta represent one axis of power and presently, the Lady represents the other. Until now they have chosen to remain aloof (thanks mostly to the Lady’s poor judgement).
Finally, after two decades, there appears to be a movement to talk. That is the only sensible way forward for the country.
Revisit 5 decades of Burmese history, ‘cuz i know you are not talking sense. Military dictatorship with unreal Socialism was Ne Win’s genocidal FUBAR that crashed Burma – the richest SEA nation in the early 60’s – into the world’s pariah within a generation.
You’re a sucker for hard power and all it’s accouterments. You persist to think that this present crop of Generals can hold on to power without the support of the International community. They are smarter than you, and are hedging their bets.
You have apportioned blame on Daw Aung San, who only appeared on the scene after 8888? NLD won the elections in 1990. The Tatmadaw’s goons lost heavily and putsch-ed. There was no compromise nor lovey-dovey parley. She was under house-arrest for 2 decades, even when she did not advocate for armed insurrection. Which planet are you from?
Gen Aung San was the CPB chief, before he changed stripes. Nationalist first and foremost. He was the Uncle Ho of Burma, who tried to make Burma work as a loose Union with moderate Federalism, before he was assassinated. His daughter represents the same soft unrelenting power, and therein is the way forward for Burma. History will be written by winners, and it’s certainly will not be by the Tatmadaw.
It is not history we are talking about but TODAY’S realities, sir. How can Myanmar go forward??? Certainly not by harking back to the sixties.
Today’s realities are simple. One centre of power in the junta and the other in the Lady. If she is to deliver on her illustrious name there is no other way but to sit with the junta. This she should have done immediately after the elections were voided… instead she opted for the democracy and human rights nonsense. Sure she got accolades overseas but for her country she managed to lose two long decades.
History may be written by victors but it is MADE by visionaries. That history now beckons the Lady.
She would have lost all credibility as soon as she stepped the same room with the Goons. You seem to be oblivious to the 8888 uprising, that is seared into the conscience of all ordinary Burmese.
Your ‘pragmatism’ is prostitution of mind, body and soul. The sacrifices of Gandhi, M.L.King and Nelson Mandela don’t mean a thing to you, do they?! Yes, your train of thought is that of accommodation without borders – Darwinian without altruism and socio-biology. Except that in the real world, it doesn’t work like that. Go study evolution!
Under international pressure many Third World dictators have not even kept to the commitments that they have made on their own free will. They only want to buy time in the belief that all things will fall into place for the man who waits. The Lady has waited for 20 years to claim the elections she won. ASEAN is doing her no favours and 20 years from now the same old story will be repeated.
I doubt if studying evolution will help better understand the current situation in Myanmar (ditto Egypt, for that matter). Likewise, Gandhi, Mandela. King etc are useful reference points on a moral compass but cannot help any in what is unfolding in Myanmar, where the message that will work is simply “sleep with the devil if you have to”.
ANONYMOUS does have a point about dictators buying time. But that still begs the question : how do we proceed if not through negotiations?
The best balm for the long suffering people of that country is if the process of development (note… “development”… not necessarily democracy) begins. It will not erase painful scars of past uprisings but give its people a start they deserve. Towards this end, ASEAN has done wonders in its decision and shows that outsiders CAN help once they shed the mantra of sanctions and ostracizing.
ASEAN does not figure much in the Bamar mentality. What they want from the ASEAN community is plain recognition and a modicum of trade on their terms. The Generals (esp Than Shwe, Maung Aye) have vast caches parked off-shore, mainly in Singapore and Labuan. Their cronies may be the richest in SEA with narcotic, gems, human trafficking and other monopolies. These fellas won’t even meet with our trade reps when requested.
The sudden and drastic about turn is the need to balance between the regional powers of PRC and India who have long standing border disputes (most notably in Arunachal Pradesh, abutting the north-west border with Burma). They have strong ties with Russia and are now reaching out to the Americans.
ASEAN need not pride themselves of having achieved anything in prodding the Burmese, since we still need Visas to enter. And journalists are not encouraged to visit.
Development? Not with the present crop of ‘heroes’, who have been accused of the worst kind of offences against humanity. See here, short and sweet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLORC
As an aside, i’ve also visited refugee camps on the Thai border, near Mae Sot. It ain’t pretty, and perhaps one day Isa, you may wish to accompany me.
CLF..thanks for your details insight on Myanmar. At least we acknowledged how difficult the task for anyone running a multi-racial, multi-religion and multi-ethnic groups like Myanmar…which in a sense quite similar to the situation in Malaysia..Of course we haven’t reached their stage where the military junta runs the nation, in order to ensure security and peace for the people. However if situation get out of control, the likelihood of not getting the police and military involved should studied by the govt if security and peace of this nation is at stake.
OK… so we accept everything about how difficult the situation in Myanmar is and how complicated their multi-ethnic etc. groupings and their historical encounters. But, how does the country move forward? Precisely why it is crucial that negotiations begin asap and between the Myanmars. Outsiders like ASEAN can only offer moral support which is why the recent decision was relevant.
Myanmar is for the locals to solve… and currently the only groups that seem to matter are the junta and the Lady. So the generals, instead of being vilified, should be coaxed to the negotiating table,
Thanks for the invite CLF… who knows… one day it might come about. In the meantime nothing will help the country more than concerted development in ANY political arrangement. All that is required is for the two groups to talk themselves inro a win-win situation.