BURMA: Dialogue or Die

Myat Soe
Mizzima News( www.mizzima.com/ )
May18,2004
It is evident that the end of political oppression in Burma, which
includes unconditional release of all political prisoners, must be a
precondition for dialogue even though it is unrealistic to expect the
regime to dismantle the system overnight. Fundamental changes are
required before any normalization of the relationship between
opposition groups and rulers is possible.

Lifting the state of emergency and rescinding unjust laws, relaxing

censorship and political restrictions on the NLD and other political
groups, and most importantly, the unconditional release of NLD and
student leaders, will go a long way in resolving the political deadlock in
Burma. If the regime is to show seriousness and commitment to solve
the country's problem, they must move forward quickly in the process
of fundamental change. Failing to implement change will lend support
to the call for additional sanctions and legal actions against the
oppressive regime.
Recently, the NBR (National Bureau of Asian Research, based in
Seattle), the ICG (International Crisis Group, based in Brussels) and the
regime’s handpicked scholars came out with a statement contending
that sanctions hurt innocent people; they do not hurt the ruling junta.
But, those pro- SPDC lobbyists and so-called Burma experts were not
daring to speak the truth. They concealed the real facts and did not
address the root causes of Burma’s conflict.
The fact of the matter is that it is not just because of economic
sanctions that people in Burma face horrendous hardship. It is the
regime’s spending on political oppression on its own people and
mismanagement in general that empties the coffers. There are
currently more than 1300 political prisoners in the notorious jails, over
one million victims and displaced persons are in the border areas and
in the war zones of Burma, and 4 million citizens have left their own
country since 1988. In fact, the country has been suffering from brain
drain since the1960's because of the military rulers' hostile attitude
toward the educated. A whole generation has lost the opportunity to
receive proper education. In addition, the country has been deprived of
educated, human capital that is crucial in rebuilding the country. A
case in point is the increasingly severe shortage of qualified teachers.
Furthermore, the country's economy has been plummeting to the
bottom while inflation is skyrocketing. The only progress that is made is
in official corruption.
Additionally, according to United Nations statistics, the regime spends
222% more on military spending than it does on health and education
combined. All social services in Burma, including the country’s health
and educational systems, have suffered terribly over 40 years of
military dictatorship. Basic infrastructure has been neglected and
priorities are decided and funds allocated on a military-ideological
basis rather than real need. The military regime’s spending priorities
focus on procuring weapons and expanding its army. The regime vastly
expanded the size of the army (from around 180,000 men under arms
in 1988 to 340,000 in late 1993) and in 1990 purchased new weapons
from China in a $1.2 billion deal that included jet fighters, tanks, and
naval patrol boats. Additional weapon purchases from Russia (MIG
fighter jets), India, Ukrain, and other countries have been significant as
well. It was reported that Beijing provided Rangoon with loans and
grants to help the latter escape its financial and economic crises. The
most recent Chinese aid was a $200 million loan in late August. (See
“Business & Economy”, www.burmaproject.org/; “Will the Road to
Rangoon Pass Through Beijing”, A report by Justice for Human Rights in
Burma (JHB); and “Beijing's Road to Rangoon Paved With
Impediments”, www.mizzima.com/ .)

This leads to the question of where the junta’s money comes from?
According to available figures, Gas Authority of India Ltd.(GAIL) signed
a MOU in 1998 with Brown& Root, Cairn Energy and Shell to bring in 28
million cubic meters per day of natural gas from Burma to India.
Bilateral trade between India and Burma was around $216 million in
1999/2000(April-March). Indian investment in Burma accounted for
about only 1.1%, amounting to US $ 4.5 million, while ASEAN countries’
investment in Burma accounted for 50 percent of Burma’s $7.3 billion
in foreign investment. The CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) had
proposed to have a target of $2 billion in bilateral trade between the
two countries by the year 2003. (See “A Question of Democracy”,
Burma File p.500-509.)
In July 1992, the French oil company Total signed a contract with the
state-owned Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) to appraise and
develop the Yadana oil field. In early 1993 the commercial viability of
the field was established, and the U.S. Company Unocal joined the
joint-venture contract. From early 1992, negotiations were held
between MOGE and the Thai national PTT oil company to ship any gas
discovered directly to Thailand, via a pipeline, which would enter
Thailand at Nat Ei Daung (Ban I-tong). The pipeline was completed, on
time, on July 1, 1998, and the Petroleum Authority of Thailand will pay
$400 million a year for the delivery of 15.8 million cubic liters of
natural gas a day once final construction of a gas turbine in Thailand is
completed. (See "Yadana Test Flows Delayed Two Weeks," The Bangkok
Post, June 30, 1998.)
While the ruling junta is selling many millions of cubic liters of natural
gas a day to its neighbors, many cities in Burma are in darkness every
night. While the ruling junta is purchasing new weapons from China
and Russia and increasing its military spending, many people are dying
of hunger and an AIDS epidemic devastating Burma. Beyond a doubt,
the ruling junta is selling the nation’s natural resources for themselves
and their families to prosper and ignore the welfare of the people who
are the true owners of the country.
More to the point, Burma posted significant economic growth right
after the 1990 election till the mid 1990’s due to businesses believing
there would be a stable political future ahead. Many companies poured
in investments to gain a foothold the resource rich land. Despite being
ruled by one of the worst human rights offenders in the world, 370
companies linked with the junta. Some of the country's business links
remain and it continues to receive investment from well-known
international companies. Burma's trade with neighboring India, China,
and Thailand is solid. Conventional and border trade with the three
neighbors totaled a trade volume amounting to about two billion US
dollars in the fiscal year 2001-02.

However, the rosy picture of political stability turned out to be an

illusion. The realities map out arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of
opposition leaders and students, forced exile or resignation,
harassment of the leadership in most uncivilized ways, state-sponsored
terrorism against the countries own people, and convening of a sham
national convention which is supposed to rubber-stamp a military-
imposed constitution. Consequently, the junta has shot themselves in
their feet by refusing to handover power to the winners of 1990
election.
Sanctions are not the end game in bringing down an abusive regime.
They are only one set among a variety of means. Targeted sanctions
directly impacted the regime’s leaders, by freezing their assets and
preventing their international travel, without damage to ordinary
Burmese citizens. The experience has taught us that certain types of
sanctions, under certain conditions, offer the greatest promise of
success in countering abusive human rights practices. We must
advocate sanctions that are targeted, and designed to have the
greatest impact on an abusive regime by depriving it of the tools and
means of repression, while avoiding or minimizing any negative impact
on the general civilian population.
The sanctions must be inspired by principle, not political expedience,
and this should be reflected in benchmarks rooted in international
norms and standards, which, if reached, would trigger a lifting of
sanctions. The often-cited example of such graduated sanctions was
the Reagan Administration’s response to martial law in Poland; tough
sanctions were gradually lifted in return for various positive steps by
the Polish government, from the release of political prisoners to the
formal lifting of martial law. (See “The Role of Sanctions”,
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/442.html.)
The regime’s handpicked scholars and so-called Burma experts must
address the root causes of the conflict in Burma and should not cover
up the truth. They should encourage the regime to commit to the
process of change, to be anxious to move quickly and determined to
pursue the conclusion, rather than simple lobbying to lift the sanctions.
A process of fundamental change would only allow our nation an
opportunity to re-enter the international community and embark on a
more sustainable development path.

Lastly, the concerned nations must call for UN Security Council to step
up to Burma’s issue. The U.N must more need to be done by not only
condemnation but also effective actions to the Burmese regime's
brutality and insincerity. The U.S government still has much leverage to
put pressures on the regime in Burma and should lead the charge. Both
the administration and lawmakers should be more pro-active and more
focused on Burma. Whether or not Burma has their strategic interests
in the region, indeed, the Burma will become a strategic and potential
location to pave inroads to unexploited market of hinterland of China
and India. On the other hand, supporting state-sponsored terrorism is
not the Asian value. The ASEAN should not sit on the fence. The whole
world has witnessed the ineffectual approaches of ASEAN and its
hypocritical policy.
For now, the ruling Generals must answer this, “Dialogue or Die?” The
choice is theirs.

The writer Myat Soe is Research Director of Justice for Human Rights in
Burma (www.jhburma.org).

Contact to author: Ph: 1-260-615-0575