In his first public comments on Myanmar since taking office last month, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Thailand's proximity to Myanmar meant any push for reform had to be handled differently.
Abhisit was speaking after his foreign minister Kasit Piromya met in Bangkok with Myanmar's deputy foreign minister Kyaw Thu to discuss their ongoing relations, a foreign ministry official said.
"The goals of Western countries and the countries in this region for Myanmar are not different - we all want to see some changes," Abhisit told reporters.
"But our measures may be different because of two main reasons: cultural differences and the distance of the countries. Those who are far away may use some measures while those who are neighbors have to use other measures."
Abhisit didn't comment on what steps Thailand might take to try and push for change in Myanmar, which has been ruled by the military since 1962 and keeps democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.
The U.S. and Europe have imposed economic sanctions on the regime, but the impact has been weakened as nations such as Thailand and China spend billions of dollars for a share of Myanmar's rich energy resources.
Asian countries have advocated a more diplomatic approach with their awkward neighbor, championing a process of "constructive engagement" with the junta.
Looking beyond election 2010
The international community's political rhetoric, without any substantive action, has emboldened the military generals to advance their seven-step road map toward a "disciplined and flourishing democracy" slowly but steadily.
It was not surprising to see UN chief Ban Ki-moon's lukewarm reaction toward a largely symbolic petition submitted to him by 112 former world leaders asking him to visit Burma (Myanmar) in the wake of widespread arrests in recent weeks and months. The Dec. 3 petitioners included Jimmy Carter and Tony Blair, among others.
Out of frustration, Ban -- through his spokesperson Michele Montas -- responded to the letter and said: "...will not be able to do so without reasonable expectations of a meaningful outcome, which is what we have been saying all along...."
What could that paper tiger achieve anyway? Had the same letter been sent by the same number of incumbent world leaders, it would have had better leverage. The move was an encouraging sign, but will have very minimal impact, if any.
It would be more efficacious if the 112 world leaders instead convinced their own governments to take pragmatic action in line with what the UN chief is asked of.
It is the UN Security Council that can initiate effective action and the good offices of the Secretary-General that can implement, and not vice-versa. Ban Ki-moon sees the limitations his good offices can play in the absence of any enforcement mechanism.
If Ban were to go to Myanmar without having to achieve any substantive results, he could demean the Secretary General's office. His basic demands such as the release of political prisoners and an initiation of dialogue with the opposition groups have not materialized.
Instead of listening to the repeated calls for the release of political prisoners, the military authority -- in recent weeks -- has handed down long prison terms to anyone seen to be a disturbance in the upcoming 2010 election.
On the other hand, the military was sending yet another clear message to the international community. Senior General Than Shwe was heard bragging about the 15-year existence of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and its rising 24.6 million members.
On the fourth day of the association's 15th anniversary on Nov. 29, Gen. Than Shwe was heard saying: "....plans are well underway to see to the remaining steps including the 2010 transition work program. So, it is fair to say that the future of the State structure is certain to materialize".
In the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats in both houses of parliament (House of Representatives and House of Nationalities) are reserved for the military. Amendment of the constitution will require the approval of more than 75 percent of the votes. In other words, the constitution has been designed to perpetuate military rule.
The generals learned a lesson from the 1990 general election -- any free and fair election will go in favor of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other democratic opposition groups. It remains to be seen whether the NLD will be allowed to participate in the election.
If the NLD is barred from the election or if the party chooses not to participate, the political scenario beyond the 2010 election could become even murkier. While the new government will be busy with its own agendas, the NLD will continue to lobby the international community to recognize the 1990 election results.
The 2010 election will bring a transition to Myanmar, but the new government will still be directly or indirectly under the military. One other significant implication is that the results of 1990 general election will become bygone history.
As usual, the international community will send mixed responses regarding the election outcome. While most western nations will not or perhaps will reluctantly recognize the results, many Asian governments will welcome it as a positive step toward democracy.
It is these conflicting approaches that have given the military generals political breathing space. Sanctions versus engagements and or appeasements by the international community are responsible for the military regime's survival.
One must not, however, believe that the successful implementation of the State Peace and Development Council's seven-step road map will bring an end to Burma's decades-old political problems.
We will continue to see simmering political turmoil in the country. The military generals are indifferent to and even anathema toward any concept of federalism, which has been the basic demand of the country's ethnic nationalities -- with the exception of the Burmese. A long-lasting solution to Burma's problems needs the sincerity, honesty and participation of all ethnic groups. Different ethnic groups should be brought into confidence, and their legitimate demands should be examined. This process of democratization has to be an inclusive approach.
Burma's political landscape could still be dramatically changed before and after the 2010 general election provided that the international community steps up a coordinated "stick and carrot" approach.
Meanwhile, the military junta's capability should not be undermined. The regime takes pride in having one of the largest armies in the region with over 400,000 personnel. The military is also well protected by the UN Security Council's veto structure.
If the international community is serious about finding a solution to Burma's political problems, it should take actions that can make a difference. There are ways to bring down or convince the military generals.
Military intervention, a model based on the six-party talks regarding North Korea's nuclear stand-off and the UN Security Council Resolution will be some of the swiftest, if not most effective, tools to bring about a democratic change in Burma. However, none of the above is likely to happen in the near future.
If no realistic action is on the agenda, the international community should look beyond the 2010 election and start planning for new policies and strategies to be pursued under a new military-controlled government.
No comments:
Post a Comment