Burma: A Nation Wanting Collective Voice and Effective Action from the World

What Next? Political Developments in Burma and Implications for the Future

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Asia Program
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004-3027
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
3:30-5:30 PM

Burma: A Nation Wanting Collective Voice and Effective Action from the World

Aung Din
Executive Director
U.S. Campaign for Burma
1444 N Street, NW, # A2
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 234 8022
Fax: (202) 234 8044
www.uscampaignforburma.org
aungdin@uscampaignforburma.org

===========================================================================

Introduction

(1) 19 years ago, in August 1988, I was in Burma, participating in the peaceful demonstrations, along with millions of people from all walks of live. In 2007, this August and September, I was in the United States, emotionally and excitedly watching the peaceful and powerful protests of my fellow citizens, led by Buddhist monks, now known as the “Saffron Revolution”. The military junta used violence to quell the protests in both 1988 and 2007. After the brutal and merciless crackdown, the military junta claims that the situation in Burma is back to normal. This is not true. The situation in Burma will never be normal. People of Burma are moving on a journey to democracy, which is long and difficult, but surely reachable. They all, students, monks and other activists are now re-grouping among the under-ground network and preparing for next move. On October 31, about 200 monks in Pakkoku held a peaceful march and on Nov 3, monks in Mogok took to the streets despite the threat of arrest and attack by the authority. So many monks in so many cities are still continuing their excommunicative boycott by refusing the food offering and donation from the military. They all never stop until they reach their destination

(2) As one of the student leaders who organized the 1988 popular uprising in Burma, and as a Burmese activist in exile who follows the situation back home very closely, I would like to highlight some important points of the 1988 uprising and the 2007 Saffron Revolution. By comparing these important events of my country, I hope that the democracy movement in Burma will be better identified and the impact of protest on the democracy movement will be clearly assessed. I also hope that mischaracterization and misperception of the democracy movement in my country by some academics, diplomats, and government officials will be clearly addressed.

Comparisons between the 1988 Popular Uprising and the 2007 Saffron Revolution

Let me begin with the comparisons between the 1988 popular uprising and the 2007 Saffron Revolution, in terms of political objective, leadership, flow of information and international advocacy.

Political Objective

(3) The 1988 popular uprising was led by students, and against then-dictator General Ne Win, who had ruled the country since 1962 and his party, the Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP). Mismanagement, nepotism, corruption and the centralized control system of General Ne Win’s government drove the country into deep poverty. Injustices and a lack of rule of law as well as a lack of freedom added salt to the wounds of the people of Burma. Students led the protest and managed to bring millions of people to the streets, calling for restoration of democracy and human rights, and political reform. Under the deluge of peaceful protests, General Ne Win was forced to step down from power, as were two other successors, General Sein Lwin and Dr. Maung Maung. The demand we made in the 1988 uprising was "an Interim Government". The military junta ignored our demand, took over power from their masters, and used violence to put down the protests. Thousands of demonstrators were brutally killed, thousands more were arrested, and tens of thousands more were forced to flee to the borders to become refugees.

(4) The 2007 Saffron Revolution was led by Buddhist monks and called for political dialogue between the key stakeholders. During the peak of the protest, the clearest and loudest demand was "Dialogue". Students, under the leadership of the 88 Generation Students group, have played very important role by initiating the first protest in August, assisting with logistical and moral support for monks, coordinating the leading monks and other key players, organizing people and celebrities, and protecting monks from the sideline. They also participated in the protest at the end of September with hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life. The military junta imposed a curfew order and banned gatherings of more than five persons. Security forces took position in major cities and shot at the crowds. More than two hundred protesters, including monks and students as young as ten-years old were killed and between three and six thousand were arrested. Many Buddhist monasteries were raided and emptied by the security forces. So far, only a small number of protesters, about 100, fled to border.

Political Leadership

(5) In 1988, political leaders came to the forefront of the demonstrations. Invited by students, veteran politicians, such as former Prime Minister U Nu, former Commander-in-Chief Retired General Tin Oo, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and many others joined with the protesters and led the demonstrations. Their leadership and participation encouraged civil servants from various ministries to join with us with their own trade and worker unions. As political leadership became stronger, and the government’s mechanism was partially paralyzed, even some military units abandoned their posts and joined the protest.

(6) In 2007, although we have an established political leadership, which is the election winning party, the National League for Democracy (NLD); it has not been very active except for the issuance of some statements. Many members of NLD and some MPs joined in the protest with their own will. Many effective leaders, such as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, U Tin Oo, and Min Ko Naing are in detention. Lack of strong political leadership made civil servants to stay away from the protests. Some military units refused to shoot at the monks; but most of them followed the order, killed the protesters and no one joined in the protests.

Flow of Information

(7) As no foreign reporters were inside the country, the world did not have a chance to understand the situation in Burma in 1988, and therefore the world did not pay too much attention to Burma. In 2007, with the help of information technology and the skills of younger generation of students and citizen-journalists, as well as the courageous acts of foreign journalists who risked their lives to cover the events, photos and video images of protests and brutal responses by the military junta came out of the country and captured the attention of the world. The Saffron Revolution became the headline news of the world media. Most of the international organizations, governments, Nobel Peace Laureates, social and religious groups all praised the peaceful and courageous actions of Burmese demonstrators and condemned the brutal responses of the military junta.

International Advocacy

(8) One important difference between the two events is the existence of Burma lobby groups around the world. In 1988, there were almost no Burma lobby groups. In 2007, there are many Burma lobby groups, including my organization comprised of Burmese activists in exile and free Burma activists, lobbying effectively with Governments and Parliaments around the world to influence their policy on Burma. Also, there are many NGOs and dissident organizations working along the border, recording human rights abuses and injustices in Burma and reporting to the international community. Their reports especially and essentially help Burma lobby groups to advocate to the international community to support for the democracy movement in Burma.

Political Impact after the 1988 Popular Uprising and What’s Next after the Saffron Revolution

Now, let me talk about the political impact after the 1988 popular uprising and what will be the next after the Saffron Revolution.

(9) Aftermaths of the 1988 uprising and of the 2007 Saffron Revolution are the same. People were traumatized and shocked by the junta’s merciless killing and arrest of protesters. Aggressive man-hunting and midnight searches by security forces have blanketed the whole country with a climate of fear and also instigated a continuous growth of outrage among the population. Their willingness and determination to continue to fight for democracy and human rights in the face of their fallen heroes are stronger and more solidified than ever.

(10) When it took over power in 1988, with intention to ease the strong and continuous resistance of the people, the military junta promised to hold multi-party general elections and to hand over power to the election winning party. The Election Commission was established and political parties were allowed to form. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi founded the National League for Democracy (NLD) party and the NLD became the largest and strongest party in Burma within a short time. The Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) changed its name to the "National Unity Party" (NUP) and became the favorite party of the military junta. Over two hundred more parties were also formed; some were run by the junta's cronies and military intelligence just to undermine the popularity of the NLD and make confusion among the public. The NUP party had a special chance to campaign freely nationwide and was allowed to use the properties, transportation, and funds of the Government. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and key leaders of the NLD party were arrested and put in detention even before the campaign period. NLD members and students had to campaign under the martial law and curfew order. Despite these obstacles, to the surprise of the military junta, NLD won a landslide victory in the elections by securing 82 % of parliamentary seats. The junta-backed NUP won only ten seats out of the total 485. Even though the military junta refused to honor the election results, it is obvious that the 1988 popular uprising helped the NLD to win the election. The 1988 popular uprising produced the NLD and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as the election winning party and legitimate leader of Burma.

(11) Let's look at the potential political implications after the 2007 Saffron Revolution. To ease the strong and continuous resistance of the people and under the unprecedented pressure from the international community, Senior General Than Shwe has announced that he would meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi personally, if she agrees on certain conditions, such as stopping confrontation and ending her support of sanctions. At the same time, the military junta has formed a commission to draft a state constitution based on fundamental and detailed principles adopted by the national convention. This is the third step of its seven-step road map and the fourth step, a national referendum to approve the constitution, will be coming soon. We have no doubt that the military junta will only use the dialogue or possibility of dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to defuse the international pressure and will keep pressure the people to vote for its Constitution in the upcoming referendum. We also have no doubt that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will try her best to make the dialogue effective or to produce something clearly and that the people of Burma will continue to challenge the junta by voting against its constitution.

International Responses

(12) International response to the situation in Burma has changed throughout these years. The UN General Assembly adopted its first ever resolution on Burma in 1991, one year after the military junta refused to honor the election results and three years after the 1988 popular uprising. Since then all together 35 resolutions on Burma were adopted by the UN General Assembly, UN Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC, International Labor Organization and UN Human Rights Council. While these non-binding resolutions are continuously ignored by the military junta, the situation in Burma is becoming a threat to the peace and security of the region.

(13) Today Burma is a country with over 1,200 political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, in addition to about one thousand protesters arrested in August and September and still remained in detention. The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments, exploitation of prisoners as forced laborers, and deaths in custody remain widespread. The junta has intensified its military offensive to control ethnic minority areas. In the past 10 years, the military has destroyed over 3,000 villages, resulting in the internal displacement of over 500,000 civilians in eastern Burma, as well as the exodus of more than a million refugees to neighboring countries. Anti-personnel landmines are used to target civilian communities, sexual violence is rampantly used as an instrument of control, and children are forcibly recruited into the armed forces. Burma’s armed forces maintain the largest number of child soldiers in the world, amounting to over 70,000.

(14) Furthermore the military junta takes little concern for the health of its people. So many infectious diseases, especially tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs are rapidly spreading, often in a drug resistant form, to populations in Burma and throughout Southeast Asia. The military does not allow people basic freedoms, but they do allow the illicit trafficking of drugs as well as women and children.

(15) Burma became a permanent agenda of the UN Security Council in September 2006. The draft resolution, which was designed to encourage the junta to expedite national reconciliation and democratization, was vetoed by China and Russia on January 12, 2007. However all members of the Council agree to support the good offices mandate of the Secretary-General. After serious discussion and negotiation for five days, on October 11, 2007, the UN Security Council issued the first ever Presidential Statement, (strongly deploring the military junta for its use of violence against peaceful demonstrators and emphasizing the importance of the early release of all political prisoners and remaining detainees. It also called on the Burmese military junta to create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all concerned parties and ethnic groups, in order to achieve an inclusive national reconciliation with the direct support of the United Nations.) Although this statement was short of binding capacity, we welcome it as the first step of the Security Council action on Burma, and a unanimous decision of all members of the Council, including Russia and China. At the same time, we insist that the regime will not listen to the voice of the Security Council if there is no concrete action beyond the statement.

Lesson Learned from the Past and Expectation Today

Now, let me talk about the lesson we learned from the past and what we are expecting from the world today.

(16) It is a painful memory for me to recall the past. Since the 1988 popular uprising through today, we have lost thousands of lives in the streets, in prisons, in torture chambers, in the jungle and in exile. Hundreds of thousands of families were broken, thousands of villages were destroyed, and millions of people were forced to abandon their land, let alone enormous economic hardship and loss of hope. Actually we did have a chance in 1988 to avoid these tragedies; however, we didn't realize the importance of dialogue and negotiation at that time.

(17) During the peak of the uprising, then-President Dr. Maung Maung offered to hold the multi-party general elections within three months. He called an emergency meeting of the Parliament and amended the 1974 Constitution. A provision that authorized the BSPP as the one and only political party to rule the country was stricken out and replaced with a provision that described multi-party democracy as the country ruling system. He ordered all members of armed-forces and civil servants to resign from the BSPP. He appointed an election commission, which is the same commission used by the military junta, and asked democracy leaders to form political parties and compete in the elections. But all except U Nu and his colleagues refused to take the offer. They reasoned that three months was not enough to form a party to compete with the BSPP. They didn't realize that they needed to negotiate with the ruling Government to implement political reforms. Instead they kept asking Dr. Maung Maung to form an Interim Government. A week later, military junta took over power from Dr. Maung Maung and used violence to put down the protest.

(18) The democracy movement now realizes that political dialogue and negotiation are very important and necessary for national reconciliation and democratization, but the military junta is still making the same mistakes. It doesn't realize the importance of dialogue. It still wants to play a zero-sum game and is trying to eliminate the democracy movement once and for all. But this time we are hoping that international community will make the generals in Nay Pyi Taw realize that political dialogue and negotiation with the democracy forces and ethnic leaders are necessary to move the country forward. Burma wants a collective voice and effective action from the world.

Mischaracterization and Misperception of Burma's Democracy Movement

(19) As I mentioned earlier, international response to the situation in Burma today is almost unanimous. I said "almost" not "effectively" unanimous. Some Governments are still reluctant to take effective action because of mischaracterization and misperception of Burma's democracy movement, suggested by some academics and diplomats. Now, I would like to address these issues.

(20) Some argue that the Burmese military is the strong institution in Burma. Some even said that it is the only strongest institution. They also believe that the people of Burma are getting used to living under a strong man rule and are not ready to embrace democracy. With this misperception, they claimed that Burma should continue to be under the military rule for some time before adopting democracy. Some argue that Burma's democracy movement is trying to overthrow the military junta or working for "regime change" with a combination of the people power movement and western sanctions. With this mischaracterization, they claim that if the military junta collapses, Burma would become the Yugoslavia of Asia with the split of many factions, or a new Iraq, with emergence of insurgency of several armed-ethnic groups. These are the reasons China, India and members of ASEAN give for their reluctance to apply significant pressure on the Burmese military junta and undermining the collective voice and effective action of the world.

(21) Let me counter-argue. First, believing that the military is the only strong institution in Burma is an exaggeration and over-estimation. It is true that it has over 400,000 troops, but they are not binding together with discipline, morale and courage. The numbers of deserters from the military are more than ten thousands every year. Therefore, regional commanders are forcibly recruiting under-aged children to retain the numbers. The current disastrous social and economic state of Burma clearly proves the military's poor economic management, nepotism and corruption. While senior officials are competing to earn the favor of their superiors by giving bribes, rank and file soldiers are stealing the rice bowls of the general population and bullying them. This is an institution, which knows only how to use weapons—not how to build the country.

(22) Second, the Burmese democracy movement is not calling for "regime change". The NLD, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all ethnic political parties accept that the military is not only the problem, but also a part of the solution. They know that they need to work together with the military and they are willing to do so. They know very well about the importance of political dialogue and negotiation from the lessons they have learned. They are also not trying to overthrow the junta and not calling for military intervention from the world either. All we are asking for is a political dialogue with the military and a mutually acceptable solution, which will shape the future of our country together.

(23) Third, the people of Burma know very well how national unity is important through our experiences under the British colonial rule, Japanese Fascist rule, as well as military dictatorship. We all want to build the country with equality among all ethnic nationalities. All ethnic groups, armed or unarmed, have already pledged to stay in the Federal Union of Burma and not to brake away. National unity can be made only with dialogue, mutual understanding and equal status among all ethnic nationalities. The days that the majority can have influence over the minority by force are over. Burma might become the "Yugoslavia of Asia" or a "new Iraq", only if the junta is allowed to legalize its military rule with the Constitution. If so, ethnic cease-fire groups, who have been fighting for their rights and autonomies for decades, will go back to the jungle and restart their arm struggles again. Another round of civil war will erupt then. That's why, I would like to suggest to China, India and members of ASEAN that if they don't want Burma to become the Yugoslavia of Asia or a new Iraq, they are now responsible for using every pressure they have to convince the military junta that only political dialogue with the democratic opposition to produce a mutually-acceptable outcome will be the best for Burma, for the region, and for the world.

Conclusion

(24) I was born in 1963, one year after General Ne Win took over power from the democratically elected civilian government through a military coup. I have witnessed the struggles of the people of Burma to restore democracy and human rights throughout my life. In 1988, I was able to participate in the nationwide popular uprising. Now, we all are seeing young students, born in or around 1988 and who are familiar with hip-hop music, actively participating in the Saffron Revolution, with courage and determination. They are walking the path that previous generations paved with blood, as we did in 1988. We have spent generations of work to achieve democracy and human rights and we believe that our destination is nearer than ever before. Collective and effective action from the international community will be an important factor in determining the future of our country. This is all we are asking for.

Thank you,

Aung Din
Executive Director
U.S. Campaign for Burma