The Nation - Burma's road to reform: what has really changed? - Brad Adams
- From: "labor" <labor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:11:11 +0800
July 28, The Nation - Burma's road to reform: what has really changed? -
Brad Adams
The ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), a
military-controlled, nominally "transitional" government, has ruled Burma
since 1988 (following 26 years of formal military rule under dictator Ne
Win). Despite some economic liberalisation, it continues to exercise almost
uncontested control marked with widespread violations of human rights and a
denial of basic freedoms. Support in the international community for the
constitutional process is a last resort after years of vacillation by the
SPDC, broken promises of democratic reforms and flagrant disregard for
international norms of respect for basic rights, but the new constitution,
if it is completed in its present form, will not necessarily make things any
better: it plans to codify the role of the military in the future affairs of
state, reserves one quarter of parliamentary seats for serving officers,
makes sure the president will be a retired general and includes a raft of
provisions designed to bar opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner
Aung San Suu Kyi from participating in elections. She remains under house
arrest in Rangoon, despite widespread calls for her release. Many former
delegates to this convention, including many elected in 1990, are now
imprisoned, exiled or dead. Elected delegates constitute about 1 per cent of
the 1,080 people in attendance. Those who do go, even the handpicked ones
supporting the SPDC, are not permitted to question the proceedings or
suggest alternative provisions. Many ethnic groups that have signed
cease-fires with the SPDC after decades of fighting central government rule
are becoming increasingly vocal and dissatisfied with the process, but it
requires courage to publicly question this stage-managed process: a 1996 law
makes it a criminal offence to criticise or obstruct the constitutional
process in any way. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently
dispatched his special envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, to Beijing, Tokyo
and New Delhi to consult with key countries following his meetings in
Washington the previous week. Gambari, who visited Burma twice last year,
the highest-ranking UN official to be accepted after years of the SPDC
barring other envoys, is drumming up support for engaging the military
government at this critical junction. In India, Gambari and his hosts agreed
that in engaging the SPDC it is important to "recognise positive steps made
by [Burma] while at the same time encouraging it to make further progress
towards democratisation and human rights". Just what the positive steps have
been is unclear. In late June the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) took the remarkably rare step of making a public statement on Burma.
Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the ICRC, stated that "repeated abuses
committed against men, women and children living along the Thai-[Burmese]
border violate many provisions of international humanitarian law". The ICRC
was also concerned at the limitations on its activities since late 2005,
especially in areas where thousands of civilians are being coerced into
supporting the army in military operations and "the large-scale destruction
of food supplies and the means of production". Restrictions on other aid
agencies have circumscribed the ability of most humanitarian agencies to
access areas and communities in urgent need. In April, the United Nations
Development Programme stated in a confidential humanitarian-strategy paper
stated that "many of the difficulties encountered by the population of
[Burma] today are a result of ill-informed and outdated socio-economic
policies, along with the lack of legal protection and redress for victims of
injustice and abuse". In spite of this, the military government remains
firmly entrenched in power, with strong diplomatic support from its big
neighbours China and India. The military shows no sign of being willing to
step back and hand power to an elected civilian government. So what can the
international community do? The resigned argument that little can be done
with Burma because of China's influence and increasing arms sales and
diplomatic support from India and Russia should be a challenge to Asean,
which has watched as Burma has repeatedly embarrassed it through its
intransigence and broken promises. Thailand and the other members of Asean
must press the Burmese government to end its widespread human-rights
violations and create a credible process of handing power to a credible
civilian government through free and fair elections. While some in Asean
have spoken out against the slow pace of reform, Asean as a whole must also
speak clearly and publicly about the situation in Burma. A twisted
constitutional process, military assaults on civilians and the denial of
basic freedoms have no place in the future political system of Burma, or in
an Asean that is in the process of developing its own human-rights
framework. Burma's standing in Asean should depend on genuine reform. Brad
Adams is the director of the Asia division of the New York-based Human
Rights Watch.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: FYI: Cleanest restaurants
- Next by Date: Rangoon businessmen forced to donate to National Convention - Htet Aung
- Previous by thread: INVESTMENT/PROPOSAL
- Next by thread: Rangoon businessmen forced to donate to National Convention - Htet Aung
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
