Pick of the month -- 3 -- the Myanmar story

This is more akin to “pick of two months” now, but the story continues to be a fascinating one.

Approval of Myanmar’s bid to chair ASEAN in 2014, coupled with the announcement of Hillary Clinton’s visit, brought to the surface towards the end of November a number of pleas to slow down the rapidly accelerating process of engagement. 

Even before that, the note of caution was always present (13 Oct), and some commentators were keen to inject some element of measurability into the debate, suggesting “benchmarks” (25 Sep) or “conditions” (25 Oct) that Myanmar should be expected to meet.

But others argued for not asking too many questions too soon. A. Lin Neumann contends (23 Sep): “In short, Burma has to allow its people enough freedom that it will no longer be an embarrassment to its neighbors, while remaining repressive enough to keep the generals secure. It is not a perfect arrangement, but it is a start and probably the best anyone can hope for.” Sounds cynical – but it is good to be reminded that Myanmar is not going to turn into a model democracy overnight.

“As imperfect as they may be, the signs [of change] are unmistakable,” Kamrul Idris writes (23 Nov), quoting Amnesty International researcher Benjamin Zawacki as saying, “Those who deny this are simply not paying attention or are allowing their personal, political or institutional agendas to get in the way.” But at the end of the day, Idris continues, “the aim of bringing in Myanmar from the cold for the sake of its long-suffering population can benefit from not asking too many questions at the present time.” Elsewhere, too, current developments were seen as validating “a persuasive approach”, that focused on “incentives rather than punishments” (1 Nov).

A couple of particularly noteworthy observations came during November. Nicholas Farelly (15 Nov) comments: “If you watch the Burmese media closely then you already know that there have been some simply remarkable changes in the past year.  I can’t think of any time (since 1962, at least) when so much has happened to shift perceptions of the country. It is remarkable, and important, that the media is now free(er) to play a vital role in helping keep the public informed about the country’s political, economic and social changes.”

And in a powerful article, an Inside Story correspondent (1 Nov) observes that “the scepticism of many international pundits is strikingly absent in Rangoon. Here, a new air of openness is drawing many people into the political process ... which the military unveiled to such opprobrium in 2003.”

This correspondent sums up the surprise of many: “I felt betrayed, and naive for having hoped that an election process so obviously flawed could usher in any sort of significant, positive change. But that is precisely what has happened. And, most dramatically, many foes of the former regime – including Aung San Suu Kyi – are rolling the dice and throwing their support behind President Thein Sein and his government, seeing them as the best last chance to break Burma’s decades-old political deadlock.”

True, there are many potential motivations behind the decision to suspend construction of the Myitsone Dam, but, as the Inside Story writer notes, on the one hand, this move “sent a strong signal to both China and the West: Thein Sein wants Burma’s international relationships to be better balanced”. On the other, “what was most striking was the broad-based anti-dam movement that found its voice in the weeks leading up to the 30 September announcement. For the first time since the 1988 uprising, the many groups that make up Burma’s notoriously fractious opposition movement had come together on a single issue.”

Pragmatism involves trying to steer a course between euphoria and scepticism, seeking out not the highest moral ground, but rather what might best work for continued positive change in what is still a very fragile and constrained situation. 

It involves compromise – and the ability to live with history. As one activist from the “88 Generation” explains to the Inside Story correspondent quoted above: “I have suffered a great deal myself. But from these bitter experiences I realised that we cannot achieve what we want with hatred. We need a situation where everybody wins, including the military. They are our brothers as well.”

Another “activist-turned-educator” agrees “that in every negotiation process we have to try and understand the other side’s interests, and we must make their interests our interests... Whatever worries them, we have to find out what it is and eliminate it.”

These are good strategies for pragmatists everywhere…

Some of the recent commentary has focused on Aung San Suu Kyi, and the need for a “deft touch” in playing what is a rather new political game (27 Oct). Andrew Selth writes (23 Nov): “Burma's pro-democracy forces have endured terrible privations over the past 23 years to get to this position. Now that it is here, however, they may find that the real work has only just begun. The existence of an undisguised military dictatorship guilty of appalling human rights abuses offered them a simple choice. The decision whether or not to trust a hybrid civilian-military government that seems to promise incremental reform and national reconciliation is much more difficult.”

This, of course – albeit less starkly, and certainly less prominently – is the kind of choice SEA’s civil society activists face every day. 

The biggest fly in the ointment is still the ethnic issue. As a new International Crisis Group report (30 Nov) makes clear, recent conciliatory moves “mark one of the most significant moments in the six decades of conflict”, but still “lasting peace is still not assured”. If ever there was a situation where pragmatism needs to prevail, this is it.