As Burma strategists and political planners are pooling in the
ballroom, varying thoughts and approaches are excogitated. Noting
that multifarious engagements can help evolve a durable solution,
there is an urgency of the critical importance of the two Asian
giants – China and India – intrinsically demanding and inseparable
to the impetus of a realistic democratization process in Burma.
However, this emphasis does not convey that the pivotal roles of
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), European Union (EU),
United States (US), and the United Nations (UN) are underrated.
Analyzing the precarious politics of Burma, the writer is reflecting
strategies that are probable to engendering amicable solutions.
In line with their esteem for democratic values, the ideals and
principles of democracy are seen embedded inherently in the politics
of the United States of America and the United Kingdom governments
among others. Conversely, People’s Republic of China (PRC) is
emphatically projecting its communism to be efficacious governance
than other administrative systems. This is a question that often
raises the eyebrows of some observers and politicians: “if communism
does better than democracy.” Let us inject a comparative study to
suffice the dilemmatic spectrum of the two.
China’s communism is neither a replica of Burma’s military junta nor
the democracy of its traditional rival India. Nonetheless, the
shadow of a single party dominated communism is not ulterior to the
standing image of Burma’s military dictatorial regime.
Administration is convenient and decision-making is easier in a
communist government. Though marred by human rights abuses and
religious persecutions similar to Burma, China proves to be thriving
economically and militarily than India. On the other hand, India,
which is the world’s largest democracy, is basically a country of
public opinions. Checks and balances at the three branches of
government – legislative, executive and judiciary squarely matter in
all administrative units. Although legislative changes and
constitutional amendments may be seldom, if happens, they are
representatives' mandate, which is an essential practice in a
democratic institution.
The steady emergence of PRC economically and militarily has
immensely effected changes both regionally and globally. While the
western world is propagating for the spread and burgeoning of
democracy around the world, China is exuding its result-oriented
communist ethos. There is no doubt about the implications of China
on other countries with its myriad imports and exports. Burma’s
markets and households are overwhelmed with cheap but impressive
Chinese products ranging from essential commodities to bulky
merchandized goods. China has succeeded in ingraining its cultural
and financial influences on Burma. Many of the wealth-to-do families
and businesses have rested on the shoulders of the Chinese
community. In other words, China has proven itself to be one of the
biggest Burma’s trading beneficiaries and partners thereby entailing
to be one of its strategic ally.
Sanctions from western countries, particularly the EU and US on
Burma, are yet another incremental mileage for China. While Burma is
largely seen cornered and isolated by the international community,
China extends its soft hands to the hierarchy of the regime by
offering variant incentives. This cemented diplomatic cordiality
serves as one hardest substance to penetrate the periphery of the
ruling regime. The hardening of this rigidity is augmented by the
renewed Burma-Russia relationship. Both China and Russia status as
permanent members at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is
even a greater challenge when it comes to dealing with Burma.
India toward Burma
Had China not been aggressively advancing in the region, India might
have taken a different road map toward the perplexed Burma. While
seeing China as a traditional rival and potential threat to its
territorial integrity, India cold-shoulders to the hue and cry for a
democratic change in Burma. Economic interest is another important
factor. The world’s biggest institutions of communism and democracy
are on hot pursuit for regional influence and international
presence. This is one of the reasons why Indian politicians and
decision makers seemingly have contradicting statements when they
are in the opposition camp and once ascended to power. The bottom
line here is that national interests and security matters most for
individual countries.
Moreover, the racial diversity of India also has a tremendous weight
in shaping its foreign policies. Majority of the people in the eight
sister states of the northeast India are racially of mongoloid stock
of people, different from majority of the Indian population. A sense
of being foreign to Indian mainland and an alleged step-motherly
treatment from the Indian government to people of these states have
resonated with insurgency campaigns ranging from statehood demand to
secession. Curbing the activities of these insurgents, many have
bases in the soil of Burma, necessitates their cooperation. In
reciprocation, India needs to extend a good will gesture to appease
the Burmese military leaders. This may also pertains to the
launching of India’s “Look East” policy.
Despite the low ebb enthusiasm, India appears to be more considerate
and concerned over the Burmese democratic struggle than China.
Thousands of both registered and unregistered refugees from Burma
are allowed to settle in the country through the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees’ New Delhi office and some local
Non-Governmental Organizations. Privileges and opportunities given
to the Burmese community in India by the government is by and large
less significant than those of the Tibetans, yet this is one evident
example construed to be India’s discreet solidarity to the Burmese
democratic struggle. In the calculations of many world political
analysts, these actions are apparently too little to help resolve
the decades’ old Burmese political problems.
Probable Solutions
Different political strategists may conceptualize on how to bring
forth a genuine democracy in different perspectives. Here, “genuine
democracy” connotes a type of democracy that can mutually be
acceptable to all sections of the peoples of Burma. Probable
solutions to the ongoing political imbroglio in Burma, according to
the writer, may be achieved primarily in two different ways –
Intervention and Popular Uprising.
Intervention
In resolving any political conflict involving two opposite groups,
the intervention of a third party is one of the most viable
solutions. Noticing the different levels of interventions such as
diplomatic intervention, economic sanction, and military
intervention, let us study if these interventions are probable
solutions for Burma. Diplomatic intervention and economic sanction
have been unevenly used in the past 10 plus years by the
international community, particularly by the EU, US and the UN.
These actions unequivocally brought immense impacts on both the
populace and the ruling military regime. Had these engagements been
concerted efforts involving Burma’s neighboring countries –
particularly China and India, juggernaut changes could have
happened. With the recalcitrant nature of Burma’s military leaders
and appeasement diplomacies of some of the deciding countries on
their side, no pragmatic transformation has been visualized till
date. While many tend to see the EU and US for tougher actions
including military intervention, its reality is far from near.
Imminent dangers posed by countries such as Iran, North Korea and
the unabated Middle-East crisis overshadow problems in the Southeast
Asian country like Burma.
The 2005 informal briefing on Burma at the UNSC, which was the
culmination of Burmese democratic movement for the year, was words
that ended without enforcement. China and Russia stance on the
ground that “Burma is not a threat to international peace and
security,” which is the basic objective for forming the United
Nations, has stalled the Security Council’s unprecedented maneuver.
In yet another encouraging sign, ASEAN, while sidelining its
traditional non-interference policy on member country, reached
agreement to push for the speedy democratization process. However,
this initiative turned out to be only a rhetoric remarks when the
ASEAN special envoy, Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar,
visiting Burma in March 2006, had to cut short his three-day trip by
one day and returned home empty-handed without even meeting Aung San
Suu Kyi. Albar's visit followed a trip by Indonesian President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Rangoon only to signaled Jakarta's
growing interest in engaging with the junta-led administration.
These failures further dashed a hope for the regional bloc’s
anticipated engagement.
At this juncture, the feasibility of one intervention could be a
formal discussion of Burma’s issues at the UNSC with binding
resolutions. To achieve this objective, cooperation from lobbyists
and advocates including the Burmese activists and members of the
Security Council is necessary. If any binding agreement can be
reached, non-compliance on the part of the Burmese military regime
will be moved in accordance with the resolutions. Any intransigent
reaction on Burma could even entail sending of UN peace keeping
forces.
Popular Uprising
When talking about Burma politics, the 1988 democracy uprising,
popularly known as the 8888 uprising, cannot remain untouched. This
was the turning point of a democratic struggle permeating beyond
international borders. The 1990 country-wide general election and
the birth of umpteen political parties thereafter are the
consequences of this historic popular uprising. Had not the 8888
uprising happened, the international awareness of Burma’s issues
could have been in the shadow of the world’s politics.
A noble cause to rise up for another popular uprising is not an easy
question to answer. The massive loss of lives and properties, the
horrendous massacre and incarceration of several brave demonstrators
by the military personnel have tremendously demoralized the nerves
of many in the country where justice does not prevail. Despite all
these cumbersome tasks and bemoaning scenario, Burma’s political
turmoil and the continued rampant human rights abuses speak far
exceedingly. Some international observers express reservations on
the probability of a mass uprising. However, glimpsing at
transitional governments around the world, changes generally come
from within. This does not simplify that movements in exile should
abandon its trend of moving forward. When movements from both within
and outside the country are at its melting point, people’s power
will prevail.
Finally, support and cooperation from the international community is
an ever demanding diplomacy. Coordination of pro-democracy campaigns
from within and outside Burma is at its prominence to effect changes
in the country. When the western world, particularly the United
States government and like-minded countries, is exerting its
pressure at the United Nations Security Council, advocates and
lobbyists around the world should impress other international
players to accentuate the move. It now evidently appears that
exploring amicable solutions to the Burmese myriad problems with the
preclusion of its two neighbors – China and India is a hard nut to
crack. Umpteen engagements from the western nations are found to be
effective to a certain extent, yet a proactive cooperation of these
two Asia heavy weights is a paramount importance.
