Written by U Ne Oo on 2001-03-01
In early January 2001, the UN Secretary-General indicated there has been a dialogue going on between SPDC/SLORC and detained NLD leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Outside observers, especially the international press, responded positively to this news as break through for otherwise intractable political deadlock in Burma. For its part, the junta had stopped attacking ASSK and NLD publicly; and released NLD leader U Tin Oo together with 80 supporters. Although we should never consider the release of these prisoners to be small gesture, the dialogue itself doesn't seems to have been moving forward from its initial fragile state. For example, there have been no public announcement from both sides - especially inside Burma - about the commencement of dialogue. Nor the substance of the discussion had been disclosed to the public.
To be fair, there may have been some danger associated with announcing publicly about the dialogue initially. However, as enough time has now elapsed since the breaking of that news, the time is appropriate to officially announce the commencement of dialogue from both sides. Unless such public announcement is made especially inside Burma, we must conclude recent news of dialogue as another SPDC/SLORC's ploy to buy more time to avoid international action, especially by the UN/ILO.
DIALOGUE AND HUMAN RIGHTS/HUMANITARIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Even if a dialogue of substance has began in Burma, we cannot
simply expect the human rights and humanitarian problem will be
improved over night. For example, Burma trying to eliminate army's
exaction of forced labour, solving problems of refugees and displaced
people and, improving the deteriorating public health, especially
HIV/AIDS epidemic, and combating illicit drugs will need the
international help. Obviously, neither the NLD nor SPDC/SLORC
government alone will have the capacity to improve these situation in
Burma. We must call upon the international community to help alleviate
the sufferings of mass majority of the people of Burma. In order to do
that, we would need at least the official confirmation by the NLD and
Aung San Suu Kyi. Otherwise, we must assume no progress made thus far
and therefore pursue a policy for further tightening grips on
SPDC/SLORC.
FORCED LABOR: URGENT ATTENTION
Great deal of progress is made, despite many obstacles, by labour
rights groups, to improve situation of forced labour in Burma. Ideally,
the issue of forced labour in Burma, as with other human rights
problems, is to be viewed separate from political dialogue. Because of
the (possible) commencement of dialogue, the international action
should not be withheld. The Burmese junta must comply with ILO's
request to satisfaction. According to last October ILO Technical
Mission report, the SPDC/SLORC is agreeable to some form of labour
monitoring mission under ILO. Lets hope that report reflect some truth.
REFUGEE PROTECTION: A PRIORITY
With regards to refugees from Burma, it is an appropriate time for
neighbouring governments to give UNHCR protection to the displaced
Burmese people so as to initiate orderly repatriation. Over the years,
Burma's neighbouring governments, except for the Government of
Bangladesh, have exhibited the meanness in regards to granting UN
protection to these displaced people. Perhaps, the commencement of
dialogue can change these neighbouring governments stance on the
refugee protection. Major donor countries, such as US, EU, Canada,
Australia and Japan over the year have been given generous support to
the Burmese displaced people and refugees. We must advocate at this
time to be more generous to UNHCR to practically support these Burmese
refugees.
COLLECTIVE PRESSURES
On looking at the pressures applied by governments and UN
Organisations on the junta, the most of these international pressures
are only little more than token gestures. Serious and effective actions
such as EU visa ban on junta members last year and, in particular,
government of Switzerland's freezing of junta members accounts are of
rare events. Never the less, all these pressures in combination seems
to be having some impact on junta.It also worth noting that if such
amount of pressure is ever applied in democratic countries, the
governments in question would have been fallen several times over (on
the one hand, such unpopular government as SPDC/SLORC would never be in
power in a democratic system). The fact that the military dictatorship
behaves differently from democratic government under pressures, there
is no room for complacency. We must call for strengthening of
international actions on the junta as the need arises.
DANGER SIGNS
Our colleagues on this list are fully aware about the way
successive UN General Assemblies had watered-down the recommendations
made by ILO Commission of Inquiry and CHR. The US action on Burma at UN
Security Council in September 2000 is also questionable about its
merit: may be mere political posturing by the US (see the posting on October 3, 2000.).
Last November resignation of Special Rapporteur Rajsoomer Lallah may
also have weakened the chance of successfully implementing these
recommendations and many other initiatives at the UN forums, especially
at this CHR meeting. Burma has its new Special Rapporteur appointed,
but the continuity of action may have already been lost in particular
implementing ILO recommendations. We must be on the alert that the UN
may be delaying to take appropriate action on the junta.
WHO REALLY ARE SPDC/SLORC'S ALLIES
The SPDC/SLORC is not alone in wishing to delay any possible
international action. The businesses, the governemnt of Japan and ASEAN
are likely allies in defense against any international action. The
democratic governments, including UK & US, also seem hesitant as
they try to protect their business interests. Nevertheless, it is time
for governments to confront with 'the truth' and take genuine action
(no more token gestures or posturing please) in order to pressure the
Burmese junta.
TRANSPARENCY: A FIRST STEP
Unfortunately, as for the accuracy of news on dialogue, we cannot
simply rely on the junta's information outlet, i.e. OSS. The
international press, which generally get the feeds from OSS, may also
be considered as unreliable in this case. Sources from United Nations
are also unreliable because of the influence by SPDC/SLORC's allies.
For this reason, we must clearly define a "yard-stick" which
constitutes(& which does not constitute) the political progress in
Burma. Within this context, if the commencement of dialogue is not
publicly announced to the Burmese general public by both sides, we must
consider as a 'no progress' and therefore take further action.
