Myanmar's Long Road to National Reconciliation (4 page)

Despite its obvious shortcomings, the National Convention process was a very substantial exercise. Built-to-purpose facilities were constructed in a green-fields site, a remarkable logistic and administrative support operation was maintained during sessions, and superficially impressive reporting arrangements were also put in place. Although the sessions took place behind closed doors, the SPDC took the unusual (for the SPDC) step of maintaining a website, as well as a stream of reports in the official media giving selective accounts of the content of speeches and topics considered.

The initial sessions of the resumed National Convention — in May–July 2004 and then from February 2005 — left as many questions unanswered as they answered. For example, the focus of the Convention proceedings was on formulating “principles” for the Constitution; no announcement was made about how, when, and by whom the Constitution would actually be drafted. While this essentially confirmed (as was widely suspected) that the SPDC was determined to move ahead with the draft constitution (that had been produced by the government in the first phase of the National Convention in the early nineties but not been formally accepted), it transpired that a number of groups were able to force the SPDC to allow discussion of highly sensitive, but important, issues such as power-sharing. Some participants report that the Convention sessions seem not to have been entirely the sterile set-piece statements that the Government prefers.

The 2004 sessions of the resumed National Convention dealt with the various constitutional issues selectively, but by no means avoided all sensitive issues. While the Convention considered the all-important matter of power-sharing, how — and indeed whether — larger constitutional goals such as the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, and freedom of association and assembly, which have not existed in Myanmar for generations, are likely to be achieved remains doubtful. At the end of the day, it still remains to be seen whether any discussion inside the National Convention that falls outside the SPDC’s preferred outcomes will lead either to any substantive changes to the draft Constitution or to any meaningful concessions from the SPDC. But just as importantly, it is still unclear what time-frame is envisaged for elections that would lead to
a transition to an elected government. This contrasts with the recent example of Pakistan, where the military regime has laid down a timetable for a political transition.

During 2004, one major development was the promise of a ceasefire between the SPDC and the Karen National Union. While this has yet to materialize, and the KNU still remains outside the current National Convention process (as it has from all domestic political negotiations since before independence), the KNU will find it difficult to revert to armed resistance in the face of the increasing determination of the Burmese army to defeat them militarily, and their capitulation is probably a matter of time. Should they waver on their course towards negotiation of a ceasefire with the SPDC, they can probably expect sharp military reprisals to force them back into line. Equally, however, their agreement to a ceasefire (if it were finalized) would be a big prize for the SPDC, and would enormously strengthen the SPDC’s ability to claim to speak for the whole country. It would effectively mean an end to more than fifty years of insurgency against the government in Yangon.

More than ever since President Ne Win was forced to hand over power in 1988, future political developments in Myanmar depend almost entirely on the capacity of one man, SPDC Chairman Senior General Than Shwe. Gone is the earlier sense of SPDC collegiate government. This may prove a major challenge, both for Than Shwe, who is ageing and whose continued health cannot be assured, as well as for the loyalty of those closest to him. But if this loyalty holds, and if his own men remain in the ascendancy, the way might be open for Than Shwe to stand aside, to move to the background. It now seems increasingly clear that the younger group of generals promoted into positions of higher authority since 2002 will eventually take over the reins of government fully. They will have done so after what might prove to have been a surprisingly smooth — but certainly not uneventful — “transfer of power”, and after as much preparation or “on the job training” as could probably be expected in Myanmar. But the key question remains unanswered — does the military regime really propose to hand over power to an elected government, notwithstanding their own claim to be a “temporary” government?

Observers are increasingly concluding that the NLD now faces even greater marginalization than ever before. This is clear from the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, from the NLD’s complete exclusion from the National Convention, and from the continued harsh clamp-down on
all kinds of political activity. Aung San Suu Kyi’s own dominance over the opposition could also be called into question as her isolation from the political process becomes ever more profound.
⁵
This coincides with new, and surprisingly unheralded, signs that some leading figures in the expatriate struggle against the SPDC, as well as some “neutral” Burmese living overseas, are rethinking their outright opposition to the SPDC, and are beginning to open lines of communication with the SPDC.
⁶

Current trends, if they continue, will undoubtedly further weaken the struggle for democracy being waged by overseas Burmese communities, who have little to show for more than fifteen years of struggle. Hitherto, despite their high international profile, such groups have been essentially marginal to the central political struggle; they have been weakened by their own divisions and remoteness from the situation on the ground, and by their inability to present themselves an alternative source of legitimacy. Despite continuing efforts to make headway in building coalitions, in order to overcome their intractable factionalism, cohesion is lacking. These groups cannot boast a great record of achievement so far, other than pressuring a small number of Western investors to close down their operations in Myanmar, as part of their informal sanctions campaign. Although their campaign against tourism has intensified in the past three years, tourist numbers reported by the government have increased, albeit from a very low level.

Yet, the overwhelming flow of international funds to opposition or “democratic” groups continues little changed, while the volume of international funds going to the people living in Myanmar remains miniscule. Apart from broadening the scope of unofficial sanctions, with decidedly mixed social and economic impact, funds directed to the overseas Burmese movements have resulted in little more than a highly unbalanced and essentially self-serving flow of public information, media coverage, and political advocacy in relation to Burma, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. Not only does this seem quite remote from the actual needs of the Burmese people, it reflects a rigid tactical approach that appears incapable of brokering any compromise or opening the way to negotiations that might end the long-lasting political deadlock.

Despite the persistently poor performance of the Myanmar economy, the consequent socio-economic decline has been neither a catalyst for economic collapse nor for political or economic reform. In a situation
probably not seen anywhere else in the world in such a sizeable country, SPDC management of the economy occurs almost entirely without input from the world’s international financial institutions or from influential investors. In recent years, foreign direct investment into Myanmar has dwindled to insignificant levels, as much because of the unfavourable economic conditions arising from the nature of economic policy-making as because of any campaigns against investment in, and tourism to, Myanmar. The informal sanctions campaign by Burmese opposition groups has claimed some high-profile successes, with companies such as Triumph and British American Tobacco withdrawing their investments in 2002 and 2003 respectively. The closure of such factories and the consequent loss of jobs, particularly evident in the textiles sector, has been acknowledged as having a detrimental impact on ordinary wage earners,
⁷
but there is no evidence of any impact on the military regime’s hold on power.

During the last few years the number of international and national non-government organizations (NGOs) operating in Myanmar has grown considerably. While their ultimate influence is limited, international nongovernment organizations will continue to have an important role to play, if for no other reason than that they provide services and capacities that the Myanmar Government will still be unable to provide. The imperatives for provision of humanitarian assistance will remain as great as ever, and will continue to be independently attested to by objective and well-informed assessments by United Nations (UN) agencies, who have a wealth of experience operating on the ground in Myanmar. International NGOs are uniquely placed to implement projects at the community level, dealing directly with real problems faced by the people, and working in conjunction with local people to help produce practical responses to basic problems.

Whatever the arguments about engagement or pressure, when it comes to international NGOs, opinion in Myanmar seems overwhelmingly to favour their direct and full-blooded involvement. From humanitarian groups to intellectuals, from farmers to professional associations, Myanmar people recognize and welcome the positive encouragement and substantive gains that they obtain from the involvement of international NGOs. People who argue against this are in a minority in Myanmar. Of course, everything depends on the nature of the international NGOs’ engagement, but as is evident in the contributions in this book, international NGOs are well aware of the need to manage their engagement carefully.

One of the underlying objectives of the 2004 Update Conference was to sharpen perceptions of the situation in Myanmar, in the hope that this might illuminate a better understanding of underlying conditions.

With the new National Convention process under way, whatever credibility problems it might face, it is clearly more important than ever to know what drives all the key players in the process, including the military. This may be even more important than before, since the views of the National League for Democracy seem increasingly likely to have little direct influence over the final outcome. Given a new line-up of little-known military leaders, who have much less exposure to international issues than their predecessors, it is vital for the international community to penetrate the thinking of this leadership group and identify whether or not it might be possible to encourage change to occur more rapidly, and the extent to which, and the ways in which, this might happen.

The most useful perceptions will always be based on a rigorous analysis of the situation, and not on biased or preconceived views. They will be based on direct contact and experience of the circumstances and the participants in those circumstances, and an objective but well-informed understanding of prevailing conditions and the personalities. They must also be founded on a sound strategic approach, rather than being driven by short-term opportunistic tactics. It is surprising how much of the Burma debate is not based on these essential criteria.

Most conferences dealing with Myanmar rely heavily on the expertise of the expatriate and (mostly Western) academic communities on Myanmar, but do not always have the benefit from much first-hand, recent or direct experience of Myanmar. This conference was consciously different. Accordingly, several chapters in this book are by knowledgeable practitioners who are working, or have worked, in Myanmar, who bring realism and credibility to their contributions. Others are by world-renowned experts who visit the country frequently and maintain extensive contacts there, and whose invaluable insights have over the years proven remarkably accurate. So whatever interpretations the different contributors might offer, and whatever ideas they might espouse, the aim was to present assessments that could claim great immediacy and practicality by virtue of being formulated in the current operational environment of Myanmar, unlike the positions that many Burma activists overseas advocate.

The chapters by
Robert Taylor
and
Larry Jagan
examine broad political developments, issues thrown up by recent political changes, and the current thinking of the military leadership and their objectives for the future. They do so from different perspectives, namely that of an academic and that of a journalist, but fundamentally agree on the prognosis for continued assertion of military control.

Against the background of debate about forms of power-sharing amongst the many communities in Myanmar,
Martin Smith
argues that the dynamics surrounding ethnic involvement in political process have shifted significantly since the National Convention last took place in the mid-nineties, only a short time after some of the ceasefire agreements had been signed. Ceasefire groups have developed increasing confidence in articulating their demands for political as well as economic and territorial rights, and will try to benefit more directly from their compliance with SPDC policies than they have to date by securing some gains in the process. They see the National Convention as an important, albeit rare, opportunity to lay out their claims and to push for them as hard as circumstances permit. There is no doubt, for example, that while groups such as the Kachin have benefited greatly from the ending of hostilities with the army — and while their compliance with the terms of the ceasefire has been valuable for the SPDC — they have not been able to secure the social and economic benefits that they expected would follow, and which they now value even more highly. Yet there is no immediate prospect of a more equitable, mutually satisfactory arrangement being offered by the SPDC.