Burma Under Control

Tuesday, June 24, 2003; Page A20

Regarding Steve Hendrix's June 15 Outlook article about his trip to Burma:

My wife and I also went to Burma in January, and we spent the better part of our 30-day visa traveling freely on buses, pickups, trains and riverboats. Like Mr. Hendrix, we loved it. We didn't get into political discussions, but we listened if someone wanted to talk. The masses don't seem to love the ruling generals, but many people seemed thankful that after 50 years of ethnic civil war the country is mostly under control.

There was never a country called Burma until the British combined a bunch of warring ethnic groups and ruled them with an iron hand. Aung San, the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, is revered as the national leader who persuaded the British to grant independence after World War II. He was a Marxist and a Japanese collaborator, and no one knows what kind of ruler he might have been if he hadn't been assassinated. When the civilian government couldn't keep order, the military stepped in, substituting its iron hand for that of the British.

The generals have been accused of everything from brutality and drug dealing to enslaving the people. Much of it is probably true, but the slavery rap is a bit of a reach. We saw many village road crews, but no chained ankles, guards or police. Villagers say they are expected to contribute labor to public works projects during the dry season, when they can't farm. This taxation tradition goes back to the pharaohs.

Aung San Suu Kyi says it's time for democratic change, even though the far reaches of the country have yet to be pacified. What kind of leader would she be? Who knows? The mob attack on her was deplorable, but no doubt the generals see her as destabilizing. If she takes power in her unruly country, she may need the military to keep the peace. Perhaps a more cooperative attitude on both sides is in order.

JAMES R. SCHULTE

Ellicott City

Source : Washington Post