Mizzima News (www.mizzima.com)
August 2, 2003:

David I. Steinberg wrote an article for the Washington Post's Op-ed page on 15 July 2003 that blends actual facts and scholastic theory, stating that economic sanctions will not work in the case of Burma.

Full-scale sanctions are the only weapon that will bring down authoritarian regimes. African and Asian history has proved that a regime which has full executive, legislative and judicial power will not transfer these powers to the democratic forces. For example, under Suharto's iron rule, Indonesia was fully supported by the U.S., Japan and Western countries during its brutal and successful suppression on the Indonesian Communist Party. Suharto was elected six times and refused to step down because he controlled the well-trained Indonesian army, navy and air force.

In addition, he got vast amounts of financial assistance and cooperation from the U.S., Western countries and Japan. His wealth and strong army gave him confidence and stubbornness. But when financial crisis hit Southeast Asia in 1992, the Indonesian economy collapsed and Suharto had to face mass demonstrations and finally stepped down. In this scenario, the only weapon which tamed the authoritarian regime was a financial crisis or full-scale sanctions which will choke the regime.

The Burmese military regime has proven its extreme brutality towards its own people. On 7 July 1962, the first student demonstrators were gunned down. The next day, the military blew up the historic student union building, which was the center of the nationalist movement in Burma. In June 1974 and again in December of that year, workers' strikes and student demonstrations were brutally suppressed. In 1976, student leader Tin Maung Oo was secretly hanged in the notorious Insein Prison.

On March 1988, demonstrators were surrounded in the downtown area of Rangoon and were forced into the prison trucks like sardines. When the trucks arrived at the prison gate, forty people, including children as young as twelve, were found dead because of suffocation. On 8 August 1988, the whole nation rose up and demanded democracy. Millions marched to Rangoon. In September 1988, more than three thousand unarmed demonstrators were gunned down on the street. In the ethnic rural areas, people were rounded up and forced to work as porters for the army units. When porters could not carry their loads they were simply shot in the head.

After 1988, the regime closed down the universities for a decade, knowing that education is the most crucial factor for the well-being of its citizens and the development of the nation. Why did they do such a horrible things? They were parochial, as Steinberg says, but they are not uneducated. They are narrow-minded and have no love of their country. Despite the fact that public universities have been closed for decades, the generals opened military-run universities for army recruits and the offspring of army members. This proves that the military knows that education is crucial which is why it is reserved to the elite groups. One government sympathizer told me that the country has no problems even though all the universities are closed down because the regime opened new military colleges for its cadets and that is sufficient for them.

In 1990, before the May elections, General Than Shwe, the current Chairman of the ruling council, gave a speech to the military families. He said: " I will not give you any order regarding which party to vote fo. But before you vote you all have to think deeply if we want to live like masters or like slaves. Think about that and then vote". Burma is not under colonial rule. It gained independence in 1948. No one is a slave of any foreign or domestic rule. Burma has no foreign enemies who want to invade the country. Ironically, Burmese have been treated as slaves by their own army. Than Shwe's speech reflects his personal view of his fellow citizens. He sees people as his slaves, and he enjoys being their master. Steinberg's dream about compassion is unlikely to be reflected in the generals' minds.

One argument holds that the Burmese army has changed since Ne Win took over political power on 2 March 1962. In the past, the army's motto was " to serve the people as humble slaves" . Under colonial rule, people who joined the resistance army did not think about their self-interest. They thought about freedom from foreign rule in the vein of pure nationalists. They were not salaried but voluntary soldiers. After the military coup, the army's motto officially changed to " the army is our father and our mother". This is not about the people anymore. In the past, people joined the army in order to attain independence from British rule. Under military rule, people join the army out of various kinds of self-interest. Most people want special privileges. Army officers have access to girls and riches. Some want to bully people; some want to avoid forced labour.

Steinberg argues that sanctions will push Burma into the Chinese sphere of influence. He might be right. But the Burmese regime also used the "China card strategy" to attain leverage on Western pressure and its neighboring countries. Its strategy is "if you attack me, I will take a refuge under Chinese protection". It worked with India which stopped criticizing Burma and currently cooperates with the regime. But recent U.S. House of Representatives' vote in favour of sanctioning Burma proved that the China card does not work this time. The answer to the question of whether China really will support the regime in the Security Council and veto sanctions or vote neutral is unknown.
Steinberg states that the 1997 sanction did not work and that the United States should not foster Burma's isolation. He advises that the U.S. needs to follow the lead of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) but he never mentions the crucial fact that ASEAN's policy of constructive engagement has failed to change Burma into a democratic country.

Steinberg thinks he can educate the members of the ruling elite and teach them how to compromise and treat the people with compassion. At this juncture, he underestimates or does not understand the nature of the Burmese generals and their stand, as explained above.

In my view, sanctions are the very first step towards regime change in Burma because the Burmese generals have proved that they have no credibility and honesty whatsoever. The generals are buying time in order to maintain the status quo, to stay in power. The 1990 elections results have been ignored and never materialized. Then the generals came up with a new idea and argued that they could not transfe political power in the absence of a strong constitution. They convened the National Convention with the aim of drawing up a new constitution but the constitution was never completed. After 12 years, constitution drawing is effectively on hold.

Every time Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi tried to take a trip outside the capital, her trip was systemically blocked by the regime. If she persisted she was put under house arrest again and again. From July 1989 to 10 July 1995 she was under house arrest. When she tried to visit Dala out side Rangoon, she was blocked by the police and forced to stay in the car for nine days. After being sent home, she put under house arrest again on 23 September 2000. On 6 May 2002 she was free again and when she took a trip to upper Burma and Kachin and Shan states she and her party members were harassed by members of a government-sponsored organization. When she was going to visit to Depyiyin her trip was ambushed and more than 60 of her supporters were killed on 30 May 2003. Now she is not under house arrest but in detention.

The generals said she is free to go anywhere in the country but when she tried they blocked her trip. The regime promised to the United Nations and the world that they were willing to change the political system from authoritarian rule to parliamentary democracy but refused to indicate a time frame. They promised that they would start a meaningful dialogue with the opposition party but as two years have past no dialogue has taken place. Instead the regime ambushed a peaceful organizing trip by the opposition party. When the regime saw that Aung San Suu Kyi has tremendous support from the masses and realized that she had not been forgotten by the public even though she had been under house arrest sucessively for many years, they finally tried to kill her in the last incident. Now they are pretending that she is merely in protective custody.

The second step is for the U.S. and international community to place pressure on Thailand, India, China and Bangladesh to not cooperate with Burma. India and Thailand especially need to open more refugee camps in the border areas and to protect refugees and army deserters.

Protection of the army deserters is crucial for regime change in Burma because many army officers and soldiers want to see democratic change but have no power to bring it about. They also have no way out. Army deserters captured by the Thai and Indian authorities are transferred to the Burmese authorities according to bilateral agreements. Most deserters are shot or beaten to death or receive long prison terms and are tortured. Most army deserters are child soldiers under 18 years of age who were forcibly recruited by the army.

Many soldiers and their officers want to leave their units but they have no way out. If the U.S. and United Nations persuaded the Thai and Indian governments to open the refugee camps in their territories, many soldiers would leave their units which would weaken the Burmese army. The news about army deserters and their interviews would be heard inside Burma and there would be a rift within the army between nationalist soldiers and selfish bullies. When there is a way out, soldiers will join the democratic movement. Sanction will create economic hardship and will ignite the mass uprising which will produce regime change in Burma.

The United Nations need to send a team to observe whether NLD party work and organisational methods are violent, as the Burmese regime alleges, or whether it is the regime which commits violent acts against Burma's citizens.

Burma does not need a foreign invasion like Iraq in order for regime change to come about. Burmese democratic forces need financial support, training and technology from the U.S. and the EU to facilitate their internal connection and communication which will encourage the movement inside Burma. The most crucial factor lies in the need for the Burmese democratic forces to unite and work together for one goal, to free Burma from authoritarian rule once and for all. After democratic change, the Burmese military needs to be reeducated and become a respected institution.

Htun Aung Gyaw

The writer is a former student leader in 1974 December uprising, a former political prisoner and the first Chairman of the All Burma Student Democratic Front. He obtained a Master degree in Asian Studies from Cornell University in 1997.