Are the Burmese people alone in their struggle for democracy?
The Sunday Post, January 30, 1994

Burmese and Thai intellectuals, students and human rights activists are upset with the Thai and Asean policy of “constructive engagement” with the military junta in Burma, and some predict that in two years there will be no more Burmese resistance or ethnic groups in Thailand as a result of this policy. Aung Zaw reports.

Since Burma’s democracy revolution in 1988, the world community has become aware of what is happening in Bur­ma. Indeed; Burma, under Gen Ne Win and his cronies has closed its doors for almost three de­cades so that the world hardly knew of the dark days in Burma.

The Burmese themselves admitted that the historic August 8, 1988 upris­ing has awakened the people at home and abroad. Many thought that the end of the brutal military rulers was near. Not surprisingly, however, the Tatmadaw (armed forces) sent the state secret police to create anarchy, and they staged a bloody coup. They answered the cry for freedom with bullets and bayonets. It is indeed iron­ic that the first boss of the regime, Gen Saw Maung, who “had gone mad” in 1992, proclaimed that “I saved Burma.”

After the coup, many Burmese were still hoping that the military would collapse as it faced international con­demnation, frequent strikes by stu­dents and monks, lack of foreign cur­rency, and opposition parties. But it did not happen. The regime, known as the State Law and Order Restora­tion Council (Slorc) still exists. The military junta survived not because of public support, but because the re­gime oppressed its opponents ruth­lessly.

Top opposition leaders including monks, students, - intellectuals, and Aung San Suu Kyi,, the daughter of the “father” of Burma’s liberation movement, were thrown into jail. Even the 1990 election results were ignored. Besides, just after the coup, Slorc managed to find some friends in neighboring and western countries who were willing to buy its natural resources in order to help it survive.

The Burmese people lost a big op­portunity to achieve freedom and peace because Slorc never had the intention of giving up power; and Burma's neighbors are reluctant to support Burma’s pro-democracy movement. An uprising like in 1988, analysts said, is unlikely to happen again.

A foreign diplomat who was in Burma during the turmoil pointed out that while Slorc was carrying out po­litical persecution in 1988 and the fol­lowing years, neighboring countries seemed motionless. At least the West screamed against the military’s brutality and gave moral support to the Burmese. “It is really astonishing they [neighbouring countries] were devoid of any feelings for the Burmese peo­ple, who are suffering and dying on the streets and in prisons.”

“Instead, these countries, without hesitation, took full advantage of the situation in Burma to exploit its natu­ral resources. Burma’s struggle was buried in their greed.” A Thai human rights activist in Bangkok said, “Asean countries are reaching for anything they can get, and Thailand is more hypocritical than the others.”

Just as Cambodians are upset with Thailand for dealing with the Khmer Rouge, Burmese and Thai intellectu­als, students and human rights activ­ists are upset with the Thai and Asean policy of “constructive engagement” with military leaders in Burma. Some Burmese professors in the US believe “it is driving more nails into Burma’s coffin”.

In February 1993, when the Chuan administration allowed the peace mis­sion to campaign for Aung San Sun Kyi and for sanctions, some thought of it as a new beginning for Thai­Burma ties. However, a Thai intellectual said, “People began to realize that after the Chuan administration permitted a group of Nobel laureates to meet in Thailand; there were no changes in Thai policy on Burma.”

Some Thai journalists and experts on Burma saw the meeting as just a short-term tactic to boost Thailand's image and nothing more.

“Now is the time for you to run as much as you can,” a Thai NGO worker suggested last month to a for­mer Burmese student who had fled to Thailand in 1989 for fear of persecu­tion. He and his fellows are living in hiding in Thailand as a result of the Thai Government’s tough policy towards Burmese students in-exile. “We were hiding in Burma and we are hiding in Thailand again,” the student said.

A student from the “safe area” said, “Our allowances were cut off by UNHCR so we have no choice but to enter the safe area.” Though Thai officials had promised not to deport residents of the safe area to Burma, a student said: “We are not so sure because this [safe area] can become a kind of repatriation centre for dissi­dents. It is only a matter of time before Thai officials decide that Slorc has ‘restored’ stability in Burma.”

UNHCR in Bangkok believes that the safe area is the best solution for Burmese students and political activ­ists. Some anticipate there will be more pressure on opposition groups in Thailand and on the border to force ethnic armed groups to talk with Slorc.

Sein Win, prime minister of the Burmese exiled-government; Win Khet, central committee member of the National League for Democracy (NLD-Liberated Area); and a leader of the jungle-based student organisa­tion, the All Burma Students’ Democratic Front (ABSDF) are now stranded in the US when they went to lobby the UN General Assembly. They cannot return to Thailand be­cause Thai authorities allegedly did not issue them re-entry visas.

Despite this, Burmese opposition groups in Chiang Mai are quite strong. A member of the NLD (Liberated Area) said: “if they [Thai officials] don’t allow us to stay, we will have a mobile office to continue our strug­gle.” An NGO in Chiang Mai said that although the Thai army and National Security Council (NSC) are threatening and pressuring the pro­democracy groups in Thailand, they support these groups in secret. Ana­lysts called this Thailand’s “double­-track policy”.

Others are less confident, predict­ing that “in two years there will be no more Burmese resistance or ethnic groups in Thailand as a result of Thai relations with Rangoon.” This is what Slorc has been waiting for years to happen. This may even be one of the “constructive engagement” tactics -­to support an illegal regime and at the same time crack down on democracy­seeking people. No doubt, Slorc will welcome this action.

In January 1993, at a dinner at one of Bangkok’s five-star hotels, a junior Thai Foreign Ministry official met a Burmese dissident. The Thai said to the Burmese man, “We don’t support the West’s call to release Aung San Suu Kyi.” The Burmese man said, “To release Suu Kyi is not a demand of the West­it is the wish of every Burmese.” A Thai professor said he was ashamed of Asean’s policies, adding, “Asean is reluctant to be speak out against Burma as if Burma is run by ‘good guys’.”

This term (good guys) is the im­age Slorc has been striving for. He criticized Asean’s policy, saying that “constructive engage­ment” is just supported for the dicta­tors in Burma. As a result, Slorc has gained confidence and stability. Asean is pleased with it. How strange!

He suggested that the policy should be to put the squeeze on the Rangoon regime to relinquish power. He does not support the West's call for sanc­tions, however, pointing to the West’s vast businesses in Burma. US compa­nies in Burma are believed to be biggest supporters of Slorc.

Though the West is outspoken, it has yet to put its words into deeds. He said, “It is really hypocritical,” and suggested that the way to help the Burmese is not through Slorc, but to give generous support for peace and freedom in Burma.

If the world is concerned about Burma, then the Burmese will not feel alone in their struggle. Of course, some Burmese are already giving up. The Thai said, “We should show we support them.” Time is running out for the Burmese but it is still worth a try.

This article appeared in the The Sunday Post, January 30, 1994.