I think this is my first post ever about Burma. I wonder why China and Russia oppose action against the Junta.
Burma's Plight
WSJ.com
By IAN HOLLIDAY
Mr. Holliday is dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the City University of Hong Kong.
November 24, 2005
Recent weeks have witnessed a flurry of interest in Burma. In September, a report commissioned by former Czech President Václav Havel and Bishop Desmond Tutu called for U.N. Security Council action to promote national reconciliation and oversee a transition to democracy. More recently, the world has bemusedly watched as the paranoid ruling military junta, fearful of seaborne attack, relocates the national capital inland to Pyinmana, some 350 kilometers north of Rangoon.
The limelight is welcome. For too long, this country of 55 million people, positioned at the heart of Asia and sharing long borders with China, India and Thailand, has been ignored. Periodically the U.S. and her allies renew or upgrade economic sanctions or plea for the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. But few prominent leaders take a sustained interest.
The recent push for change faces major roadblocks. Both China and Russia have signaled that they will veto any attempt to put a Burma initiative on the U.N. Security Council agenda. Other members, such as the Philippines, have expressed reservations. There's a long history of intransigence, too. Burma debates have rumbled along to no apparent effect for 15 years since an abortive 1990 general election saw the military junta reinforce its stranglehold on the country.
If this initiative does fail, Burma will continue to struggle with low-grade civil wars, booming narcotics industries, incipient health crises, extensive environmental degradation and desperate, grinding poverty.
At present, too much faith is placed in quick political fixes. Burmese activists and Western commentators in liberal think tanks frequently insist that with just one more ratcheting up of sanctions, the junta will fall and a transition to democracy will ensue. Yet for every Western corporation that fails to invest, there are many Asian companies lining up to go in, and the regime is probably as strong now as at any time since 1990. In Asia, observers often naively believe that the junta will eventually succeed in striking a political deal that stabilizes the country and enables reform to take place.
For real change to occur, the focus has to move beyond politics to the economy and society. Burma does not now possess sufficient internal resources to undertake a successful transition to democracy. This country, repressed by military rulers for nearly 45 years since a March 1962 coup, needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up if it is to have a reasonable stab at a post-authoritarian existence.
Across much of Asia, it is businesses that are currently pushing the envelope of social development. In China, no more democratic than Burma -- but generally held to be an acceptable venue for investment -- worker terms, conditions and rights have been upgraded by inward investors who are responsible corporate citizens and monitor compliance down their supply chains. In the long run, it is only on these sorts of foundations that political reform and democratization will take place across the region.
While investment flows in Burma remain small, similar developments are taking place. Take, for instance, the involvement of Western oil corporations in the Yadana gas project. Though highly controversial, Western oil corporations have created well paid jobs, established microcredit schemes to boost indigenous entrepreneurship, and reached out to local communities. They have made considerable investments in education and healthcare, on a local and national scale. All in all, they have gone a long way to setting new standards for socio-economic engagement in difficult settings.
While any major investor of course has to do business with an odious and incompetent junta, investing companies are also uniquely placed to help reconstruct and re-energize the society. But it's a fine balance to strike. In the short term, inward investment may well reinforce the position of the junta. In the longer term, responsible corporations under the spotlight of shareholders and non-government organizations can help sow the seeds for a sustainable transition to democracy.
No rapid political remedy is available for Burma. Economic sanctions cannot work. The net they cast is simply not watertight. Despite the immense moral standing supplied to sanctions by the unstinting support of Aung San Suu Kyi, they must be abandoned. Equally, the complacency that continues to pervade much of Asia is a recipe for stalemate and, quite possibly, disaster.
Only an active policy of committed, long-term political engagement and inward investment can set Burma on the path to prosperity and democracy. The journey will not be easy, clean or pretty. But it is hard to think of alternative ways forward for this miserable country.
|
