Posts
Two months since my last post, and after considering all the consequences of having my name associated with writings about Burma, I have come to the conclusion that the benefits far out number the consequences. There is an urgent need to rebut or support the one-sided, poorly researched and exaggerated media reports about this failed military state and the claims by organizations that have been set up to help the people of this country as a whole or a selected few who in their eyes are more important than the scores of people who are facing the wrath of the government in camps, tucked away from the world view.
I was part of such an organization myself, and honestly it wasn’t until my visit to Burma and interaction with its people that I learnt that no matter how highly we regard human rights, ultimately we are forced to bow down to tainted bureaucracy and politics, and that the world was too wrapped up in the trial of a lady who was only one of millions being tormented each day. I respect Daw Suu Kyi, don’t get me wrong, but not enough to distance myself from her people and their suffering.
A number of my peers in the human rights field will probably disagree with me on this, but I have to pose a question that I frequently ask myself when I feel like I am being carried away by Daw Suu Kyi’s touching story, “are you willing to turn a deaf ear to the thousands of people who face murder, rape, separation, displacement and other forms of torture each passing moment?” Because, by narrowly focusing on her, we are doing exactly this.
Members of organizations that have been striving to secure her release argue that they believe that she is the country’s only hope to cease the oppression. Only hope? Have these claimants made the effort to visit the country recently to speak to the youth and all the things they have been doing as part of their plan to help the people of their country? Do these activists have even the slightest idea of the real problems in this country where majority of the people live in poverty? The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate while well respected and influential, is not the only hope this country has, in fact it is best if she be regarded as a hero and left at that. She has been out of the loop for more than 14 years. How can we expect her to be the answer to this complicated problem called the military junta?
This is why I have no reservations in saying that the answer to the problems of Burma, is not Aung San Suu Kyi but the new generation of politically conscious youth who are working on their plans to create a sustainable society. I am not afraid to make this controversial declaration, but it is not until you visit the country and speak to her people that you will understand this.
Then there are organizations that lobby Congress to impose sanctions on Burma. I have been inside the country and would like to challenge these sanctions, because unless sanctions are targeted, the effects are felt by civilian population who are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty. In the defense of my claim, I would like to invite you to take a tour of Shan State where villagers including the village heads are unaware of the sanctions and claim that their situation has remained unchanged. This goes to show that sanctions are ineffective and unless India and China do more than just utter words, unless we target the hidden bank accounts of all the generals, impose blocks on their lucrative money, including imposing sanctions on India China, and Singapore we will be fighting a lost battle. As you can tell, I am with Sen. John Webb on this (mind you, I am bewildered at his decision to secure the release of John Yettaw, an American who was clearly bought out by the junta to keep Suu Kyi from participating in the upcoming election.
But, I do realize that this is easier said than done. The U.S. government cannot afford to and will not jeopardize their relation with either of the countries and we have to comprehend, and history should be a lesson, that governments are concerned mainly with a re-election, increasing their country’s GDP and also to attain the trust of rich and powerful states.
We would be lucky if “ensuring that the rights of every human being are protected,” does make it to their priority list during their term in office. We have some hope with Obama, but he too has limitations on how he can use his power. He cannot, and Republicans will ensure that they keep him from, meeting all our demands. One, he is accountable to his constituents, many of them concerned with his domestic policy and second, he cannot risk being seen to favor foreign policy over domestic issues especially towards a country that has very little to offer the U.S.
So does this mean that we opt for a concessional option and take whatever we can get? I leave this open for discussion. Be sure to support your arguments with viable explanations.
