Burma is no exception, as the demonstrations in 2007 indicate.
Solheim’s analysis of the processes of democratization in Asia is superficial and does not provide a basis for drawing conclusions for Burma. The situation in Burma ought to be understood on its own terms.
On two occasions during the past twenty years—in 1988 and in 2007—increasing poverty and bad economic policies by the government have triggered large scale popular uprisings followed by a brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators that has tarnished the image of Burma’s Tatmadaw.
Today, corruption is widespread. Respect for the most basic principles of the rule of law is lacking. Unlike Indonesia, where former President Suharto provided space for technocrats in shaping economic policy, Burma’s military power-holders have a poor record when it comes to listening to civilians offering input on policies.
Under these conditions, and with the junta’s record in economic policy-making, there is no assurance that economic growth will benefit the population or that it will lead to the emergence of an independent civil society.
Burma’s military junta may desire economic growth for the country, but only as far as it does not challenge their grip on power. Unfortunately, it is not in Solheim’s power to be certain that Norway’s contribution to economic growth in Burma will result in democracy.
This is not to say that a future economic middle class in Burma will not have political weight or that such a middle class will not make demands that will change Burmese politics. However, Solheim’s expectation that such a middle class is in some way predestined to take a lead in the struggle for democracy is not grounded in reality.
Democratization is a slow process. A transition to democracy takes place as a combination of many factors, where structural conditions, the relationship between political players and coincidences all play a part.
Burma’s democracy movement has already identified what is needed in order to begin a development towards democracy: the release of political prisoners, respect for fundamental human rights, notably civil and political rights, and space for broader political participation.
The people of Burma have paid a high price for decades of military misrule. They deserve better than a Norwegian development minister who seems to be outsourcing their struggle for basic rights to an uncertain future. Instead, Solheim and the government he represents ought to take a lead in developing a policy in support of Burma’s struggle for human rights.
Norway’s development minister is a strong proponent of dialogue. Is he prepared to enter a dialogue with Burma’s military junta on issues that could actually make a difference?
Camilla Buzzi is the former project coordinator for PD Burma, an international network of parliamentarians promoting human rights and democracy in Burma.
"Isn't that a load of bovine excreta?"
Burmese manners? Attitude of a 3S advocator?
Res ipsa loquitor!
"Just try and keep up, will ya?"
a little too much credit for yourself considering your advocacy and your attitude towards other.
Moe Aung Wrote:
25/06/2009
"Res ipsa loquitor...Let's keep it simple/clear and I won't accuse you of 'empty Blowing'"
Isn't that a load of bovine excreta? Just try and keep up, will ya?
planB Wrote:
23/06/2009
Democracy = more choices = economic empowerment.
vs
Economic empowerment = more choices
Res ipsa loquitor
"This notion of 'economic determinism' is now so center right the irony of its being a 'Marxist tenet' is lost on most."
Let's keep it simple/clear and I won't accuse you of "empty Blowing"
"Sorry,you got it the wrong way round as usual."
You don't have to apologize for disagreeing.
planB Wrote:
23/06/2009
Timothy
" I do not expect these citizens to contribute much to the liberation of the country."
Be careful wehn looking at others through your own B&W convictions.
Reading the papers and watching Western medias will make you see things like that.
Visit the country and you will see things in shades of gray other than B&W.
Moe Aung Wrote:
21/06/2009
timothy,
"Surprisingly, some overseas Burmese co-operate with the Junta by attending Junta-led gatherings and anniversaries. I do not expect these citizens to contribute much to the liberation of the country."
If recognition of the junta as the legitimate government by the UN and the world at large doesn't surprise you, this shouldn't either. Among the expats, you see asylum seekers protesting in front of the embassy (they have no hope of going home any time soon), and others attending embassy functions so it's easier to get mandatory official papers that allow them to visit family back home. It doesn't necessarily mean they are junta supporters or that they are unlikely to contribute to the struggle. Reality is more complicated than meets the eye.
planB Wrote:
21/06/2009
"As a result, the military controls the Buddhist monkhood with an iron fist, while the education sector is neglected and censored. Burma’s universities and monasteries are no longer hotbeds of the struggle for democracy. As long as freedom of expression and academic and artistic freedoms are gagged."
So Camilla, tell us how you are going to have this reversed?
"this middle class also remains unable to mobilize for rebellion. This is where Solheim ought to focus his attention."
Camilla, your slip's showing, "rebellion"! In the comfort of your air conditioned room you can indeed be callous/cavalier, especially when your stake in the well-being of Burma is no more than academic. So why are you so hard on Solheim?
Moe Aung Wrote:
20/06/2009
planB,
"Economic empowerment = more choices, which is the essence of democracy."
Sorry,you got it the wrong way round as usual.This notion of 'economic determinism' is now so center right the irony of its being a 'Marxist tenet' is lost on most.
Democracy = more choices = economic empowerment.
SPDC = no democracy = no choices = no economic empowerment.
Sanctions merely confuse the picture and compound the problem. It's certainly the regime's choice whether to keep even the current resources, opportunities and benefits therefrom all to itself and a handful of cronies, or to share them among the people.The West might as well not exist.
It's easy to forget mass protests and social upheavals were mainly instrumental in bringing about democratization in South Korea and Indonesia, even the Philippines where Marcos was supposed to rule a democracy.The emergent middle class was either mistakenly or deliberately given the credit, but they certainly were the main beneficiaries from change.
simon Wrote:
19/06/2009
Great debate, we need innovative debates and discussion on Burma as neither Asean accommodation nor Western isolation and sanctions have helped so far. (Does that mean we must be united in one approach, or that both of the approaches don't work and we need a 'third way'?)
Look at China. Reviled by its people and the world in 1989, it has concentrated solely on economic development ever since. Human rights abuses are still widespread, but China seems to have 'got away with it'. I'm not advocating that this approach to development should be lauded and enshrined, but perhaps it is the Asian approach to development Salai Bawi articulates and that apparently worked in Korea and Indonesia, and less so in Thailand.
Let's not forget though that Daw Suu no less advocates for continued economic sanctions against the junta.
Burma will change but we don't know when or how. Let's keep strategizing.
KK Wrote:
19/06/2009
The solution is to remove military control in Myanmar.
greg Wrote:
19/06/2009
The sanctions have helped the government stay in power longer and should be removed. The only people to suffer from them are the Burmese. Sanctions target governments but they end up hurting the people as collateral damage. Economic growth increasing the people's ability to make money and work would force the junta to change by sheer power of the economy. Removing the sanctions will benefit the people who are the ones we care for. It cannot hurt them. It is a reward for the people.
planB Wrote:
19/06/2009
Buzzi does not have any relatives and friends in Burma to know what it is like to have no economic potential due to sanctions.
Economic empowerment = more choices, which is the essence of democracy.
It might be more convincing if you lived in Burma for a few weeks.
As it is your article is counter to general principles of attaining democracy as Westerners define "democracy".
You and Turnell under the guise of bringing the SPDC down at any cost will have to answer for more wretchedness/suffering that the Burmese citizenry has to endure.
Your "pen" is as ruthless and indiscriminate as SPDC bullets in bringing continuing suffering the masses.
metanu Wrote:
19/06/2009
Only movement can generate a change; any way is worth trying to break the stalemate. Altought democratization must grow step by step, we cannot be sure which step will be the first one.
Kyi May Kaung Wrote:
18/06/2009
I agree with you Camilla.
Moe Aung Wrote:
18/06/2009
Unlike in Ne Win's time, the junta has managed to broaden its social base by nurturing a crony business class assisted by their timely jump on the market economy/globalization bandwagon. This emergent elite has no interest in changing the status quo, quite on the contrary. Witness the preparations to contest in the elections, and the forming of premier league football teams at the behest of their benefactors. It's the higher echelons of USDA in practice.
Lifting the sanctions will not change these kinds of class relations but only strengthen them. Chevron and Total did nothing to ease the plight of the locals and the wider populace, quite the opposite.
Granted tourism and manufacturing does have a positive impact on the local economies. Western businesses are itching to get a piece of the action, to tap one of the last remaining markets/cheap labor/vast natural resources in the world. So,short of covert or overt intervention, targeted sanctions need to remain in place, but not add fuel to the fire.
timothy Wrote:
18/06/2009
It is a very interesting and thought provoking discussion. I also think that middle class-led democratic changes are very difficult to achieve in Burma. The Junta has annihilated true intellectuals from society. A few affluent business people are those who are close to the ruling Junta. They benefit from the establishment and do not want to disrupt the status qou. Surprisingly, some overseas Burmese co-operate with the Junta by attending Junta-led gatherings and anniversaries. I do not expect these citizens to contribute much to the liberation of the country.
Burma under the ruthless generals is very abnormal. We need a lot of soul searching, healing and moral regeneration in our abnormal society for the democracy we yearn for to last long. But first we need to be released from prison.
Salai Hmung Wrote:
18/06/2009
If Buzzi argues that Solheim's approach to Burma will not work and does not reflect Burma's real situation, the same is true for his own approach.
Though we can't disregard some of his points, Buzzi didn't offer us anything new. What he proposed has been already tried for nearly two decades. It didn't work, as Buzzi knows.
When Buzzi said, "the situation in Burma ought to be understood in its own terms", it sounded like a careful analysis.
But when it comes to economic growth, it seems that Buzzi also failed to understand Burma in its own terms. She seems to forget the fact that the current sanctions didn't work in Burma and has only prolonged the military hold in power and worsened the already deteriorated situation of the ordinaryBurmese
Why not welcome Solheim's approach? It seems a more pragmatic approach than Buzzi's, which is already failed.
We can't wait two more decades.
Kyaw Wrote:
18/06/2009
I disagree with the writer from an NGO, using Burma as a cause to benefit, undermining the Norwegian minister Solheim's open-minded and sophisticated diplomacy to reach out to the poor citizenry of Burma, suffering due to British colonialism (1800-1948), Japanese fascism & dictatorships.
The writer fails to mention the role of NLD and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the future Burmese Parliament! Burma is not a
discourse to look down upon; rather, poor Burmese peoples need the international trade, business & open-minded engagement of international leaders who can rise above the limitations of government, bickering and power struggle.
As a member of the Burmese upper-middle class (university lecturer), educated by Burmese professor-parents in the US, I cannot appreciate the superficial understanding or 2-page summarizing of Burma, the Land of Pagodas--her complex history, pain & East-West ideological conflicts that tarnish the reputation, hope and active international-development of Burmese civilization. Viva l'Birmanie.
George Than Setkyar Heine Wrote:
18/06/2009
At best, Solheim’s recipe - middle class to play a role in the democratic process of Burma - is nothing less than capitulating to Than Shwe and his thugs.
He is ignorant of the fact that Than Shwe is establishing a ruling class of his own and his cronies' while the ordinary citizenry remains subservient to his rule or else.
The monk killer has been pushing this agenda since his debut until today.
The seven-step road map is his vehicle carrying him on his way to military supremacy of Burma.
Today, Daw Suu is in the dock facing a five year stint in prison and Burma's bleak future under eternal military rule is almost certain.
And Solheim's Norway could do nothing about it other than handing the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize to Daw Suu, like all the others heaping awards and citations on her.
Guns for guns, sword for sword, is the only language people of Than Shwe's ilk and caliber know. Burma will be still in woes and throes for failing to deal accordingly with a foe like Than Shwe and his crows.
Moe Aung Wrote:
18/06/2009
"The belief that capitalists will necessarily demand democracy is a myth,not a law of social science."
Very happy with Hitler,Mussolini,Pinochet etc.
"To succeed requires good relations with those in power."
Used to be known as 'Socialist contacts'.
"Burma’s military power-holders have a poor record when it comes to listening to civilians offering input on policies."
They know best.
"As long as freedom of expression and academic and artistic freedoms are gagged,this middle class also remains unable to mobilize for rebellion...When popular movements have radically altered politics in countries in Southeast Asia,this has come about as a result of the mobilization of broad sections of the population...there is no assurance that economic growth will benefit the population or that it will lead to the emergence of an independent civil society...Burma’s military junta may desire economic growth for the country,but only as far as it does not challenge their grip on power."
Hear, hear!
Salai Bawi Wrote:
17/06/2009
Camilla Buzzi has some good points, but somehow reflecting the stance of PD Burma. Here, I argue back that "economic growth" will lead to democracy in Burma.
Buzzi does not seem to be informed about how "Asian values" are being recycled in authoritarian SE Asian countries, where Asian values were considered to have failed after the Asian financial crisis in 1997/1998.
But times have changed! The Western ideology [fundamental human rights, civil & political rights] are against the Asian way, which favors social and economic rights over civil and political rights. You have evidence even during the drafting process of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The West gave priority to civil and political rights as against proposals from Asia.
But I agree economic growth will benefit only the generals (as long as sanctions are still in place!). Solheim seemed to understand this factor. Isolating Burma (as Buzzi explicitly suggests) so the Western ideology can prevail only brings crisis!
Tay Za Wrote:
17/06/2009
Where has this guy, Norway's Development Minister, been for the last 19 years? Has he not learned from Asean's failed policy of "constructive engagement" back in the 90's?
Myint Thein Wrote:
17/06/2009
This article seems to twist and turn to ignore a basic fact: several countries in the region have made a successful transition to democracy in the past couple of decades (Korea, Indonesia, etc). None of those countries were under Western sanctions; each one had a large and growing middle class, and each had a military elite that was exposed to Western democracies through constant travel, etc.
Yes, we don't know what will work in Burma. But why ignore what's worked in other countries?
The writer says that targeting Than Shwe's bank accounts will not effect economic growth, as if that's the main economic sanction on the table. The main sanctions are not targeted sanctions, they are incredibly broad sanctions - cutting off nearly ALL development cooperation, and practically ALL trade and investment from the West, turning Burma into a Chinese colony, with a tiny middle class, and now, not much hope.
Eric Solheim's call for fresh thinking should be welcomed.
COMMENTS (23)
E-MAIL
PRINT
