Opinion

CONTRIBUTOR

The Virtues of Careful Engagement

By DR ZARNI Friday, August 21, 2009

TEXT SIZE

As a dissident who openly turned his back on sanctions and, since 2003, has attempted engagement with the junta, albeit with little or no success, I welcome US Sen. Jim Webb's highly publicized visit to my native country.

In spite of my own failures in practicing "diplomacy without license," I can see virtues in a carefully developed engagement approach which compliments and strengthens—as opposed to undermines and contradicts—Aung San Suu Kyi-led opposition and ethnic minority resistance.

However, there are serious historical, analytical and empirical issues that need to be addressed if Washington's efforts at engagement with the regime are going to contribute concretely to both moving Burma's domestic politics forward and the economic betterment of our people. Not many analysts, Burmese or foreigner, pushing for engagement have yet raised these vital issues.

Some kind of self-censorship is prevalent among the writers and analysts who are currently pushing for engagement with the regime for fear of reprisal or in exchange for entry visas.

Instead, some of my fellow “engagers” are getting ahead of themselves. They sound increasingly preachy in their analyses and shrill with their pushes for engagement.

I didn’t just advocate engagement. I walked the walk. I gave up my US asylum voluntarily and returned home to Burma, having left my 5-year-old daughter in California in her American mother’s care. In good faith, I tried to work on both confidence building measures and more substantive issues, with both Gen Khin Nyunt’s camp, and,
post-2004 purge, with those who were responsible for his demise, for almost a decade.

While pro-sanctions dissidents and political NGOs obstinately refuse to acknowledge that China, India, Thailand and Russia, with their vested Burma interests, will not heed their pro-democracy calls, the engagers fail to recognize that the military regime has absolutely no desire to reconcile in any meaningful way with political opposition parties, dissidents or groups.

The regime may be likened to a clever fish which has learned to eat the bait around the hook.

If Western engagement with the military is to contribute to the Burmese opposition's uphill battle for genuine democratic and economic change, its overriding rationale cannot be Washington's needs to contain the growing power of capitalist China.

If Webb's push for "engagement" is for the normalization of US-Burma bilateral relations on the basis of a mutual fear of capitalist China, then sooner or later Washington will begin to treat the genuine process of democratization—Aung San Suu Kyi and 2,100 dissidents behind bars as well as oppressed and downtrodden ethnic communities in Burma's low intensity war zones—as an afterthought at best and an obstacle in pursuit of US commercial and strategic interests at worst. Where Washington goes, other Western interests will follow.

A clash of serious interests, rationales and values is already on the horizon.

While the generals are reportedly hailing the senator's red-carpeted visit as a "success," Aung San Suu Kyi appears to be the odd man out in this potentially new strategic equation between the two capitals.

1 | 2 | 3 next page »

COMMENTS (43)

Moe Aung Wrote:

04/09/2009

'Fourth, change is not about your "strong belief", your ego, your name. It's about PEOPLE.'

Exactly. People who won't give up, and people who don't give in an iota to meet others half way.

'Finally, I stressed 6 issues that need to be factored in any engagement strategy.'

Expecting them to jump through all those hoops may be just a bit optimistic. You still haven't spelt out yours. I'm all ears.

Tom Tun Wrote:

04/09/2009

Dr.Zarny,

What are you fighting for--democracy, or for power by using the word democracy and people? In democracy, every idea must be considered or taken into account as far as ideas can go. Just because I cannot accept your idea, you accused me of not getting along with democratic people. You are misunderstanding democracy seriously. I believe in democracy because I can agree with what I like and I can choose not to agree with what I don't like. Work for the people, you said? What do you think I am doing here? Don't you think I am one among people? Democracy is just like the Beatles song, "Let It Be". But tyranny forces the people to go their way. If I hurt your ego, I apologize for it. Your ego is your own, whether how big my own is; I am doing research everyday. You told me to grow up. well, literally and physically, I have grown up already. But, I still want to be young and have enough energy to study more and fight for the people more. What about you?

Cheers!!!

plan B Wrote:

03/09/2009

Ko Zarni,

The unending seeking of revenge just for revenge's sake is seen here clearly, even advocated by some who don't know Burma beyond hearing all the half truths. A reasonable attitude if not for the people that they have left out.

Instead use DASSK as the substitute in place of PEOPLE. There lies the ultimate betrayal of their own fallacious advocacy.

When suggested politely or otherwise will immediately be characterized with such bitter uncivil label that might make the first timers in Irrrawaddy think twice about what the future under such advocators might be like, if there ever will be one/

I can empathize with Ko Moe Aung, whose losses are beyond any mortal compensation.
However "Ko Moe Aung wannabes" whose motive is not beyond, "I can condemn SPDC better than anyone" so that they can fit in with the crowd, Ko Zarni let not your heart be troubled.

There awaits a future that they can but sample from our posts.

Garrett Wrote:

03/09/2009

planBS,

Interesting that your opinion of the SPDC domestic engagement policies I outlined was to characterize them as my "myopic view on war."

My "myopic view on war" is that two armed forces either attack their opponents or defend against their opponent's attack.

Non-combatants can become casualties either by being in close proximity to a battle (cross-fire) or by close proximity to area weapons such as artillery & air strikes (collateral damage).

The domestic policies I described are not war, but SPDC revenge & the exploitation of innocent civilians.

As for "war", your beloved SPDC leaves less to chance by herding groups of non-combatants ahead of the SPDC forces either as a human shield, or as human minesweepers. Greedy bean-counters that they are, they will charge the family of a landmine victim for the cost of the landmine.

And I DO NOT advocate force to remove the SPDC, I advocate Freedom From Fear, and relentless peaceful Gandhian mass rallies by the Burmese people.

Tom Tun Wrote:

03/09/2009

Plan B,

Are you negotiating between me and the regime or are you giving me a lecture? Anyway, don't you think any free man should follow what they believe in?

Tom Tun Wrote:

03/09/2009

Zarni,

I wasn't wrong in any way. You know what? After the regime power is shifting, we will face another kind of fighting. Which is Burma will have to serve the Burmese aristocracy. Min Ko Naing went back with a reason and he never came back out and he stands up for his beliefs. U Win Tin and Ko Paw Oo Tun (Ko Zarganar) never come out of the country. Funny thing is, you said they give you respect. Those decent people give respect to everyone. In my writing, I did not show any disrespect to you. I'm just engaging in debate. You said talking is cheap, so let's start from the cheap and easy thing. My name is not for fame, that is why I do not even use my real Burmese name.

You want my respect, you have to earn it. You can criticize me anyway you want, you have rights as long as you prove it. I will do the same. Your article is plagiarism, by the way. I see nothing new but everything is already said in Irrawaddy comments. Tell me the meaning of FREEDOM.

Eric Johnston Wrote:

02/09/2009

Are you for the regime or against it? That is what fundamentally matters. This is no contest between Republicans and Democrats or Labour and Tories. There can be no sitting on the fence.

Definition is blurred by some academics for reasons such as mentioned in the article or for access to official statistics (for what they are worth) or because of where some of their funding comes from.

Then there are some politicians. But the links between politics and business are too well known to require explanation.

On the other side are the hirelings and underlings of the SPDC. These people don't appear very effective. One can sympathize with their difficulties because they don't have a leg to stand on. However, they often hide their sympathies under a mantle. To illustrate: suspected 'plants' within the NMSP would be strongly anti-Karen, weakly anti-Tatmadaw. These people need to be seen for what they are: moles.

zarni Wrote:

02/09/2009

My response to Moe Aung and Tom Tun:

First, what made you think returning to one's own country as a politically independent dissident involves kneeling before the generals? U Win Tin, Min Ko Naing, and so on were released from long imprisonment - and they continue to take principled positions, even living under the same military rule. Do you accuse them of kneeling before the junta? What of U Nu? Not just top junta officials but Zaganar, Htay Kywe, etc. treated me with decency and respect. You call yourself a principled democrat, and yet are unable to treat a fellow pro-change Burmese with respect!? Third, I didn't return to Burma because of homesickness. My father died 10 years ago, and I didn't go home for his funeral. If my widowed mother dies while this regime is in power I won't be there. Fourth, change is not about your "strong belief", your ego, your name. It's about PEOPLE. Grow up!! Finally, I stressed 6 issues that need to be factored in any engagement strategy.

Garrett Wrote:

02/09/2009

Plan BS,

You can keep waiting for the answers to your inane questions. Your assertions that the SPDC is this way or that way because of this or that are absurd.

They are extortionists, rapists, thugs, & murderers carrying out a campaign of revenge against the ethnic minorities, and profiting from their enslavemment.
If you think otherwise you are in blind denial.

Their campaign of death & persection can only be compared to Hitler & the Nazis.
They have also imprisoned, persecuted, tortured & murdered political opposition, students & religious leaders.

The SPDC has thumbed their noses at world organizations, and won't even allow INGO's to provide aid for those whom the SPDC allow to die through through their program of planned neglect and strategic starvation.
The SPDC has made themselves & their commanders rich while plunging Burma into poverty.

Its all about profits, revenge, & control of the citizens through corruption, terror & intimidation.

They only want blood and money.

plan B Wrote:

01/09/2009

Tom Tun
If not being able to go back is your main gripe, albeit a serious one, against this regime because of the vicious persecution against you and your ilk, will it not be more reasonable that advocating a policy that might change this status quo.
Regime is well known to allow any expat in during less vilified period as long as politics are not their primary intent.
As for Ko Zarni advocacy you have not proven anything beyond perfunctory accusation that suggest betrayal.
If you regard his change of mind as betrayal you really need to re examine your motives.

plan B Wrote:

01/09/2009

Garret
Very interesting to see that your myopic view on war 'be it righteous as you see fit' or otherwise.

As you conveniently blame SPDC for all these atrocities you forgot the fact that "it is people like you" that make SPDC the way it is.

Any conflict will result in situations that you have pointed out so clearly from your own sad exposé of Burma's future, and yet you recommend with such zeal the destruction of SPDC by forceful means.

Such is the disconnect with people who claim to be pro Burmese but fail to even meet one inside! A very ugly example of "White man Know Best". Or rather "(Robinson) Crusoe's Syndrome".

I am still waiting for the 3 answers that I posed here.
Dated 27/8/09
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16589

Garrett Wrote:

31/08/2009

Let's not forget the SPDC's domestic engagement plan for consolidating control over ethnic homeland areas from the North to the South by:
1) Military offensives.
2) Forcibly relocating all villagers to sites under direct Army control.
3) Destroying the vacated villages.
4) Using the relocated villagers and others as forced laborers, as porters, and to build military access roads into their home areas.
5) Moving more Army units in and using the
villagers as forced labor to build bases along the access roads.
6) Allowing the villagers back to their villages where they are now under complete military control and can be used as a rotating source of extortion money and forced labor, further consolidating control through "development" projects, forced labor farming for the Army, etc.
If resistance still persists, retaliation is carried out against villages by executing village elders, burning houses and rice crops, and by "other means".
Res Ipsa Loquitur, behold the future of Burma.

Moe Aung Wrote:

31/08/2009

Zarni,

Perhaps I owe you an apology for a bit of deliberate provocation. The Burmese have grown cynical from experience; it's an inevitable historical product, like mistrust of the Europeans. I am still waiting for you to expound the "carefully developed engagement approach." The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions - the cynic would say lip-service.

"What exactly has Moe Aung done to overthrow the regime? Talk is cheap."

I guess this is where I say,'I'm not worthy'.

Tom Tun Wrote:

31/08/2009

Dr. Zarni,
Easier to blame each other. Such as taking chances to come over to the West. Do you ask yourself, too? We all pay the price for what we believe in. At least Moe Aung and I did not kneel before the regime since we left Burma. We have loved ones and family back in Burma. Because of our belief we haven't seen them since 1988. I see you as a man of not strong beliefs. If you strongly believe what you are doing, why did you go back to Burma without any accomplishment? I'd rather rot in a foreign country without any family members or close friends for my beliefs. Since the day I left home, I made an oath to myself that I will never go back to Burma if the political system is not of an acceptable standard to real democracy. At least, we can educate ourselves and read any political science and philosophy books. Our knowledge will help Burma one day. I have no doubt about it. Do you believe your course and yourself?

plan B Wrote:

29/08/2009

Ko Zarni,

As you know Res Ipsa Loquitur describe the approaches for the future of Myanmar.

3S:

The value of that approach Historically aside, there are tons of supporters. Most of them non-Burmese!

http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16649

This article should prove that 3S is absolutely nonsensical.

Democracy 1st:

What democracy is especially for Myanmar is still wanting. All pro democracy is immediately embraced as pro people of Myanmar. Thus ensure the "half empty" concept. Which make every SPDC effort wanting as opposed to "half full" concept that will force SPDC to do more.

These groups intents are to deny legitimacy. Reasonable if not for the sufferings that these advocates of blanket sanctions, that hurt the people more and make SPDC more intransigent.

DASSK;

An industry sprouted to benefit itself. Tremendous personal sacrifice aside elevating a person to near saint status ensure intransigence.

Please do not let these opinionated persons here perturb you beyond a snicker.

plan B Wrote:

29/08/2009

KKK,

We are not waiting when lessening of the most vulnerable in Myanmar are concerned. Dr Zarni putting his $$ where his mouth is.
The past advocacy based on Democracy, Freedom of DASSK, and Human right respectively have failed to achieve anything good for the people.

Therefore the method of this advocacy needs to be critically reviewed and revised.
Overthrowing the SPDC by force is always popular among those who refuse to understand shedding blood begets more of the same.

Ko Zarni has pointed out clearly in a historical perspective how the West's approach might be an alternative.
Most of all the difficulty that lies ahead;
http://irrawaddy.org/opinion_story.php?art_id=16647

As Ko Aung Zaw clearly point out.
You need to move on beyond perfunctory vilification.

We need to hold SPDC to be a responsible government through engagement without having to repeat SOS that has been covered. Good for venting, but absolutely no benefit to the plight of people.

Eric Johnston Wrote:

28/08/2009

Zar Ni,

Some behavior must necessarily incur suspicion as to motive.

It has been known for a person seemingly to betray his country, the better to deceive an enemy. All ties of family and friendship were replaced by rejection and disgust, for only a few in high places could know the truth. That was a personal and difficult sacrifice for an ideal.

But that aside, was there ever any hope of success ?

A senior expatriate Burmese pointed out to me in early 2004 - in response to my lack of conviction that Khin Nyunt could make significant changes for the better - the wide range of posts this general occupied as evidence of his personal power. I remained silent, but thought to myself: "How much firepower can he command?" The unpopularity of MI amongst combat units was no secret.

Even supposing Khin Nyunt had a genuine desire for real change, Than Shwe was using him as a disposable pawn to create false expectations. He was well suited to the job.

Tom Tun Wrote:

28/08/2009

KKK,

If I am in Burma, the regime will find me first, but not to give me an administration job or to detain either but to put a bullet into my brain. We have to grow ourselves and need to find some back up. Until then we will still fight an ideological war. But, soon brother, soon. We will have what we want.

pLan B Wrote:

27/08/2009

Ko Zarni,

Thank you for the courageous recoup of realities of past and the future. Will you be even bolder to comment on West's fixation on DASSK?

Could you also give us reasons why you turned your back on sanctions? I cannot find that article anywhere in Irrawaddy.

zarni Wrote:

26/08/2009

Moe Aung's following snide comments warrant a quick response.

"If his own experience in engagement, whether stemming from courage and conviction or from sheer brass and opportunism, is anything to go by, I'd say he still engages in a lot of wishful thinking regardless."

On precisely what empirical evidence does he base his nonsensical assumption? Cynicism and poverty of heart and soul which I detect in his remark are a part of our defective psycho-cultural traits which compound our political problems. Who would risk their good name, loss of their own child(ren), a coveted asylum and a career if it weren't for beliefs and possibilities?

MA wrote: "Eric Johnston is right in asserting that 'this regime must be overthrown', and that 'action needs to be collective'."

I was tasked to seek Western support for the armed overthrow of the regime, by Gen. Bo Mya months before his meeting with Gen. Khin Nyunt in Rangoon.

What exactly has Moe Aung done to overthrow the regime? Talk is cheap.

Tom Tun Wrote:

26/08/2009

Hi Dr. Zarni
What do you think about the quality of the Education system in Burma? What is your idea of Education? How many percent of population are able to go to overseas countries to study? Why are the majority of the Burmese population intentionally left out high level education? Is for the advantage of just a small group who are educated? Is our society intolarable? Where do you think is the best to start? The Majority of the world agree that education is a very basic requirement, but is it really true? If you say yes, I have some harder questions. Here is political question, what is freedom? What do you think about 2008 regime constitution?

Moe Aung Wrote:

25/08/2009

Whereas I find myself, to my surprise, in complete agreement with Zarni's conclusions regarding the real politik and agenda of the West vis-a-vis Burmese 'illiberal' behaviour and unrealistic expectations from the West as well as the junta's total intransigence, he would have to elaborate on the 'virtues in a carefully developed engagement approach'. And how.

He almost said, 'It's the political will, stupid!' If his own experience in engagement, whether stemming from courage and conviction or from sheer brass and opportunism, is anything to go by, I'd say he still engages in a lot of wishful thinking regardless.

Eric Johnston is right in asserting that 'this regime must be overthrown', and that 'action needs to be collective'.

Eric Johnston Wrote:

25/08/2009

There are some valuable points in this article.

But, "walking the walk" ... or trying to tango with Than Shwe ? If every Aung, Myint and Oo went off to try and do a deal with the SPDC, Than Shwe would be over the moon with delight. What hope would there then be for real change in Burma ?

Good intentions are insufficient. The method must also be right.

Opinions can be individual, but action needs to be collective. That is a fundamental of democracy.

The concept of consensus is not foreign to some non-Burman ethnics, despite progressive Burmanization. It is but a short step forward from consensus to collective bargaining (in fact the latter is often a preliminary to the former).

Bargaining with the regime needs to be collective. And, to be effective, needs to have behind it some collective muscle.

Ye Lin Wrote:

25/08/2009

A brilliant, cogent and, alas, heartbreaking exegesis. Dr Zarni's concluding six points all compound to frustrate most "do-gooder" activist calls for immediate action, especially in a world where the West has less and less sway in Asia, yet stasis is not an acceptable "solution." We've seen enough Western resource and geopolitical colonialism, though internal resource and anti-ethnic colonialism is no better. Sadly, I cannot see a major change coming to Burma, whether from a fracturing of the military or even more insidious PRC economic encroachment, without a lot more bloodshed. The Tatmadaw has always been ready and willing to exploit the popular Theravada mindset that "if we are stepped upon, we must deserve it for something we did in a past life."

I agree with Dr Zarni that Burmese society is hierarchical, divisive and intolerant. Most Burmese I know both inside and out of the country would rather simply have "better leaders" than something as involved and demanding as "democracy.

KKK Wrote:

25/08/2009

To Dr. Thiha, Dr. Zar Ni, Dr. Kyi May Kaung, Ko Moe Aung, Ko PlanB, Ko Tom Tun, Salai Hmung,

"But we need to create & wait for the right timing, based on our own principle "for our people and build democratic country."

How long do you guys want to wait for? Another forty plus years?

There are several smart people from Burma in the US, Europe, Asia and around the world. I am worndering why these smart people do not want to go back to Burma and fight for democracy. What are you guys waiting for? Helps from US, UN, UK, France, Japan, China, Russia, and Asean? DASSK and 2100 political activists are in prinsons. They cannot do anything now. Why don't you smart guys go back to Burma and lead the Burmese. Burmese people need good and smart leaders now. This is the time to go back to Burma and save the Burmese.

Tom Tun Wrote:

25/08/2009

Rubbish upon rubbish, simplicity is the answer for all problems. If we cannot simplify the problem, how can we find the answer? Who is the cause of ruin? Why are they hurting the people? What can we do to stop them? We may not be able to beat them now, but we surely will beat them sooner or later. Lifting the sanctions will only makes another half century of suffering. Our personal failure in political arena intent to blame for other people is convenient. Why are western country pushing for renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydro? Do you believe that west always want to depend energy on oil and gas alone? Your research looks like quite good, but not good enough for me. Sun- Tzu's Art of War, first sentences in first chapter say that, who own the heaven win the war. Are we fighting for the good cause or not? If we believe we are, we will win. Jim Webb or Dr. Zarni or whoever do not matter, but you. Don't lose focus.

zarni Wrote:

25/08/2009

I wish to comment on two substantive readers' comments here.

First, it is empirically correct when I argued it was to the West that the greatest number of Burmese, military and civilian, who went abroad for further studies or training even under even under Ne Win's rule. My doctoral research was on the politics of education under Ne Win's rule. And I combed all available literature on this subject and interviewed people like Dr Nyi Nyi.

Second and finally, I singled out the semi-feudal orientation of Burmese society. There is a danger in treating culture deterministically. The real problem is the fact that our elites that dominate our institutions and influence our social practices have not led the proverbial 'masses' by example, of democratic behavior. Instead they have reinforced the old semi-feudal traits and elevated themselves on a higher plain, offering self-servingly, themselves as if they were 'messiahs' 'saviors', etc. Only free-thinking people can free themselves.

Salai Hmung Wrote:

24/08/2009

Dr. Zarni:

I couldn't agree with you more when you said: "I became painfully aware of the fact that none of the Western powers, US, UK, France, Canada, Australia, Italy, Germany and the European Union would ever forego their energy interests out of Burma, in spite of their loud denunciation of the Chinese, the Indian, the Russian and the Asean business interests in exactly the same natural resource extractive sector".

I think you're right again when you said: "In the early days of the sanctions campaign when the Chinese or the Indians were not yet in a position to project their economic or political clout, Western policy makers and advisers would not help create greater sanctions leverage to level the uneven playing field for the non-violent opposition inside Burma, nor would they consider reinforcing the legitimate pillar of armed resistance in Burma's opposition movement''

Here is the fact: like it or not, Neo/Realism will still dominates policy makers in Western capitals.

Craig Wrote:

23/08/2009

I do not believe that the US will lift sanctions just yet. What they have done is feed some carrots to the generals and left a trail of carrots along the way. The generals will need to come out and eat it. That is for sure.

The question is will they even come out? If they do not than the question on engagement is moot. Right now it is just an attempt at engagement. Nothing more.

I do however agree that neither engagement nor sanctions are a solution to Burma's problem. The West needed sanctions simply on a moral basis, and right now they are willing to scrap it in view of emerging threats from China.

I am finally pleased to see a throughly pragmatic view on Burmas plight well written by Dr Zarni. It does go to show that people can change. I just hope the generals change.

Deep Thinker Wrote:

23/08/2009

I would like to break the deafeningly silent response to this article by thanking Dr. Zarni for pointing out the "inconvenient truth" about Burma. His treatment of the character of Burmese society as a fundamental issue reinforces my belief that our misfortune of the past 47 years are a product of the dominant traits of Burmese society. If both of us are right, I am sorry, we all have a long, long way to go.

kokoaung Wrote:

22/08/2009

in my opinion, i think the US should think Myanmar's geopolitics, natural resources, historical background and political background. Do you think if there is no political concept, we can grow political seeds in Burma? First, i think we should develop civil societies,education and economy. I don't accept any economic sanction or invasion. I agree with Dr Zarni.

Eric Johnston Wrote:

22/08/2009

Sanctions, at present, are less for the SPDC than for the outside world. They are a manifestation of Western opinion and policy in favour of the rights of the Burmese.

In turn they enable "Western" countries to influence other democracies (e.g. those of ASEAN) more concerned with economics than rights. Without them, Burmese issues might be where they were once, almost invisible upon the world stage. But they are only one step along a path.

One of many challenges is to avoid Burma becoming a pawn in a neo-Cold War between divergent foreign interests, commercial and geostrategic.

Than Shwe would like to balance Chinese influence. This would make him more independent, not less so. Since his is not a liberal economy, it is the foreign investors who will depend more on him, rather than vice versa.

Where is Than Shwe leading Burma? He has a plan. A demented plan. But one he is working to.

This regime must be overthrown, even if it is a long haul.

tocharian Wrote:

22/08/2009

Most influential "Burmese" nowadays are Chinese or half-Chinese. Their sympathies lie with China. According to an article in the "People's Daily," China is not a nation state. Chinese everywhere in the world, from L.A. to Burma are loyal to the Han civilization. Burma should change its name now to "Chinese protectorate of Mian Dian." Burmese internal politics is just a minor thing for the Great Chinese Empire. The US is a bit too late in realizing that (there are a lot of Chinese in the US too!)

Kyi May Kaung Wrote:

21/08/2009

"I didn’t just advocate engagement. I walked the walk. I gave up my US asylum voluntarily and returned home to Burma, having left my 5-year-old daughter in California in her American mother’s care. . . I tried to work on confidence building measures and substantive issues . . ."

True, I observed this first hand.

"Some kind of self-censorship is prevalent among the writers and analysts who are currently pushing for engagement with the regime for fear of reprisal or in exchange for entry visas."

True.

Not true that during the BSPP most scholars were sent to the West. Most were sent to the Eastern Bloc. I am a living example of this. My first stint was in Poland. It only opened up a crack in 1982 when Ne Win's daughter Sandar Win failed her medical grade school entry exams in the UK. Then the crack closed again.

Burma's tragedy is going to be compounded by the outside apologists' heavy handed attempts at "policy making."

God help us.

Dr. Thiha (Fort Wayne) Wrote:

21/08/2009

Ko Zarni,

I understand that one day we have to deal with the generals for the national reconciliation for the good of the country.
But we need to create & wait for the right timing, based on our own principle "for our people and build democratic country."
Even the junta can put people like DASSK in and out of prison or house arrest at will. How about the others like you or me or any other Burmese citizens?
As long as they have absolute power and have the "license to kill," in these circumstances, my question is "how can we get democracy?" The absence of rule of law in Burma was proved by the recent court trial of DASSK.
The junta dares to deal with the drug warlords but why are they scared to talk with their own people who love and sacrifice like them for the country but in different ways.
The answer is they don't want to give up the power or they still have no courage to change yet.
We must create and push them to give up the power within the national integration and under rule of law.

Tin Win Akbar Wrote:

21/08/2009

Dr. Zarni,

I totally agree with your bold but factual scrutiny. The people who have a deep and impartial knowledge about our motherland can only understand how accurate your courageous analyses are.

I wish all our fellow citizens should read your article carefully and think deeply.
Please keep writing this kind of piece more frequently in the future.

Moreover, I would like to thanks the Irrawaddy for publishing this valuable article.

With regards,
Tin Win Akbar,
Federation of Workers’ Union of the Burmese Citizens in Japan.

planB Wrote:

21/08/2009

Ko Zarni,

Engagement does not mean giving the SPDC whatever it wants. Engagement involves listening and developing policies that will benefit all countries involved.

Chinese policy towards Burma embodies "engagement" at a level where all benefits are towards respective governments, while costing the people more.

The West, which professes to care for the people, is way behind the engagement curve, pegging their good will on DASSK's liberty.
If they based their objective on the people instead of DASSK or democracy, the course would become clear.

Mixing personal emotional loyalty to one person instead of to the country will continue to profit the SPDC and make China the future overlord through their hegemony. Although the present trickling down effect of benefits to people in northern Burma is undeniable.

Do it properly and the trickle will become a torrent.

timothy Wrote:

21/08/2009

It is very interesting to read Dr Zarni`s article and self examination of the motherland under military rule. I agree that neither current sanctions nor engagement approach works to the benefit of people at large. John Yettaw, an American citizen, started a chain reaction and events ending in another 18-month house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. Then Sen. Jim Webb came in as an American who love to engage with military. He achieved not only freedom of John Yettaw but also audience with Gen Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi. The senator got good rapport with the generals and he should be the one who starts the gradual dropping of sanctions in response to the release of political prisoners and beginning of democracy process. Gen Than Shwe must play the biggest role in this endeavor and he will become another Robert Mugabe and proud citizen of Burma again. Senator should pay special attention to Burma out of busy schedule in American politics.

Khurtaikornkhaw Wrote:

21/08/2009

If top-down elitist approach towards engagement has such a narrow scope and is programmed to be doomed, what about a bottom-up one?

The real problem is the lack of "political will" from the part of the Burmese junta and as well, the Western-dominated international actors.

“Empowering the people” has been the catch word for the West, pushing for change in Burma. But, again, the core of the problem is that it is not going far enough to really empower the people, whether it be in junta's controlled territory, among cease-fire groups or in areas controlled by resistance armies.

Given such circumstances, status quo will continue to prevail and no balance of power shift is going to take place.

At the end of the day, the two-pronged approach of both the top-down and bottom-up will be interchangeably used, sometimes with much enthusiasm and at times, just for the sake of positioning oneself to be on high moral ground. Whether we like it or not, the Burmese drama will continue to play out as it has for the past few decades.

Jeg Wrote:

21/08/2009

Dr Zarni,

Intentions are great and welcome, but unfortunately at the deal table there is only one player. The other is simply concentrated on his/their own affairs, not interested in what it is being offered to him/them. It's a one way chat with the wall. How can anybody dialogue with the junta? You said yourself, you tried without success. Webb is just a political tool for the junta that will be dropped as soon the junta finds another tool to utilize.

If the junta were serious about improving the country they would seriously sit and talk. They were enemies with N Korea but for the junta's military own benefit the junta swallowed hard their pride and sat at the table to organize business with their enemy. The same can be done with Suu Kyi only if the generals are looking into the country's benefit. Are they?

Falcon Has Landed Wrote:

21/08/2009

Zarni's article is right on. This is a beautifully written piece.

Kyaw Moe Myint Wrote:

21/08/2009

Very beautifully and realistically composed article from Ko Zarni. I have been a strong supporter of Dr Zarni since 2003, arguing with people regarding nonsensical ideas that sanctions could dethrone our military junta. Both hating China and loving the ideals of Western countries are ridiculous. The power of loving poor Burmese people should be greater than the volume of hatred upon generals. Thanks Ko Aung Zaw for allowing this article be published. You two are most beautiful human beings.

Pe Myint Wrote:

21/08/2009

Zarni's view is academically sound and personally I don't have a problem with it. But the question is, how does he suggest to implement it? Given all the fundamental issues about the Burmese society that he described here, wouldn't he agree that Aung San Suu Kyi must be taken on-board if this approach is to be materialized? Otherwise it remains as much of a hard-sell as it has ever been. She is a nationalist and surely she will agree to any plan that benefits her people. Being locked up and cut off from the outside world, and then make a judgment on her based on second-hand information is not the way forward. She must be allowed to express her view and participate in the process. So, the ball is back in the regime's court!