Roderick Clyne explores the reasons behind the latest persecution of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s great hope for democracy
THE big mystery about the trial in Burma of Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi for breaching the terms of her house arrest is: who can possibly benefit?
It sets back the forces trying to improve relations with Burma and exasperates the country’s neighbours, including the otherwise friendly China and India.
Suu Kyi is accused of harbouring a 53-year-old American Mormon, John William Yettaw, who swam across a lake to visit her home. He is described by his latest wife as “eccentric” and his motives are hard to explain, but the bizarre incident permits the state to jail Suu Kyi for up to five years, or alternatively to extend her house arrest. She is 63 and is said to be in poor health.
Suu Kyi has been under house arrest, off and on, for 13 of the past 19 years, ever since her party scored a runaway victory in elections in 1990 – a result the army ignored. The generals have been in power since 1962, with the junta now describing itself as the “State Peace and Development Council”.
With a new constitution, which states that, whoever wins at the polls, the army will still provide the defence minister, finance minister, foreign secretary and vice-president, the junta feels it safe to hold elections again. These are due next year, but Suu Kyi is barred from standing.
Her trial has at least given her a rare public platform. According to a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore, whose ambassador held a meeting with Suu Kyi in the compound of Insein Prison, she uttered the fairly anodyne words: “There could be many opportunities for national reconciliation, if all parties so wished.”
It is not clear, though, whether she still supports sanctions against the country, although she did in the past. But Burmese exiles are increasingly and reluctantly coming to the view that the sanctions have achieved little – beyond making the fiercely-nationalistic generals more determined not to cave in to international pressure. Such imports as the country can afford continue to rumble in on the long and dilapidated road from China, kept just passable by the extensive use of forced labour.
It is clear that the government is very nasty indeed towards its own population, but few of the other standard justifications for sanctions apply to Burma. It does not have weapons of mass destruction, does not support international terrorism and is of little threat to its neighbours, except as an exporter of illegal narcotics, which in any case are no longer so much heroin as designer drugs created in jungle laboratories on the Thai border controlled by rebel warlords.
Neighbouring Laos – once the target of millions of tons of American bombs launched by that other Nobel peace laureate, Henry Kissinger – is a one party-state which, like Burma, has continuing skirmishes with armed ethnic rebel groups, and also exports narcotics. However, unlike its neighbour, it has had normal trade relations with the United States since 2005.
Then there is that other former British protectorate in south-east Asia, Brunei, which has been under a state of emergency and martial law since 1962. The sultan is head of state, head of government and head of the state’s Islamic religion. Unlike the Burmese generals – who at least promise change without ever delivering any – the sultan does not recognise that his situation is anomalous. Also, unlike the Burmese generals, his country has warm relations with the US.
The ill-educated generals are unconcerned about international restrictions on their travelling. Few of them can speak anything other than Burmese, and they feel ill at ease in the presence of foreigners. The only time they need to go abroad is for health treatment, as their own country’s hospitals are rudimentary.
The European Union last reviewed its stance on Burma at the end of April, but decided to continue sanctions in the possibly forlorn hope that pressure on the regime will make it relax its grip.
In the days before the trial, Barack Obama’s administration let it be known that it too is reviewing its stance on Burma, recognising that US sanctions, although seriously hurting the country, have been of little use against its rulers.
One theory being suggested is that there is a faction in the junta that is against any relaxation of the army’s power, and that it is ramping up the tension to make it more difficult for the international community to back off. That way, sanctions will continue and Burma will remain untainted by evil foreign influences, such as democracy.
