Aung San Suu Kyi is free

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At long last, one of the world's greatest pro-democracy activists, a woman of incredible courage and strength, is free:

The Burmese military authorities have released the pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, from house arrest.

Appearing outside her home in Rangoon, Ms Suu Kyi told thousands of jubilant supporters they had to "work in unison" to achieve their goals.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years. It is not yet clear if any conditions have been placed on her release.

US President Barack Obama welcomed her release as "long overdue".

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Ms Suu Kyi was an "inspiration", and called on Burma to free all its remaining political prisoners.

Ms Suu Kyi, 65, was freed after her latest period of house arrest expired and was not renewed by the military government.

Of course, Burma* remains a totalitarian state. The elections last week, which not surprisingly resulted in an outcome favourable to the ruling military junta, were neither free nor fair. They were, in a word, a sham.

For our many previous posts on Burma and its totalitarianism, see here.

**********

I would not necessarily view this as a direct victory for President Obama, but it is noteworthy that he has been a vocal advocate for her release. As he said about a year ago, a few months after her conviction for violation of house arrest:

Despite years of good intentions, neither sanctions by the United States nor engagement by others succeeded in improving the lives of the Burmese people. So we are now communicating directly with the leadership to make it clear that existing sanctions will remain until there are concrete steps toward democratic reform.

There are clear steps that must be taken: the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; an end to conflicts with minority groups; and a genuine dialogue between the government, the democratic opposition and minority groups.

Okay, most of that hasn't happened. But Suu Kyi's release is still a significant event. While it isn't nearly enough, and while the totalitarians may hope that it quiets the opposition, what is needed now is an even stronger push from the U.S. and the West, as well as from Burma's neighbours (notably India and China).

The Burmese people, living under the boot of oppression, need our help.

**********

Remember Burma! Watch these:

Burma from marusa on Vimeo.

**********

* Why Burma and not, as it is widely called in the media, Myanmar? As I first put it here:

Can we all please stop calling it Myanmar? That's the name the military junta -- then the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), since 1997 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) -- gave the country when it declared martial law
in 1989.

As Yale law professor Amy Chua puts it in her book World on Fire (p. 23): "Members of the majority ethnic group in Burma are called Bamahs (in the spoken language) or Myanmahs (in the written language). The newly independent state that emerged from the end of British colonial rule in 1948 was called the Union of Burma. In 1989, SLORC changed the country's name to Myanmar. (It also changed the names of various cities: Rangoon, for example, is now called Yangon.) In deference to the democratic opposition party, which has refused to acquiesce in the name change, the United States government currently refers to the country as Burma, and I do the same."

We all should do the same. Burma it is.

Thank you.

Obama calls on Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not sure if it'll accomplish anything, but I think Obama's efforts to engage the totalitarian military junta that rules Burma* and brutalizes the Burmese people are admirable, yet more evidence of the dramatic shift away from the military-oriented, unilateralist approach that characterized Bush's foreign policy.

"Despite years of good intentions," said the president, "neither sanctions by the United States nor engagement by others succeeded in improving the lives of the Burmese people." And he's right. "So we are now communicating directly with the leadership to make it clear that existing sanctions will remain until there are concrete steps toward democratic reform." Specifically?

There are clear steps that must be taken: the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; an end to conflicts with minority groups; and a genuine dialogue between the government, the democratic opposition and minority groups.

That would certainly be a positive start, though, of course, the lives of the Burmese people will only improve in any meaningful way once the totalitarians are overthrown or otherwise removed from power, preferably in some sort of peaceful transition, however unlikely that may seem given the junta's iron grip.

Engagement alone won't be enough. Ultimately, what Obama will need to do -- if he's serious about this -- is persuade Burma's neighbours, notably India and China, that it is in their best interests to stop supporting, and enabling, the junta. The problem is, beyond humanitarianism, it isn't clear that it really is in their best interests, given how they both profit from their economic relationships with Burma, notably from their access to Burma's natural resources.

Furthermore, Burma just isn't significant enough to destabilize the region. And it's not like Burma is important enough to the U.S., either in economic or national security terms, for it to risk worsening its generally positive relations with India and China by demanding their support in a unified front against the junta. The key is India, which, as a democracy, could perhaps be persuaded to stop propping up totalitarianism. Perhaps that would be enough to compel the junta to loosen its grip.

For his part, though, Obama has at least inserted the wedge that could lead eventually to long-term change in Burma. And that's a very positive start in its own right.

**********

* As I put it here, let's all please call it Burma, not Myanmar:

Can we all please stop calling it Myanmar? That's the name the military junta -- then the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), since 1997 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) -- gave the country when it declared martial law
in 1989.

As Yale law professor Amy Chua puts it in her book World on Fire (p. 23): "Members of the majority ethnic group in Burma are called Bamahs (in the spoken language) or Myanmahs (in the written language). The newly independent state that emerged from the end of British colonial rule in 1948 was called the Union of Burma. In 1989, SLORC changed the country's name to Myanmar. (It also changed the names of various cities: Rangoon, for example, is now called Yangon.) In deference to the democratic opposition party, which has refused to acquiesce in the name change, the United States government currently refers to the country as Burma, and I do the same."

We all should do the same. Burma it is.

Thank you.

Burma's totalitarians convict Nobel winner Suu Kyi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The AP reports:

[Burma]'s generals have again succeeded in isolating democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, but her fleeting emergence during a grueling trial showed that her steely resolve and charisma remain intact.

A [Burma] court on Tuesday convicted the 64-year-old Nobel Peace laureate of violating her house arrest by allowing an uninvited American to stay at her home. Her sentence of three years in prison with hard labor was quickly commuted to 18 months house arrest after an order from the head of the military-ruled country, Senior Gen. Than Shwe.

Suu Kyi has been in detention for 14 of the last 20 years, and the extension will remove her from the political scene next year when the junta holds its first election since 1990. Her party won in the polls then but was never allowed to take power.

I'm sure it was the fairest of fair trials. And I'm sure the conviction has nothing to do with next year's "election," which will surely be "fair" and "open" and genuinely "democratic." (And note that the commutation is probably supposed to prove the junta's compassion and justice. Yeah, sure.)

What a bunch of reprehensible thugs tyrannize that poor country.

**********

And, as I put it here, let's all please call it Burma, not Myanmar:

Can we all please stop calling it Myanmar? That's the name the military junta -- then the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), since 1997 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) -- gave the country when it declared martial law
in 1989.

As Yale law professor Amy Chua puts it in her book World on Fire (p. 23): "Members of the majority ethnic group in Burma are called Bamahs (in the spoken language) or Myanmahs (in the written language). The newly independent state that emerged from the end of British colonial rule in 1948 was called the Union of Burma. In 1989, SLORC changed the country's name to Myanmar. (It also changed the names of various cities: Rangoon, for example, is now called Yangon.) In deference to the democratic opposition party, which has refused to acquiesce in the name change, the United States government currently refers to the country as Burma, and I do the same."

We all should do the same. Burma it is.

Thank you.

Death to the people, power to the junta

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Cyclone Nargis devastated Burma, but, for the totalitarians, the brutalization continues, with the military blocking foreign aid and relief workers from entering the country and reaching the areas hit by the storm, stealing food, and otherwise doing little (and nothing) to help the estimated 2.5 million people affected by the storm (with another one on the way).

Oh, and did you know that, with all this going on, they held a referendum on Saturday?

No joke.

Here's the Breaking News:

A new constitution proposed by Burma's military government has been overwhelmingly approved in a referendum, state media say.

Some 92.4% voted yes to the changes in a vote on Saturday.

The referendum was held in two-thirds of the country, but was postponed for two weeks in areas hit by the cyclone.

The constitution enshrines the junta's hold on power and excludes the main opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, from office.

Yes, that's right, the totalitarians forced through a new constitution that effectively cements their hold on power -- and they did so through a sham of a referendum that was held as the country was dealing with the aftermath of a horrible natural disaster that may have killed as many as 128,000 people (Red Cross estimate) and that wasn't held in one-third of the country.

And it's a constitution that was drafted by the totalitarians themselves (and that has been sharply criticized around the world).

No wonder it received 92.4% of the vote. I'm sure the referendum was as "democratic" as any of the votes in the "democratic" Soviet Bloc satellites of Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

Vote Yes... or else.

Bogus triviality: Propaganda, revisionism, and the imposition of Burmese totalitarianism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't so long ago that Buddhist monks and their friends in the pro-democracy movement were courageously taking to the streets of Rangoon, speaking out and standing firm against the rapacious totalitarian junta that brutalizes the Burmese people. It was a national upsurge of protest against one of the most atrocious regimes in the world today.

It wasn't so long ago that the totalitarians unleashed terror upon the protesters, spilling blood in the streets, slaughtering countless monks and pleading innocence, the official death toll remarkably low, the reality much different. The country was cut off from the outside world, the totalitarians tightened their control, and dissent was crushed.

The U.N. stepped in to pursue a diplomatic solution and to act as a mediator, Europe and the U.S. said and did the right things, condemning the junta's actions while calling for tougher sanctions, the totalitarians, and there was at least a glimmer of hope that the junta was willing to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement.

But, as I put it last month: It was all for show. The totalitarians have their friends, notably in China and India, but they need to show the world, through the U.N., that they are at least open to change (whether they really are or not). The West has already turned its attention away from Burma, the spotlight faded, if not gone, and now the emphasis is on public relations. Say what the world wants to hear, persuade U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari that change may come, and sit tight while everyone moves on.

And, more or less, pretty much everyone did. The totalitarians got away with it and were able to reestablish their rule. And, as it is now clear, as if it wasn't before, they were never serious about reform, or even about talking about reform.

And now there's this:

Burma's military government has said there is no role for the opposition in the drafting of a new constitution.

The announcement comes despite international pressure for the regime to open up the process of reform and engage with other parties.

At a rare press conference, Burmese Information Minister Kyaw Hsan said the military-appointed reform panel did not need outside help.

Mr Kyaw also dismissed the anti-junta protests in September as "trivial".

After 14 years of talks, the 54-member panel has now begun work on the new constitution, the third stage of what the military government calls its "seven stage path to democracy".

But the process has been dismissed as a sham by Western governments who say it is entirely controlled by the military regime. Criticism of the proposed charter is a criminal offence and delegates who have challenged the military over reform have been given lengthy jail sentences.

So the protests were "trivial," but the totalitarians cracked down on them with unrestrained violence. And now they are on a "path to democracy" that is, of course, nothing of the sort. Whatever "democracy" emerges from this process will be the sort of democracy they used to have in, say, East Germany or Iraq. The new constitution will be a joke, the totalitarians continuing to rule as a law unto themselves. Pity anyone who disagrees.

Kyaw, speaking for the junta, called the monks "bogus" -- those monks the junta found threatening enough to slaughter -- and also said this: "The uprisings dissolved within a very short time frame simply because the general public did not take part."

Hmmm. I wonder why.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Canadian

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't much care for the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but it's here to stay, for the time being, and its first post-Throne Speech action was a good one:

Aung San Suu Kyi will be granted honorary Canadian citizenship to recognize her efforts to promote peace and democracy in [Burma].

Sure, it's symbolic, and largely meaningless (meaning: nothing will come of it -- concrete international action is needed), but it's a nonetheless a noble and worthy gesture of support both for a great woman and for the pro-democracy movement of which she is a leading figure.

Many of Harper's other actions have been manipulative and cynical, notably everything he's done on the environment file, and whenever he's played the support-the-troops patriotism card (flag-waving doesn't go over as well here in Canada as it does in, say, the U.S.). This one, however, should be applauded.

As long as, however symbolic, it is not empty.