Shouting across the barbed wire
Oct 4th 2007 | BANGKOK
From The Economist print edition
Myanmar's neighbours are talking tough but doing little to show their disapproval of the killings in Myanmar
IBRAHIM GAMBARI, the United Nations' special envoy to Myanmar, kept everyone guessing after his four-day visit to seek an end to its military regime's harsh crackdown on protesters. On October 2nd he flew out, having met the regime's leaders in their remote new capital, Naypyidaw, and also Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader in detention in the main city, Yangon. The envoy was due to report to the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, on his return to New York. Mr Ban had already deflated hopes for an immediate breakthrough by saying of the envoy's mission: “You cannot call it a success.”
He did, however, confirm that Mr Gambari will pay another visit to Myanmar in November. And state television had reported that General Than Shwe, who heads the junta, had told him he would talk to Miss Suu Kyi, on certain conditions: that she stopped being “obstructive” and backing sanctions. So there is a faint hope that international pressure might indeed make the regime open a dialogue with the pro-democracy movement, leading ultimately to a peaceful settlement. That, however, still seems a long way off, even were Miss Suu Kyi to agree to general's terms for talks. During Mr Gambari's visit, the regime continued making large-scale arrests of suspected pro-democracy campaigners; and the regime defiantly blamed meddling foreigners for instigating the protests. It hardly seemed ready to compromise. In the past, talks with Miss Suu Kyi have been used as a sop to placate international opinion.
As tens of thousands of Buddhist monks took to the streets late last month, it was hoped that the government would hesitate to crack down too hard on them, because of the reverence that the clergy command from ordinary Burmese. However, the troops and riot police sent into the streets on September 24th quickly demonstrated their ruthlessness. Monks were beaten, arrested and in some cases shot or bludgeoned to death. By the weekend, with the last signs of resistance quashed and the country's internet connections cut off, the flood of news and pictures coming out of the country had become a trickle. But one image seen around the globe, of the battered body of a young monk, face down in a ditch, said it all.
Large numbers of monks have been carted off to unknown places of detention. Perhaps thousands are being held at the Government Technical Institute, north of Yangon, though some were freed on October 3rd. State-controlled media have admitted to only ten deaths since the protests began, claiming they were handled “with care, using the least possible force”. Diplomats believe there may have been hundreds of deaths. But, as with the crackdown on the student-led protests of 1988, the toll may never be known.
By the middle of this week, Yangon's streets were quiet. Fewer troops were patrolling, a night-time curfew had been reduced by two hours and access to the golden Shwedagon Pagoda—the country's holiest shrine and the rallying-point of the monks' protests—was restored. The junta seemed confident it had beaten the life out of the protests, for now at least.
Less is known about the situation in other towns that had big, monk-led protests. The UN's World Food Programme (WFP) said that army chiefs in Mandalay briefly restricted its much-needed food supplies (see article). By midweek, the restrictions had been lifted, though the WFP said it was running out of money and was thus unable to reach more than a fraction of the 1.6m Burmese it is trying to feed.
The worldwide dissemination of graphic images of the violence has forced many of Myanmar's Asian neighbours to go beyond their usual stance of non-interference in other countries' affairs. Wen Jiabao, the prime minister of China—Myanmar's largest supplier of imports and its third-largest export market—expressed deep concern about the situation and urged efforts to “promote domestic reconciliation and achieve democracy and development.” Japan said it might cut aid to Myanmar after the shooting of a Japanese journalist by a soldier during the Yangon protests. The feeblest response among those countries engaged with Myanmar came from India. Its ministers' vague talk about the need for peaceful dialogue was undercut by the new army chief, who said India wanted to maintain its close relationship with the regime.
George Yeo, Singapore's foreign minister, claimed this week that the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has “very little leverage” over Myanmar's regime, which was admitted to the regional body in 1997 in the hope that constructive engagement might achieve what Western sanctions had not. “We can't do what the big powers can do in terms of trade embargo or freezing bank accounts,” said Mr Yeo. For “can't”, read “won't”. There is plenty that ASEAN could do. Some regime leaders are thought to have bank accounts in Singapore, which could indeed be frozen. Thailand is by far the largest buyer of Burmese exports (principally gas). Thailand and Singapore are second and third behind China in supplying the country.
So, some well-chosen sanctions, or even a credible threat to consider them, might have an impact. The West's sanctions on Myanmar have failed in part because the East has enthusiastically filled the breach. At the very least, suggested Mr Gambari's predecessor, Razali Ismail, ASEAN could start by insisting on sending its own envoy to Myanmar. ASEAN has paid a high price for admitting the country and this seems the least it could do.
Article can be found on the Economist's website at http://economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348951&story_id=9905481
No comments:
Post a Comment