BURMA: THE POLITICAL CANCER IS SPREADING
By Roland Watson
December 9, 2015
http://www.dictatorwatch.org/articles/politicalcancer.pdfThe National League for Democracy - that’s right - “Democracy” - has just
won an election in Burma, and by a landslide. Real freedom and modern
democratic governance therefore must be close at hand. So, what possible
reason could I have for using this article’s title?
The six Burmans
In the last two weeks there have been a number of meetings, none of the
details of which have been publicly released. All of these meetings have
involved Aung San Suu Kyi, who can now safely be characterized as the
country’s new “democratic dictator.” Prior to the election, many
well-qualified individuals who wanted to run under the NLD banner were not
selected, and some people were actually expelled from the Party. The
reason: They did not toe her line or accept her absolute control. (She has
also refused to develop a new generation of leaders.) She then ordered
everyone in the country to vote for the Party, meaning her, and not the
specific candidates. She announced that she would be above whomever is
selected - whomever she selects - to be the new President. And, she has
demanded that all NLD MPs commit to an oath of fealty, to vote on
legislation as she decides. Through these and other steps Suu Kyi has
cemented her intention to become the new ruler of Burma.
She is further a member of the Burman ethnic group. While the vast
majority of Burmans are not racist, at least knowingly (some have
unwittingly succumbed to decades of propaganda), the Burman-led military
regime that has oppressed the country since 1962 (and which is responsible
for the propaganda) most assuredly is. This follows a colonialist pattern
of internal domination of other groups by Burman Kings dating back
centuries. To be generous, one could say that Suu Kyi is still a question
mark on the issue. However, her words and actions (or silence and
inaction) regarding the Rohingya, and the country’s other ethnic
nationalities, suggest that she is a racist as well. The idea that she
would insert herself into the nation’s civil war - and peace negotiation,
an area that she has studiously ignored, is therefore problematic at best.
While the Rohingya people are hoping that she will finally act on their
behalf, this is also wishful thinking. She no doubt considers them to be
“Bengalis” - “kalars” - as well.
For the meetings, Suu Kyi met the dictator of Burma, Than Shwe; his
puppets, Min Aung Hlaing, Thein Sein and Shwe Mann; and his grandson, Nay
Shwe Thway Aung. It is clear that a grand bargain is being struck. Suu Kyi
will leave the military and the police alone, and not seek to prosecute
them for past and ongoing atrocities. (Of note: The worst of these crimes
have been perpetrated against the non-Burman groups.) She will also
protect their economic interests and those of their cronies, even though
this represents the stolen wealth of the nation for the last fifty years.
In return, she can be the “leader,” and fulfill her belief that she and
she alone knows what is best for everyone, and without any input from
anyone, or discussion. Through this, she can continue to satisfy her
seemingly bottomless narcissism and megalomania.
(For the observation about narcissism, her sarong collection now matches
Imelda Marcos’ shoes. This is relevant! She’s showing off a new silk
sarong every day, in one of the poorest countries on earth. Could she
please just have a little humility?)
In summary, six Burmans are deciding the fate of one of the most
culturally diverse nations on earth. What could possibly go wrong?
Two other notes: Suu Kyi considers herself, as Aung San’s daughter, to
have essentially unlimited privilege, and which has been reinforced by her
long and favored residence in England (one of the world’s most class
conscious societies). As an analogy, think of the self-image of the
children of U.S. Presidents, times ten. At her age she is also clearly
undergoing the hardening of views that some elderly people experience,
whereby they become increasingly autocratic. To summarize: An unprincipled
and for that matter unskilled leader, with a background of extreme
privilege as well as dictatorial tendencies, and a racist to boot, will be
the new and unchallenged leader of Burma, to work hand-in-hand with a gang
of war criminals.
Again, what could possibly go wrong?
Actually, there’s a seventh Burman as well, the individual that Suu Kyi
intends to install as President - her own puppet!
One country, two governments
In theory, what is being done in Burma is almost acceptable - another
Asian Values version of democracy. (International diplomats and businesses
certainly think that it is.) Suu Kyi will run a democratically elected
Parliament, which will work alongside the military. She in turn will
oversee the many ministries not constitutionally-granted to the military.
(The military controls Defense, Home Affairs - this includes the police,
and Border Affairs - meaning the ethnic nationality homelands and
commercial development therein.) The idea seems to be that Parliament will
focus on social services, while the military manages large development
projects, external defense (Burma is subject to no such threat!), internal
security, and its favorite cause - “non-disintegration of the Union.”
While this setup may seem reasonable to some, in reality, it is
preposterous. All democratic societies subsume the military under the
Executive. This is the only way a democracy can be conducted. Otherwise,
the military has too much power, and is a threat to the nation.
In this type of arrangement, one would expect the Parliament to challenge
the military again and again, demanding that it end its abuses and accept
a reduced role. But, this in turn could lead to a coup, with the generals
attempting to reclaim unchallenged power.
Suu Kyi is apparently afraid of this possibility, and her fear lies at the
heart of the “Six Burman” deal. She will not interfere when the police
arrest students and other protestors (continuing her current practice).
She will not object when the Burma Army launches new assaults against the
ethnic nationalities (again, her current practice). She will not even
complain, at least not strongly, about corruption and the military’s total
control of the economy. (All her talk about the Rule of Law was just for
show.) This is - she believes - the only course that she can follow if she
wants to maintain her standing. To preserve the illusion of real
leadership, she will kowtow to Than Shwe.
Three Rohingya individuals have been murdered in the last week, in
separate incidents (a pattern that has been underway for years). They
include two men, with one killed by the police and the other by Rakhine
racists; and a woman, perpetrator unknown, who was also likely raped as
her body was found naked. There was not a peep about this from Suu Kyi or
the NLD. Do they track crimes against the Rohingya, or any other group for
that matter? Do they even care?
The military cancer
A revealing way to think of the Burma Army is as a political cancer - a
racist, political cancer. Just as real cancerous tumors are supplied by
networks of blood vessels, so the military in Burma is a collection of
cancerous tumors - its bases and outposts, connected by rivers and roads.
And, just as a biological tumor kills the body, so the Tatmadaw has been
killing Burma, and in innumerable ways, from the just illustrated direct
murder of its citizens; through imposing poverty, which disproportionately
kills children and the elderly; to the decimation of the natural
environment.
Nonetheless, as bad as it has been since 1962, the military cancer in
Burma can get much, much worse. Cancers need oxygen and nutrients to grow;
the Tatmadaw - money. In the past, it mainly relied on the sale of natural
resources, including oil and gas, timber, minerals and gems. But, after
huge personal thefts by the top generals, and the pursuit of a
never-ending civil war of aggression, this actually left little surplus.
Burma is a “least-developed” state. What this means is that the tumor in
the country is still limited and clearly defined. While it is true that
every soldier, police officer and bureaucrat has sworn allegiance, the
actual dictatorship, both political and economic, is quite small. Because
of this, surgery to remove the tumor - a popular revolution - would be
straight-forward. Were the people of Burma to rise up in numbers even a
fraction of those who have just voted, they could cut the dictatorship off
at its head and begin a real transition to democracy.
Than Shwe’s strategic goal is not only to maintain the status quo for his
lifetime, or even for that of his grandson. He wants Burma to be a
military dictatorship in perpetuity, like China. He will be the Burman
King that established the new dynasty, and perhaps just someday his
grandson will be King as well.
His genius in organizing this has been through cultivating his most public
enemy, Suu Kyi, and turning her into an ally. Through careful management,
mainly by Thein Sein and Shwe Mann, but also with the backing of the
International Community, he has transformed Suu Kyi from a revered and
legitimate pro-democracy leader, into a spokesperson for the regime.
Furthermore, the main real-world consequence of her willingness to
overlook essentially everything, will be greatly increased commercial
development in Burma - as has already begun since her surrender in 2011
(when the NLD re-registered as a political party). Moreover, almost all of
this development will be owned by current regime figures and cronies. The
economic foundation of the Burma dictatorship, and through this the
military cancer, is about to expand exponentially. By the time Suu Kyi
dies, or otherwise leaves the scene, such that new and real democrats can
finally take over, economic dictatorship - feudalism - will be so
entrenched in a new generation of princelings that the challenge of
revolution will be a thousand times greater.
It’s also worth commenting on the basis of her well-recognized opposition
to public protest. Were a popular revolution to succeed in Burma, her
iconic status would degrade. The new democratic leaders would be selected
from among the individuals who led the uprising.
Suu Kyi has said that the people of Burma will have to wait a very long
time for real freedom and democracy. Through her own actions, hers and
hers alone, she is guaranteeing that this becomes true.
This is her legacy.
Popular responses?
With the deck so stacked this way - Suu Kyi, the generals and the
International Community are all against them - what are the people of
Burma to do? For the general public, the answer is obvious. The people
need to continue to demonstrate for democracy and against any infringement
of their rights, from the repression of students, to unacceptable working
conditions, to land thefts, to environmental travesties. The regime will,
of course, continue to make arrests, and the number of political prisoners
will grow. Nonetheless, there is no other choice.
For the ethnic nationality resistance groups, they need to maintain their
guns and not yield an inch of territory. They need to fight back against
all Burma Army incursions, in particular those in support of environmental
crimes (e.g., new dams and mines). Also, it is worth remembering that
ethnic turncoat Mutu Say Poe will not control the KNU forever. A day will
come when he is gone, and new leaders can resume the Karen Revolution, and
re-establish unity with the other resistance groups.
Finally, the ethnic resistance may also need to reconsider two things:
Their long-standing unwillingness to engage in offensive operations; and
their opposition to separatism. For the second, the Panglong treaty
clearly gives the ethnic nationality peoples of Burma this right, and
frankly, life under the new Suu Kyi-Than Shwe regime may prove to be
unbearable. (It is possible to create a new country out of Eastern and
Northern Burma, and which would even have access to the sea - at Dawei.
Remember, the age-old conflict in the Balkans ended when Yugoslavia was
divided.)
Even Suu Kyi would have a hard time opposing this, since Panglong was her
father’s achievement.
The threat of separation - just to discuss publicly the possibility, e.g.,
at UNFC and EAO meetings - is the ethnic nationalities’ strongest
bargaining card. For one thing, it would stop large developments in their
tracks (including what has begun now at Dawei). No companies will invest
in long-term projects in the face of this risk. Even more, though, the
ethnic groups need to anticipate future threats, foremost that the
Tatmadaw will use development proceeds to rearm, with U.S. and Israeli
weapons, and launch a full-bore multi-front offensive, and with Suu Kyi’s
backing.
In conclusion, since Suu Kyi has rolled over, and real Burman
pro-democracy leaders have been imprisoned, the ethnic groups must
continue to underpin the entire national resistance, by refusing to yield.
