After Red October

April, 2008

For a brief time at the end of last year, the whole world woke up to the tragedy of Burma. Indignation grew as monks and protesters marched, reaching a peak when the government reacted to the demonstrations with a bloody crackdown. The international community looked on in shock as soldiers fired fatal shots into the crowds, a Japanese reporter lost his life, and countless Buddhist monks _ icons of Burma's most revered institution _ were brutally beaten and imprisoned.

But as is so often the case with headline news, the global furore died down almost as quickly as it had sprung to life. Burma ceased to appear of the front page of international publications, the UN envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, made a few relatively fruitless visits to the junta, and ASEAN scratched its collective head before announcing that it would 'not interfere in Burma's domestic affairs'.
So where does that leave Burma now? Six months after Red October _ a reference to both the red robes of the monks and blood shed during the crackdown _ there is very little visible change inside the country. But below a veneer of forced calm, anger is still seething.

New Horizon or Old Hat?
The government's sudden announcement in February to hold a May referendum on the adoption of a new constitution has been met with mixed reactions. "It's an ongoing argument about why the military has called for this referendum and whether it is just to appease people _ particularly those in the military who were not happy about the treatment of monks during the September demonstrations," says Toe Zaw Latt, Bureau Chief of the Democratic Voice of Burma. "Usually the army doesn't care very much about the treatment of people, but this different, this is religious."
Many activists feel the constitution is ultimately a meaningless step; a tactic by the government to present a façade of change to the outside world in the face of mounting pressure. Not only does the constitution stipulate that 25% of seats in parliament must be reserved for government appointees, but it also allows for the government to declare a state of emergency, a step which would effectively undermine all other constitutional clauses. Another bone of contention is the exclusion of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, from participating in the 2010 elections, on the farcical grounds that she was married to a foreign citizen.

There are those who feel that the best vote is not to vote at all, on account of the fact that the referendum _ and the constitution itself _ is a hopeless sham; those that will vote 'no', for much the same reason; and those that will vote 'yes', on the basis that the new constitution could be the only chance for dialogue and, ultimately, change.
However, all these options come with strings attached. The referendum effectively places Burma's people between a rock, a hard place, and another rock. The danger of a 'yes' vote is that the government's power will become legally entrenched by way of a constitution that has been outwardly endorsed by the people. Should the referendum elicit a resounding 'no' response, the government is likely to hold onto power, with the excuse for yet another extension on its 'road map to democracy'. And then there is always the possibility that the government will simply rig the result of the referendum to suit their needs, regardless of the true outcome, or simply refuse to accept the upshot, as with the 1990 elections. To complicate matters further, criticism of the referendum or the draft constitution is punishable by up to 3 years and 20 years in prison respectively. With the government still considering the possibility of placing clearly demarcated yes and no ballot boxes in the polling stations, this leaves those set on voting

"The draft constitution is clearly skewed towards the military," says Aung Naing Oo, a political commentator and researcher, who fled Burma during the 1988 uprising. "For instance, it starts off with the concept of 'disciplined democracy', which is a military coined phrase and in itself a contradiction in terms. It also says that the three powers of the state _ legislative, executive and judicial _ will be separated 'as much as possible'. So in this case we can thank the Burmese government for being very frank!" But despite his criticisms, Aung Naing Oo believes that the potential for the new constitution to facilitate change should not be entirely overlooked. "In the case of a long, deep seated conflict like that of Burma, the constitution could also be looked at as a long, painful road to change, but a road nevertheless," he says. "It is impossible to undo overnight what the Burmese military has done during its years in power - you need a little space, and it is possible that the new constitution may provide that."

Burma's government favours those who are prepared to carry out orders blindly, and as a result, most of its minions tow the line no matter where they are in the pecking order. A major reshuffle of the military after last year's protests saw promotions for those prepared to carry out orders blindly, while 'soft liners' were pushed to the bottom of the ranks. But although it is unlikely that Than Shwe is serious about dialogue, there may be others in the system who are. The new constitution may provide the space needed by those SPDC members wanting to move away from the existing deadlock. Only time will tell whether the system is too plagued by entrenched mentalities for positive change to be realised.

The Global Factor
The role of the international community in Burma's struggle is a complex dilemma, intrinsically tied to both foreign investment and tourism. While outwardly the world condemned last year's government crackdown, those with economic interests vested in Burma stuck to a policy of 'non-interference', with China and India even offering a measure of tacit support to the junta. It was only when the larger global community began threatening a boycott of this year's Beijing Olympics that China relented, and began to call on Burma for controlled change _ a factor which analysts believe could have prompted the unexpected referendum.
But economically, Burma's neighbours have continued to prop up the regime. The Asian hunger for hydropower and gas has triumphed over any moral obligations regional countries might have to the SPDC. China is continuing full steam ahead with a plan to build a pipeline from the Shwe gas field, off Burma's west coast, to southern China's Yunnan province, where energy is in high demand. India, too, seems to be keeping things sweet with Burma: Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon recently visited Naypidaw, the new Burmese capital, and Gen Maung Aye, the second in command of Burma's regime, is expected to visit India in April. "Good neighbours are just what the junta needs," says Aung Naing Oo. "When the two giants of the world are on your doorstep and need your natural resources, what do you fear?"
Thailand sadly, is no exception to the 'good neighbour' phenomenon. In early March, Prime Minister Samak Sudaravej returned from a secretive visit to Burma, where he committed his country to an investment accord with Burma, under which Thailand will provide direct aid to government projects. Thailand also plans to harness Burma's potential for hydropower through a joint venture project to construct a series of dams on the Salween - a move that will forcibly displace thousands of ethnic people living along the river. "Unfortunately a lot of multi-national companies don't care about human rights, they just want to maximize profits," says Toe Zaw Latt. "We sometimes say 'people before profit', but few people listen. In such cases, outside investment only makes our problems worse. But the right kind of business engagement could help to change the government's attitude, if big investors put enough pressure on the regime."

Attempts by sources outside the region to pacify the Burma problem have so far been futile. Gambari failed rather miserably in his mission to bring peace to the country, while sanctions imposed by the US and EU have been equally unproductive. So what to do? Aung Naing Oo believes there are only two possible solutions in keeping with the extremes of the Burmese people and their political dilemma: punishment of the military, or total engagement. "If the international world really wants to send a powerful message to the Burmese government, it should send a missile," he says. "It's not necessary to kill anyone _ there are ways around that. The only other approach that might work is for the international community to become close to key personalities in the government, all sanctions be removed, full scale humanitarian assistance offered and so on. In the sense of this option, tourism should also be encouraged." Of course, he adds, there is also the middle way, which follows the teachings of Buddha, and would involve dialogue among protagonists from all sides. "But that is not happening. So the result is that the ordinary Burmese will continue to pay for continued conflict."

The reference to tourism comes as no surprise. The issue has been a hot topic since Aung San Suu Kyi first stated in 1995 that visiting at that time was "tantamount to condoning the regime." Since then, individuals and organisations have continued to debate the pros and cons of the tourism issue. On the local level, most Burmese are in favour of tourism, particularly those directly involved in the industry. "I think tourism is a good thing," said one Rangoon tour guide. "I have four or five local people that rely on my business, and when I don't have clients they suffer too. A tourism boycott won't destroy the regime anyway, because they still have timber, gems, gas and hydropower to sustain them."

But opposition groups are concerned that by visiting Burma, tourists give not only a percentage of their spending to the junta, but also a silent message of support. These arguments may rage on for some time, but tourists who do decide to travel to Burma in the meantime should be aware of the country's conflict and complexities. Making informed choices about accommodation, airlines and tours will help to minimise the money that makes its way back to the government. "When considering the question of tourism in Burma, it really depends on what kind of tourists you are talking about," says Toe Zaw Latt. "There is a big difference between tourists who come only to see flashy pagodas and tourists who are aware and try to go beyond. Burma has been isolated for a long time, so it is good for us to have the exposure to the right kind of tourist."

At this moment in time, Burma stands poised on a cliff, looking down on a sea of uncertainty. With such a high number of factors at play, it is almost impossible to predict the country's future. Analysts have not discounted the possibility of another uprising against the government: many say that the monks have not been quelled; that they are quietly planning; staying strong and reorganising their networks. "You cannot underestimate the role of the monks, as well as that of the new generation," says Aung Naing Oo. "Many young people were not around to witness the brutality of the '88 uprising, but they saw the brutality of last September first hand and their eyes are wide open now. It is not over yet." So while the State Peace and Development Council clings to power, the people of Burma cling to hope - an