Keep helping the Burmese to compromise
International Herald Tribune
May 9, 2002
David I. Steinberg 

The release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest has caused international excitement and an enthusiastic response in Rangoon but is only the start of an arduous process of compromise.

The aim must be to resolve Burma's long political stasis and economic stagnation. Restraint will be required both from Suu Kyi's supporters, who want instant democracy, and those in the military junta who want to retain their privileged status.

Suu Kyi's release is quite different from that of 1995, when she confronted the military to test the limits of her autonomy, and lost. Today there are moderate and conciliatory statements from both sides. They augur better than at any point in the last dozen years. But it has taken 18 months of secret negotiations just to reach this stage.

As Suu Kyi resuscitates her political party, the National League for Democracy, the next phase of reconciliation will require negotiations on the league's participation in a reformed National Convention to write a new constitution, followed by a referendum on that law, and new elections for a legislature.

The minority peoples, most of whom are held in check by cease-fires that are fragile, want some kind of federal structure. This is anathema to the armed forces.

But the need to distribute some significant authority to the periphery from the center must be addressed. The issue is further complicated because foreign powers are suspectedby the military of supporting minority goals and wanting to split the country.

It is unlikely that the armed forces will compromise on their own autonomy within the state. They insist that any civilian government should not control military matters, including appropriations. But the present high level of expenditures has undercut the state's ability to deliver adequate education, health or other services to the people, about half of whom are at or below the poverty line defined by the World Bank.

Why was Suu Kyi released? The international community has recently indicated greater flexibility on Burma. In February the U.S. State Department issued a six-month update on the country that did not mention the requirement to recognize the validity of the May 1990 elections, which gave an overwhelming victory to the league. Rather, it stressed the need for a process of democratization and improvement in human rights to which the United States would positively respond.

The shift in the U.S. position gave more impetus to the negotiations between Suu Kyi and the junta. It evidently reflected a realization in Rangoon that rigidity was no longer possible or desirable.

The activities of the United Nations envoy, Razali Ismail of Malaysia, have doubtless been important, as has the reported urging of Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad of Malaysia that accommodation by the Burmese military was needed. The possibility of the United States imposing textile sanctions, worth some $500 million a year, may have been a partial factor.

The international community should plan to react positively to further progressive changes. It should do so in a transparent and predictable pattern, by encouraging such liberalization with appropriate tangible responses. A Burmese and international road map for progress is needed — one that all parties can read.

The writer is director of Asian studies in the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

Copyright © 2006 the International Herald Tribune