After three months of debating, deliberating and stalling, the hammer came down in Myanmar’s trial of the century, with The Lady, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, sentenced to three years hard labour.
And that was that. Only, it wasn’t. A directive from Senior General Than Shwe was immediately read out in court by the Home Affairs Minister, announcing that her sentence was to be reduced to 18 months house arrest.
The directive — dated August 10, the day before sentencing — showed just how foreign the concept of an independent judiciary is in this country.
“[U]pon the court finding Daw Aung San Suu Kyi guilty … half of the sentence to be served is remitted and the remainder of the sentence is to be suspended,” it said.
No ifs, no buts — and no shame.
While there were no large-scale protests, there was a palpable sense of anger at the decision to continue Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest (a revered figure in Myanmar, she has spent 14 of the past 20 years locked up at her University Avenue house beside Inya Lake).
As I signed into my gtalk account following the verdict, I was surprised at the number of polite Burmese friends who had changed their screen name to “F_ck Than Shwe” (this also prompted a colleague to ask me on Wednesday what a “motherf_cker” was).
The verdict — Than Shwe’s “leniency” and “generosity” notwithstanding – was also a cue for international outrage.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) made clear its “deep disappointment”. US President Barack Obama called for Suu Kyi’s “immediate, unconditional release”, while Kevin Rudd expressed “deep dismay” at the decision.
But, perhaps more quietly, another debate continues to be played out — should Daw Aung San Suu Kyi be the focus of Western government’s Myanmar policies?
It’s an argument that, for most of the past 20 years, has been unthinkable, bordering on sacrilegious.
“No matter how great her sacrifice, the future of one country cannot revolve around the actions and ideas of one person,” Virginia Moncrieff wrote in The Huffington Post last month. “What has happened to this extraordinary woman is of course criminal. But there are 48 million other Burmese people and they cannot continue to be held captive while the international community listens to, and complies with Daw Suu’s policies of sanctions.”
Proponents are all too aware of how these comments are viewed by many, particularly those in the exile community.
“The slightest hint of criticism of [Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s] actions brings howls of protest and accusations. (By writing this article I know I will be shouted down),” Moncrieff added.
But this argument has also gained some traction within the country – helped to a degree by Myanmar’s state media and the realisation the government are almost completely unwilling to budge on the issue.
In recent weeks, the Burmese language Myanmar Ahlin and English New Light of Myanmar have reproduced large sections of the Huffington Post article and another published in the Christian Science Monitor on July 22, which made a similar argument.
This reflects what seems to be a genuine sense of frustration among less senior government figures – perhaps everyone below the Senior General, who calls nearly all the shots — at how intractable the West is on the Suu Kyi issue and sanctions.
The Economist’s often excellent Banyan Tree column also weighed in, decrying that “everyone from the UN down views Myanmar through the lens of democracy above all else — even development”.
Inside the country, democracy is a smaller issue than Western governments and exile groups would have you believe. As a friend told me recently, “What we want is a good government, one that gives us more freedom and definitely more opportunities than we have at the moment. That doesn’t necessarily mean we need democracy — most people don’t even know what it is.”
Next week, The Australian National University will hold its biennial Myanmar/Burma Update conference, featuring a who’s who of the Myanmar studies world.
A range of speakers, including several from Myanmar, will present papers on political, economic and social issues.
It will be interesting to see whether there is a similar shift in the academic world. The program appears more optimistic than in previous years — after the 2007 update, the papers from the conference were published as a book called Dictatorship, Disorder and Decline in Myanmar.
My feeling is more papers will advocate greater engagement and, at least in principle, support for next years elections as a first step forward after 20 years of little or no progression.
The ANU has a relatively large number of academics focused on Myanmar and when I asked Professor Kent Anderson, the director of ANU’s Faculty of Asian Studies, earlier this year about the conference, he said: “I cannot speak for all of them but my sense is that this group of scholars is largely interested in promoting a freer Burma.”
It’s becoming increasingly clear attaining a freer Myanmar will only be possible by engaging with the military government, however distasteful that may be.
It is a brave writer who attempts to say that other forms of government might work … at least satisfactorily….or at least enough… so lets not jump up and down about the benefits of democracy. Especially when it has to do with oppressed democracy workers, like Aung San Suu Kye.
I wonder if democracy’s lack of spine in tackling climate change, has anything to do with a growing off-handedness about democracy generally?
I have heard so many people say:
– “Democracy should be able to deal with climate change, but it probably wont.”
– “Politicians in a democracy are more interested in serving the interests of their big donors, instead of doing what really needs to be done – like with climate change, but also in other areas”.
– “Democracies are led by leaders who are always thinking short term, the next election, how many votes will be mustered or lost… that they have no time for serious long term planning that actually costs something in the short run”.
– etc
With that kind of thinking being said these days, it is not all that hard to become less committed to democracies. They are just one of many types of flawed government systems right?
But the alternatives are not pretty. Virtually every option other than flawed democracy, is much worse for their people.
It is time to think again about the importance of democracy and not be clouded by democracies failings (as big as they can be at times… like now… with really fighting climate change).
Burma would be better off under a genuine (imperfect) democracy. It would be miles ahead of the current military regime that allowed tens of thousands of their own people to perish by forbidding foreign aid during recent crises. It would be much better than the current system that slaughtered peaceful Buddhists in the streets when they protested peacefully against corruption in government. It would be much much better than one of the worst governments currently on the face of the earth.
And some people seriously want us to pretend we can forget all that and deal with them like any other imperfect government in the world? No. There is a line that must be drawn somewhere. And the current military government of Burma has definitely crossed that line.
I recall during the horrific incidents of violence that we witnessed in the past by the military regime in Burma, that the then Howard Government contributed to the training of the ‘police’ in Burma. I’d like to know if that is indeed a fact, and if it’s continuing under the Rudd Government? If so, it should cease immediately. I object to any of Australia’s recources contributing to this cruel and vicious regime! Otherwise, our protestations are a joke!
I really like your posts Liz45. I certainly agree with your concerns (on more than one issue it seems).
Call me cynical, but the long-suffering Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and poor, wretched Burma will forever languish just so long as the West, including Australia, values its commercial interests with China more highly. Our crocodile tears will continue, along with those for Darfur, Zimbabwe, etc.
As usual we get the howls of indignation from the leaders of the so called civilised democratic world, whenever Aung San Suu Kye has her house arrest extended. That China and Russia call the tune in the weak kneed UN is an indictment on the gutless spineless attitude of the not so major powers in the world game. The US, the UK, The UE , and the wimps on Burmas back and front doorsteps in Asia and here in Australia. Are we so dependent on trade with China that we are too scared to tell them to f off until this woman the legitimate leader of her country and the millions of Burmese who support her are released from the tyranny and poverty they are forced to endure under the despot generals who should be despatched with a bullet to the head.
I dont ever recall Russia and China being taken to task in a meaningful way by the almighty democracies. Just more useless sanctions which at the end of the day achieve nothing.
How long would it take China and Russia to agree to eliminate these military bastards if the world said join us or accept trade sanctions. Of course it is a big call. This situation demands a big call. How long would those two dictatorships cope with trade embargos from their biggest wealthiest countries. Not long. It takes courage and guts to stand up to these supporters of the Burmese military, it is to our continued shame the world does nothing meaningful.
Incidently to the author of this rubbish…But, perhaps more quietly, another debate continues to be played out — should Daw Aung San Suu Kyi be the focus of Western government’s Myanmar policies?
It’s an argument that, for most of the past 20 years, has been unthinkable, bordering on sacrilegious.
“No matter how great her sacrifice, the future of one country cannot revolve around the actions and ideas of one person,” Virginia Moncrieff wrote in The Huffington Post last month. “What has happened to this extraordinary woman is of course criminal. But there are 48 million other Burmese people and they cannot continue to be held captive while the international community listens to, and complies with Daw Suu’s policies of sanctions.”
I believe the Burmese people want her released and would support any move to bring it about. They just need our help.