An End to Burma’s Roadmap?

IIEA

A general election later this year may see the final phase of the seven-step ‘roadmap’ for political progress in Burma established by the military regime in 2003.   While a date for the election has yet to be set, it is expected that it will take place in late autumn. The question for both the people of Burma and for the international community is whether the election will represent a real move towards some degree of democracy or a further chapter in the near half century of introspective, authoritarian military rule.

Implementation of the ‘roadmap’  has seen the adoption of a new Constitution which, according to the military leadership, was approved by 92.4% of voters in a poll taken during the troubled period following the impact of Cyclone Nargis in 2009. The Constitution provides for a President, to replace the present military Head of State, and a directly elected parliament – the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw – within which 25% of the 498 seats will be reserved for nominees of the military.

Burma, or Myanmar as it is called by its current rulers, remains a source of controversy across the international community. This poverty stricken country of more than 50 million people achieved independence from Britain in 1948 and has been under military rule since a coup in the early 1960s. A fertile land, with significant energy resources, Burma has seen none of the  economic progress of its Asian neighbours such as Thailand and Malaysia and has suffered under a harsh military regime which appears to have the single political aim of maintaining national unity and internal security at almost any cost in human terms. As many as 2,000 political prisoners remain in custody while the army confronts militant groups among the country’s ethnic minorities. 

Burma today is dominated by two personalities.  One, the Head of State, General Than Shwe, is reclusive, almost unseen but with almost absolute power. The other, Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the annulled 1990 general election and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has been under house arrest for fourteen of the past twenty years.    The question for the remainder of 2010 is whether Than Shwe will hand over to a favoured successor as President with a complacent or complicit parliament or Aung San Suu Kyi will emerge from virtual imprisonment to give new leadership on the way forward to a democratic future.

The past year has seen a number of attempts at moving from international isolation, with sanctions and embargos, to dialogue and engagement.   The Obama administration has sought direct contact with the military regime through visits by Senator Jim Webb and Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell both of whom had meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi.   The European Union has also been active, with a meeting in Copenhagen between EU Ministers, led by Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, and a Burmese delegation led by Foreign Minister, Nyan Win. Ambassadors of EU Member States - France, Germany , Italy, UK – are active in pursuing dialogue and promoting humanitarian aid. Burma’s membership of ASEAN offers regular opportunities for contact as well as providing Burmese leaders with insight into the economic and social progress enjoyed by many of their neighbours.

In moving towards the general election the military leadership has clear goals – maintaining national unity against the claims of ethnic or regional interests, ensuring the continued authority of the military, keeping power away from what one general has called ‘muddle headed liberals’. Preparations for the elections are likely to include moves such as release of some key political detainees, liberalisation of visa regulations especially for aid workers, opportunities for open campaigning by political parties and, perhaps, release for Aung San Suu Kyi. These moves could open the way for an election which would earn international acceptance as free and fair but with little prospect of a result which would challenge the military’s long term strategy.

Burma’s political opposition faces real challenges in 2010. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy must decide on participation in the election, having taken a generally abstentionist stance following the crude military intervention which robbed it of victory in 1990. There are divided opinions in the party with younger figures recognising an opportunity to move into parliamentary politics with a view to mounting a credible bid for power in 2015.    Questions arise about the position of other parties and, in particular, those representing minorities.   The present leadership is establishing its own political party based on the Union of Solidarity and Development Association with its estimated 20 million members.

For the international community the likely developments in 2010 pose a challenge to present policies.   Should engagement be stepped up with, perhaps, a loosening of sanctions to encourage liberalisation? Or should pressure be maintained on crucial questions such as the personal liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi and the opening of borders to desperately needed assistance? What weight should be attributed to Burma’s links with North Korea and to its reported interest in developing a nuclear power capability?     Equally, for Western nations, what view is to be taken of Burma’s relationship with China and Russia?   Can the regime be encouraged to give priority to economic and social development along the lines suggested by Professor Joseph Stiglitz at a forum sponsored by the UN and supported by Burma’s Agriculture Minister Htay Oo who is seen as a progressive figure in the junta.

For the European Union there are particular issues to be addressed. EU Ministers in December 2009 spoke of readiness to respond to genuine progress by the Burmese authorities towards democracy and respect for human rights.   With the arrival of Baroness Ashton as the new High Representative and the restructuring of the EU’s external relations capabilities, it will be interesting to see how, and at what level – political or official – this policy will be carried forward. Burma may well prove to be an early test of the post-Lisbon arrangements and of the possibilities for concerted EU action in areas of real international concern.

As an Independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.