Responsibility to protect: Burma's golden alternative

Burma gained the spotlight in world news in September 2007 when the Saffron Revolution erupted. Surprisingly, we heard arguments against democratisation from politicians, statesmen, scholars, so-called Burma experts and even some Burmese in exile who have never set foot on their native soil or who have been out of touch with reality for decades.

They claimed that a substitute for the military junta would be, of all things, the devil's alternative.

Now, after Cyclone Nargis, people around the world are denouncing the regime and equating its stubborn refusal to allow free access of international relief assistance to the urgently needed victims - not in thousands but in millions - as a criminal act. Many say that it is time for humanitarian intervention by the United Nations under the "Responsibility to Protect" principle.

As the Burmese people suffer, the debate over this principle continues. Those who oppose the principle said Burma will become lawless and chaotic - a Balkanisation of a sort.

But no matter how one looks, lawlessness is not an exaggeration when making reference to Burma. The killing of the highest spiritual leaders of society must be considered the most brutal form of lawlessness. Refusal of international life-saving assistance to millions of cyclone victims is a crime against humanity, the worst offence in the civilised world.

In Burma, there is no rule of law. What comes out of the mouths of selfish, greedy, deceitful generals becomes law and is acted upon by spineless cohorts. This is the best culture for crime and chaos to flourish. Drug cartels and crime syndicates prosper most under egomaniac despots. The self-seeking military junta is the sole cause of chaos and civil war in Burma. The junta's militarisation of the country has brought poverty, unprecedented chaos, and mismanagement and social conflict matched only by a few failed states on earth.

Unlike Yugoslavia or some African countries, Burma's more than 2000-year history shows no precedence for Balkanisation. Bloody religious or racial conflicts common to Yugoslavia or African countries were unheard of. Past wars were caused mainly by feudal monarchs annexing adjacent territories just like feudal rulers of any country in ancient times. Pre-independence and post-independence communal riots were hangovers of colonial divide and rule policies.

The junta's disinformation on the meaning of federalism has failed among the people who now realise the futility of denying other ethnic peoples their rights in accordance with universal norms. Only one obstacle remains for the formation of a genuine and peaceful Union of Burma - that is the military junta.

Balkanisation is not the only option in the world.

Czechoslovakia experienced a peaceful "velvet separation". Balkanisation and anarchy in Burma can come about by the fall of the junta which could disintegrate into multiple rival fiefdoms controlled separately by junta generals and regional commanders turning into war-lords as in post-Siad Barre Somalia, post-Najibullah Afghanistan or post-Mobutu Congo. Unlike them, Burma fortunately has a legitimate and popular democratic leadership well-prepared and highly competent to take over.

Burma's opposition leaders, both democratic and ethnic, are undoubtedly more competent, qualified and broad-minded than the junta leaders. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, all the atrocities and terror in Burma has been committed by the State Police and Development Council (SPDC). There are no extremists or terrorists among the opposition. Hence merely checking and removing the SPDC will prevent further bloodshed.

The Junta's senseless, paranoid economic policies are making everyone poor except the generals. Even Singapore's senior statesman Lee Kuan-yew has dubbed them "dumb" with regard to economics. No globalisation beneficial to the country's people, local businessmen or foreign investors could take hold in Burma. In contrast, the democratic and ethnic groups have been upgrading its leaders and rank-and-file with world level capacity in all issues, anticipating to ride the globalisation tide like China and Vietnam. Exiled democratic and ethnic forces are also versed in international efficiencies of a peaceful nature after years of training and study abroad.

The important thing is that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) are not calling for abrupt regime change but rather a negotiated settlement taking into account the Burmese military's role, and finally replacing it in the not too distant future.

In February 2006, the NLD offered a transition plan which would recognise the military junta as a de jure government for a transitional period that would be legitimised by the parliament elected in 1990. Also in August, 2007, ninety-two elected members of parliament proposed an alternative road map offering the SPDC a significant role in the constitution-drafting and transition processes along with elected NLD and ethnic members of parliament.

"Everything is negotiable," Aung San Suu Kyi has said. The army is to be retained but the military dictatorship must go, this is the opposition's consensus view. The arrogant generals with diplomatic protection of China simply turned down all the proposals.

Engagement with the junta has also been called or initiated by many countries including Asean, China and Japan. There have been the Wilton Park seminars in the UK favouring engagement as well. The military responded by snubbing the Asean chairman when he visited Burma in 2006; by killing a Japanese reporter during the Saffron Revolution; and by ignoring Japan's demand to have a proper investigation. It is clear that all this has resulted in more clampdowns with more refugees and more migrants to neighbouring countries and of course the spread of diseases, forced labour and rapes in the country.

So what can you expect from shoring up a junta that is prepared to kill the most revered section of the nation and also prepared to allow millions of its own people, the cyclone victims, to suffer or die helplessly devoid of much needed life-saving relief assistance? Will it be moral or feasible to maintain the status quo or engage with the junta to prevent an imaginary and improbable Balkanisation and chaos? 

To prevent such a scenario there is no alternative for the international community, especially Asean members, but to lead and initiate a stronger and more concerted international effort for democratic transition in Burma and by taking the lead in stronger critical engagement, not the kind of unconditional engagement with the military regime which has proved to be an utter failure.

Teddy Buri, MP-elect, chairman, Members of Parliament Union-Burma (MPU)

Manko Ban, MP-elect, chairman of the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD-LA)

Sann Aung, MP-elect, member, National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB)