Battle for Burma:
The Process of National Reconciliation
By Min Zin
No crisis in the world today can be effectively resolved without
the active intervention of a third party, unless the concerned
parties have both the will and capacity to settle their differences.
Burma is one case where such will is lacking. With the country
on the brink of total collapse and international attention
inconsistent and under-funded, Burma's national reconciliation
process remains at a standstill.
The ruling military regime in Burma under Senior General
Than Shwe's leadership has made clear its unwillingness to
accept any form of social, political, or economic change. Than
Shwe's junta continues to expend its energy-and the nation's
resources-committing atrocities in the name of national security
while neglecting the welfare of the Burmese people. While
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's inclusion of Burma
on her list of six "outposts of tyranny" in her recent Senate
hearing was encouraging, this statement appears to have been
made with little intention of taking any real action. Despite the
sincerity of American concern towards the plight of the
Burmese people, Washington's rhetoric frequently comes with
a high moral tone.
Compared with other countries labeled as "outposts of tyranny," there is still unexhausted
political leverage that the United States
can apply toward finding an acceptable
settlement to the crisis in Burma that is
both feasible and cost-effective.
Although the country's crisis reached its
pinnacle in 1988, when student protests
were violently repressed by the military,
the country continues to be run by an
abusive regime that has yet to respond to
international intervention efforts. Consequently,
while Burma is not a strategic
interest for the United States, leading a
coordinated international political
intervention for Burma would nonetheless
help the White House restore its
image as a legitimate defender of human
rights and achieve a moral victory in its
support for "the growth of democratic
movements and institutions in every
nation and culture, with the ultimate
goal of ending tyranny in [the] world,"
as President Bush promised in his inauguration
speech in January 2005.
Under the current
military regime, Burma is usually
described as the "Land of Fear," and
rightly so, for fear plays a tremendous
role in the everyday life of the oppressed
people and the oppressive leaders alike.
As Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's
pro-democracy movement has stated,
"It is not power that corrupts but
fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those
who wield it and fear of the scourge of
power corrupts those who are subject to
it."1 In my opinion, the fear of losing
power is the worse of the two, as it has compelled the rulers of Burma to perform
unspeakable atrocities. By contrast,
my personal experiences as well as
those of my colleagues in the democracy
movement in Burma demonstrate that
fear does not always corrupt the
oppressed: rather, it can spur them to
work together for change.
I was a fourteen-year old high school
student when I joined the student-led
democracy uprising against the militaryrun
socialist regime in Burma in 1988.
The army responded to these peaceful
demonstrations with a spray of bullets,
killing many people, including young
students like myself. Independent
research reported that more than ten
thousand people were killed during the
two months of the 1988 movement.2
Since then, arbitrary arrests, torture,
rape, forced labor, extortions, and
forced relocations committed by the military
have become rampant, according to
reports by human rights groups and the
United Nations.
My experiences corroborate such
reports. As a founder of a national high
school student union, I was an active
member of the nationally recognized
All Burma Federation of Student
Unions (ABFSU) that has cultivated to
youth leaders including the post-colonial
independence hero and father of
Aung San Suu Kyi, General Aung San.
Although the ABFSU was banned by the
military when it took power in 1962, I
have continued to engage in clandestine
political activities and worked closely
with Aung San Suu Kyi. In July 1989, military intelligence agents and troops
came to my house to arrest me, but as I
was not home, they arrested my father
instead. Since that time, I have been living
underground inside Burma. I was
dismissed from my high school and kept
away from my family so they would not
be implicated in my activities. However,
my efforts to protect my family failed,
and almost all of my family members
have been arrested at one time or
another over the past fifteen years due
to my political activities.
Such setbacks have only fuelled the
democracy movement in Burma. During
my time on the run, I published
underground pro-democracy journals
and handouts, organized demonstrations,
and recruited new activists,
including students and monks. I also
initiated above-ground activities to
involve people in participatory forms
of civil society, such as public literary
talks, new libraries, and campaigns to
raise awareness about smoking and
HIV/AIDS. I led such activities until
late 1997, when the security risks
became too dangerous and I was forced
to flee the country. Others were less
lucky. The arrest of Thet Win Aung, a
colleague who accompanied me to
Thailand and later returned secretly to
Burma in order to continue his political
activities, was sentenced to sixtythree
years imprisonment by the junta.
His offense consisted only of involvement
in non-violent student union
movements. Today, the junta continues
to be intolerant of above-ground nonpolitical
activism. All independent
activities, including weight-lifting
clubs, collecting foreign press clippings,
and holding gatherings of over
five people without permission, are
viewed as threats to the state and are therefore banned.