Political Situation in Burma: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
24 April 2002
POLITICAL SITUATION IN BURMA: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr E I Ebrahim (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Powerpoint presentation on Burma

SUMMARY
The Committee heard from members of the National Council of the Union of Burma which is an umbrella organisation composed of political parties and groups operating outside and inside of Burma although the organisation itself is outlawed in Burma.

Burma has been under military rule since a military coup in 1962. An election held in 1990 was won by national heroine and Nobel prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, however despite the victory, the military regime refused to hand over control. Today grave violations of human rights are taking place in Burma. Military rule suppresses the rule of law and prevents students from gaining access to educational institutions. The NCUB requested that the South African government lends its support for the struggle for democracy in South Africa by inter alia stopping all trade with Burma and by accepting Burmese students into South African academic institutions. The Committee Chair agreed to take up these issues with the Executive.

MINUTES
The Chair welcomed the delegation from the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB). He requested the delegation to address and brief the committee on the situation in Burma as it was a country that most South Africans knew little about.

Presentation
Mr Teddy Buri, the Chairman of the NCUB spoke on behalf of the delegation. He thanked the Committee for making the meeting possible. He said that it had always been the NCUB's desire to visit South Africa as it was felt that there were lots of similarities between South Africa and Burma. It was also believed that South Africa was in a position to support the change that Burma needs. It was also the first visit of its kind as travel visas were difficult to obtain.

He introduced the other members of the delegation: Mr Zaw Min, a member of the foreign affairs committee of the NCUB and a member of the Democratic Party for a New Society - the biggest opposition party within Burma. Also present were Dr Thein Win, NCUB representative for South Africa currently practising as a doctor in South Africa, Mr Graham Bailey, Deputy Chairperson, Free Burma Campaign (South Africa) and from Wits University and a great supporter of the struggle in Burma and Mr Sonny Mahinder, a member of the NCUB and the secretary of the foreign affairs department of the All Burma Students Democratic Front. Mr Buri himself was an elected Member of the Burmese Parliament but had left the country after 5 years of the parliament not being allowed to convene.

Mr Buri briefed the Committee using a slide presentation. Geographically Burma had borders with Bangladesh, India, Thailand and China. After almost a century of British rule it gained its independence in 1947. Prior to colonisation, Burma was a collection of dynatic kingdoms and, after its independence, consisted of 8 minority races who then decided to form a union. The Panlong Agreement was entered into in 1947, whereby all member states were equal and existed in a state of co-independence. Constitution rule lasted 12 years and was followed by a military coup in 1962. The new military regime refused to honour the Panlong Agreement and set about suppressing the fundamental rights of all citizens. The new regime considered that federalism would lead to the disintegration of the Union.

In 1988, after 26 years of military rule, the army had increased from 180 000 to 400 000 troops and religion and education were suppressed. Also in 1988 thousands of peaceful protesters were slaughtered by the military regime. The protest came about as a result of the bad economy, poverty and the frequent closure of universities. Human rights abuses were rampant and in 1988 the nationwide uprising toppled the socialist government. That year, following the uprising, the military staged a second "come back" coup. Due to international pressure, an election was held that very year because it was felt that the military would win the election and that it would also lend legitimacy to its position. They did however lose the election but refused to hand over power.

Today military oppression continues to take place. In Burma today, all ethnic minorities have their own army to defend themselves against the oppressive Burmese army. It is estimated that 500 000 people are displaced internally and 12 000 externally in the countries surrounding Burma. Gross human rights abuses have forced the people to leave the country and find jobs abroad due to the bad situation of the economy.

One might ask how the most prosperous country in South East Asia has become so poor and the answer to that is through corruption and lack of good governance, accountability and the rule of law. Investors have also left the country and foreign investment has suffered a substantial decrease. This has left the country poor and forced the people to go abroad to find jobs. While the country is in such a state of distress, the military is engaged in buying a squadron of Mig 29's from the Russia and are contracting with the Russians to build a nuclear power plant in Russia.

There are 8 main races in Burma. One reason for justifying the military government is that, being multi-cultural, Burma will need a strong government to remain in control. However this was only propaganda as Burma, not like Bosnia, consisted of ethnic races that had come together voluntarily and who still wanted to live together. They believed in a philosophy of unity in diversity and he could assure the committee that the different peoples of Burma were bent on being together. They were currently working together to for a union.

Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi had emerged in more recent times as a hero of the people and was still very popular. She had won the election in 1990 and was still accepted by all.
Although oppression had taken place in Burma since 1962, people are still hopeful for change. At present there are more than 1800 political prisoners, including 19 Members of Parliament.

International pressure had led to ongoing talks in Rangoon. The United Nations had since 1994 begun passing resolutions concerning Burma and calling on the junta (military government) to respect the result of the 1990 elections. They were currently engaged in a tripartite dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi. The talks came about as a result of international pressure, similar to those placed on Zimbabwe. The talks had however been taking place for a period of 18 months and the various ethnic groups had not been invited to take part.

Positive indicators that had come out of the talks were that the UN were involved in the talks and had appointed the Malaysian Ambassador to the UN as the facilitator to the talks. In addition the military leadership were involved in the talks and Aung San Suu Kyi was positive about an outcome.

Negative indicators were that after 18 months no substantive result had come out of the talks however negotiations in South Africa had taken years so that was not necessarily to be considered a negative factor. Limited participation was also a cause for concern as there was a need to include the other minority organisations and groups. In addition, no repressive laws had been repealed, indicated a lack of seriousness on the part of the government. No guarantees had been given for the release of political prisoners. Although some were released there was no guarantee that they would not be arrested again and those that had been released had been forced to sign an agreement to abstain from politics. Forced labour, forced relocation and human rights abuses continued still.

Concerted efforts were being made to strengthen the process. It was hoped that international pressure and sanctions would be maintained until talks were lead to real political issues and the parties were able to talk in freedom as equals. Through the talks it would be able to achieve peace and democracy however this was only possible through continued pressure by the international community.

South Africa has very little trade with Burma, however that trade not only provides economic support for the government but also strengthens them through legitimising their position so that even that small amount of trade was not good. Directly or indirectly international pressure should be placed on the government to take the talks more seriously.

The movement towards democracy was one that was centred on forming a general federal union. The movement did not seek revenge against a military regime. it did however seek a "win-win" solution and it was hoped that one day, together with both internal and international pressure, the government would be persuaded to bring about change.

Discussion
The Chair thanked Mr Buri for his insightful presentation and summarised what had been said by him. He was glad that the process of dialogue was going on and hoped that it would be more successful than the inter-Congolese dialogue. He agreed that it should be a "win-win" situation that would lead to democratic government. He opened the floor for questions and comments.

Mr Eglin (DP) stated that he did not know much about Burma so he could not get a picture of how the organisation and the government interacted. Did the NCUB work outside or inside Burma and to what extent does the government allow this. Regarding the administration, how was it run.

Mr Geldenhuys (NNP) referred to a statement made by Mr Buri about each ethnic group having their own army. He enquired as to where these armies were based and who ran them. He also questioned whether, since South Africa had engaged in diplomatic relations with Burma since 1995, it would help if South Africa severed ties with Burma.

Mr Buri replied that the NCUB was not an NGO. It was an umbrella organisation composed of political parties and groups operating outside and inside of Burma. The NCUB could operate inside Burma where there were military groups. Outside of Burma, the NCUB operated mainly from India and Thailand, but also from Australia and some European countries. The organisation itself was outlawed in Burma.

On the question of how the country was ruled, he answered that it was done in a top to bottom manner. At present, military battalions, including 400 000 troops were stationed everywhere and military commanders were positioned in different areas. The country was being ruled by the military, there was no rule of law. Courts exist but decisions are being dictated by the military regime. lawyers were permitted but they could not really do anything. He drew a similar situation to South Africa during the apartheid regime. Concerning the ethnic armies, all minority races have their own armies. There was currently a cease-fire at the moment but there were still 10 000 troops present.

On South Africa severing ties with Burma, he said that the matter revolved around a question of legitimacy. The government had come to power through a military coup and had then reneged on promised made during the election. Because of sanctions, officials could not visit the EU and the country had become an international pariah. The government in Burma is seeking international legitimacy. The fact that South Africa is interacting with them was lending them legitimacy. It was NCUB's desire that all countries interacting with the government stop such interaction. This would have the result of taking away the legitimacy thereby weakening the government and causing them to be more serious about the talks.
In conclusion, the answer to the question was yes, if possible.

The Chair enquired as to what was meant by "ethnic groups" and federal rule and if it was envisaged that each group should have its own state.

Mr Buri replied that the terms "Burman" and "non-Burman" had come to be used frequently only recently. The most commonly used term before had been "ethnic forces" but that was not considered very legitimate as in Burma the Burmese group were in the majority however 45% of the population were non-Burmese and 60% of the land area did in fact belong to the non-Burmese. The non-Burmese were ethnic groups but so were the Burmese and this had led to the term Burman and non-Burman.

On the issue of federalism, he said the concept had been believed in since 1987 and what was envisages were 8 separate states, one for each group, however all living together peacefully. This had been shown to be possible before the 1962 coup and during the time of the Panlong Agreement. The spirit of the Agreement was still with the non-Burman nationalities. The argument that the military rule was needed to hold the country together was mere propaganda. There was a dedicated movement to educate the people in the federal system of government. Seminars and observer trips abroad were planned. It was believed that this was the only system that could keep the country together. Centralisation had only brought misery to the people.

Mr Eglin (DP) continuing his earlier question, asked more clarity on the Free Burma Campaign in South Africa and in other countries. How were they financed, what was actually happening in the different countries and what were they hoping to achieve.

Mr Buri thanked the Member for taking an interest in the matter and felt that this was now the time to be frank. He said that finance for the organisation came mostly from Scandinavian countries as well as the US State Department, Canada and some others. Funding was not for military but political purposes intended to bring about democratic change in Burma and also for education in terms of preparing the people for change and exposing them to training and workshops.

On the question of what was being done, he said that lobbying was an important aspect and this included disseminating information about Burma and what was happening both inside and outside of it, for instance reporting on the human rights abuses. Lobbying also included trying to gain financial and political support, such as was being done at the UN since 1993, which had led to the UN resolution recognising the election results. Lobbying of governments and companies was also being done in an attempt to stop them from trading with Burma. They were also engaged in campaigning against tourism in Burma at the moment, because all money coming into the country through tourism went towards financing the military. Lobbying for sanctions against trade had to a large extent been successful, for example, in the US many companies had been forced to leave Burma. The organisation also worked on recommendations for the UN, who was often willing to help the cause but was unsure how best to help.

On the question of what was requested from South Africa, Mr Buri said that it was ironic that although South Africa had sponsored the first UN Resolution recognising the 1993 election, it had since then not sponsored any recommendations. It was hoped that next year South Africa would co-sponsor a UN Resolution on Burma.

Secondly, any trade, however small, lends the Burmese government some legitimacy. The NCUB would like South Africa to review its trade policy towards Burma and do away with trade, which would also have the effect of weakening the military.

In would also like South Africa to use its economic and political clout to influence its neighbouring countries to co-sponsor UN Resolutions on Burma. The NCUB had been heartening when two years ago the Nigerian government had been critical of the military regime. South Africa had always been considered as the link to reaching other African countries. The NCUB would also like, where possible or suitable, for the South African parliament to pass a resolution on Burma calling on the military regime to take the talks seriously.

Mr Buri himself was the president of the exiled Burmese MP's. A signature MP-to-MP campaign was also being undertaken and currently more than 3000 signatures had been obtained from 146 parliaments. He hoped that the MPs from the South African parliament would lend their support and signatures to the campaign.

In addition, universities and colleges in Burma were frequently closed due to the government's fear of an uprising. As a result the people in Burma did not have good education. In contrast, those belonging to the military sent their children to overseas universities and schools. As a result a discrepancy was intentionally being created so that the sons and daughters of those currently in power would be able to take up strategic government positions even when democratic change took place. The NCUB was requesting that the South African government take some Burmese students into South African universities and colleges because of the quality of education here. This could be done either through South African financial assistance or from funding elsewhere, but the most important thing was for the students to be accepted here. The other educational option was Thailand but that was difficult because all classes were taught in Thai.

Mr Ramgobin (ANC) enquired as to which countries supported the military regime.

Mr Buri replied that that was a difficult question to answer. He wouldn't say that countries "supported" the Burmese government, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that they "did business" with them. China had provided arms to the military government to the tune of 1.5 billion, with the intention of having access to a western sea port via Burma. India, afraid of Chinese influence in the area, was also making approaches and the government in Burma often played India and China against each other.

The Chair thanked the members of the delegation for their presentation, which he felt had created more interest in what was happening in that part of the world. South Africa stood for democratic change and would stand against military dictatorships. He said that he would take the concerns raised to the Executive in hopes of playing a more supportive role in the struggle in Burma.

Meeting adjourned.