Do Nothing

[Update]

letter to the Irish Times:

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

Rory Bryne's recount of his Burma experience is both welcomed and belated. Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi explained to reporter John Pilger in 2005 "For the media, Burma is seldom fashionable. But the important thing to remember about a struggle like ours is that it endures, whether or not the spotlight is on, and it can't be turned back." While Rory's article does not set out to answer any questions it does leave one essential question left infuriatingly unanswered. Soe, a trained lawyer and former student leader, we are told took a big risk in speaking to Rory, yet the article fails to to explain; if speaking to a foreign journalist or even a foreign tourist is so dangerous, why would Soe risk his life to fill a few column inches in an Irish newspaper?

The answer, I'm sure, is that Soe believes the risk he takes in order to bring the plight of the Burma people to the West is worth the possibility the change that publicity might bring. He might also believe that if people are aware of Burma's history, if they are aware of it's present, they can act to change it. We can also be quite sure that Soe does not favour the kind of 'humanitarian intervention' Iraq has been subjected to, as Desmond Tutu wrote "Suu Kyi and the people of Burma have not called for a military coalition to invade their country. They have simply asked for the maximum diplomatic and economic pressure against Burma's brutal dictators." He might also presume that if people in the West knew they could contribute to change in Burma by simply doing nothing, the risk involved in telling them this was a risk he should take.

A report, issued by the former President of the Czech Republic and Bishop Desmond M. Tutu, "Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma, issued in September 2005, provides a detailed overview of the reasons why the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) needs to intervene in Burma to insure that Burma's people can live in an environment free from oppression."

The "Threat to Peace" website offers some useful examples for those concerned enough to want to act. The first and most important suggestion is that the concerned citizen should learn more about Burma. While Mr. Byrne's article is a welcome acknowledgment to the plight of the Burmese people, it is enormously deficient.

There remains a whole host of important facts concerning Burma's past and present that Mr. Byrnes' article makes a well disguised reference to, but fails to pass on to the reader. Such as, what keeps the military junta in power? The answer to this question has much to do with foreign investment, though one could not garner this from Rory's article. Though one article is obviously not sufficient space to unveil years of buried history, Mr. Byrne could at least have made reference to economic factors. Nearly 800 words and not one mention of sanctions, investment, corporations or natural resources.

Following the events of 1988 the regime took a new outlook on foreign investment. According to The Burma Campaign UK "the junta quickly realized that forests and fisheries were finite resources and sought other foreign investment." This foreign investment, while it encountered setbacks such as US economic measures, remains , perpetuating the rule of a repressive, un-elected junta.

The list of companies that still maintains links to the Burmese military junta can be found here: http://www.global-unions.org/burma/default3.asp

There is one simple thing Irish Times readers can now do, thanks in part to Rory's in-adequate spotlight, and that thing is NOTHING. Don't use oil from companies that operate in Burma, don't travel with travel companies that finance the Burmese government, don't buy cars from companies with connections to the Burmese government, don't invest in financial institutions that work with the Burmese government. Don't do anything to support the military junta that continues to destroy the lives of Burma's people.

Regards,

[Full Post]

Rory Bryne's recount of his Burma experience in today's Irish Times is an interesting read, and while it does not set out to answer any questions it does leave one essential question left infuriatingly unanswered. As Soe, a trained lawyer and former student leader, pedalled off with a smile and a wave Rory explains that his "Speaking to me was a big risk. I had to admire his courage."

If speaking to a foreign journalist or even a foreign tourist is so dangerous, why would Soe risk his life to fill a few column inches in an Irish newspaper?

The answer, I'm sure, is that Soe believes the risk he takes in order to bring the plight of the Burma people to the West is worth the possibility the change that publicity might bring. He might also believe that if people are aware of Burma's history, if they are aware of it's present, they can act to change it. We can also be quite sure that Soe does not favour the kind of 'humanitarian intervention' Iraq has been subjected to, as Desmond Tutu wrote "Suu Kyi and the people of Burma have not called for a military coalition to invade their country. They have simply asked for the maximum diplomatic and economic pressure against Burma's brutal dictators." He might also presume that if people in the West knew they could contribute to change in Burma by simply doing nothing, the risk involved in telling them this was a risk he should take. [1]

A report, issued by the former President of the Czech Republic and Bishop Desmond M. Tutu, “Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma, issued in September 2005, provides a detailed overview of the reasons why the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) needs to intervene in Burma to insure that Burma’s people can live in an environment free from oppression." [2]

The report "does not call for UN-led military intervention or the deployment of a peacekeeping force in Burma. Rather, it makes recommendations on how to peacefully achieve democratic change."

The "Threat to Peace" website offers some useful examples for those concerned enough to want to act. The first and most important suggestion is that the concerned citizen should learn more about Burma. While Mr. Byrne's article is a welcome acknowledgment to the plight of the Burmese people, it is enormously deficient.

There remains a whole host of important facts concerning Burma's past and present that Mr. Byrnes' article makes a well disguised reference to. Such as, what keeps the military junta in power?

EU imports between 1998 and 2002 were around 4bn dollars. In October 2004 "the fifth summit of the 39-state Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) was held in Hanoi and attended by representatives of the junta for the first time. Instead of announcing a boycott, the Europeans turned up and said nothing. Rather, France's president, Jacques Chirac, said he hoped stronger sanctions would not be necessary because they "will hurt the poorest people". For "poorest people" read Total Oil Company, part-owned by the French government, the largest foreign investor in Burma, where the oil companies' infrastructure of roads and railway access have long been the subject of allegations of forced labour." [1]

John Jackson of the Burma Campaign UK explained to John Pilger "None of the EU officials I have met, denies that foreign investment and military spending in Burma are closely linked. In the week the regime received its first payment for gas due to be piped to Thailand from a gas field operated by Total Oil, it made a 130m dollar down-payment on ten MiG-29 jet fighters." And yet these commercial ventures are almost never mentioned in the mainstream press, let alone in the influential and coloured writing of 'the editorial'.

The BBC reported in May 2005, "Some 12.3 million people are enslaved worldwide. The International Labour Organization says 2.4 million of them are victims of trafficking, and their labour generates profits of over $30bn." [3]

Human Rights Watch reported in 1995, "the overall human rights situation is worsening. As the SLORC has moved to attract international investment, at least 2 million people have been forced to work for no pay under brutal conditions to rebuild Burma's long- neglected infrastructure."

While Mr. Byrne alludes to the historical perspective his readers need, "In 1988, Ne Win, Burma's hard line dictator, unleashed the army against unarmed pro-democracy protesters, killing thousands in cities throughout Burma. In the wake of the crackdown, Ne Win was compelled to resign but was replaced by his friends in the army, who remain in power today," he leaves the reader hanging.

Though one article is obviously not sufficient space to unveil years of buried history, Mr. Byrne could at least have made reference to economic factors. Nearly 800 words and not one mention of sanctions, investment, corporations or natural resources.

Following the events of 1988 the regime took a new outlook on foreign investment. According to The Burma Campaign UK "The junta quickly realized that forests and fisheries were finite resources, however; and sought other foreign investment. In addition to immediate hard currency earnings that the generals would receive in signatory bonuses, taxes and profits, foreign investments offered a degree of international respectability to a regime with one of the world's worst human rights records. Further, significant Western investment in itself would tend to become a factor in foreign policy formulation. The greater the stakes held by American and European companies, the less likely their governments would be to take a strong stand against even a cruelly dictatorial regime." [4]

"foreign investment helps perpetuate the rule of a repressive, un-elected junta. Large investment in Burma is carried out through joint ventures with the military regime. Much is directed through companies owned and operated by Burma's Ministry of Defence, notably the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH).

Over the last fifteen years Foreign Direct Investment has flowed into Burma, largely for tourist infrastructure and natural resource extraction projects. During the same period Burma’s military has expanded from 180,000 personnel to 400,000 while the country’s health, education and public services have almost collapsed.

Military spending has fluctuated between a third and a half of the regime’s budget during the 1990s. A country of around 50 million people has one of the largest armies in Asia, and yet has no external enemies." [4]

The enemy it seems is the 'government's' own people.

While on the surface there have been promising moves towards stricter control on foreign investment, with a growing number of companies joining the dis-investment list as a result of campaigns designed to highlight the brutality this investment supports, there are signs that investment shows no sign of ending:

While the US has enacted a number of measures; in 1997 - Ban on new investment, in 2003 - US import ban, in 2003 - Ban on remittances, "the EU will continue to be a source of economic comfort for Burma’s military establishment."

The list of companies that still maintains links to the Burmese military junta can be found here: http://www.global-unions.org/burma/default3.asp

Aung San Suu Kyi told reporter John Pilger in 2005 "For the media, Burma is seldom fashionable. But the important thing to remember about a struggle like ours is that it endures, whether or not the spotlight is on, and it can't be turned back."

There is one simple thing Irish Times readers can now do, thanks in part to Rory's in-adequate spotlight, and that thing is NOTHING. Don't use oil from companies that operate in Burma, don't travel with travel companies that finance the Burmese government, don't buy cars from companies with connections to the Burmese government, don't invest in financial institutions that work with the Burmese government. Don't do anything to support the military junta that continues to destroy the lives of Burma's people.


1. http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content
2. http://www.unscburma.org/
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4534393.stm
4. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/aboutburma

Other Links for information on Burma:

http://www.burmaforumla.org/
http://www.unscburma.org/Docs/