Transcript

Host: This is “On The Line,” and I’m Eric Felten.

The United States and Indonesia are asking Burma’s neighbors to bring pressure on the ruling military junta in Rangoon. India and China have significant commerce with Burma, including sales of military hardware. President George W. Bush says it’s time to make Burma’s military regime pay a price for repressing Burma’s Democratic opposition:

Bush: "We must press the regime in Burma to stop arresting and harassing and assaulting pro-democracy activists for organizing or participating in peaceful demonstrations."

Host: In recent days, Burma has been the scene of widespread protests against the government’s dramatic increase in the cost of fuel and other staples. Many of the protesters have been arrested, severely beaten, and tortured. President Bush called on the military junta to free jailed activists and to release all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Aung San Suu Kyi leads the National League for Democracy, which overwhelmingly won Burma’s 1990 Parliamentary elections. The Burmese military blocked that Democratic transition, and since then Aung San Suu Kyi has been in and out of jail or under house arrest.

Over 1,000 political prisoners are in jail in Burma. How serious are the latest protests in Burma, and can pressure from the United States or others help bring about Democratic change there? I’ll ask my guests -- Priscilla Clapp, former U-S Chief of Mission in Burma, Bo Hla-Tint, a representative of Burma’s National League for Democracy party, and a minister in the Democratic government in exile, and Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. Welcome and thanks for joining us today.

Priscilla Clapp, what do we know about the protests that have been going on in Burma?

Clapp: We know that they have been not simply confined to Rangoon, but they have been popping up in many cities around the country, which is a distinct departure from anything that’s happened in the last, well, more than fifteen years, I’d say, since 1988. We know that they include not only well-known Democracy activists such as the N-L-D leaders and the ‘88 student group, but also common people, people that don’t have a political axe to grind, so to speak, and the monks. And these, because of the breadth of the participation in these demonstrations, it should be a great concern to the government.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, how significant are these protests that have been going on? Hla-

Hia-Tint: Because of the very brutal nature of the oppressive military regime, they are very sporadic in nature. But, as Priscilla mentioned, it is spreading out throughout the nation. In more than now twenty cities people are taking [to] the street because they have no other choice.

Host: Tom Malinowski, Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said that there have been multiple reports indicating that many of the protesters have been brutally beaten and interrogated. There are reports of torture. What do we know about what’s happening to the people who have been engaged in these protests?

Malinowski: We know that it takes a lot of courage to engage in protests in Burma because the standard response from the military and the groups of thugs that it sends out to confront the protests is very brutal. Protesters are routinely beaten. There have been consistent reports going back many, many years of political prisoners being subjected to the most brutal torture in Burmese prisons. But nobody has access to these prisoners right now. The International Committee for the Red Cross used to have access to some prisoners in Burma. It is now at loggerheads with the Burmese government. So we suspect, but have no way to confirm, the worst.

Host: Priscilla Clapp, what do we know about the extent to which these protests pose any kind of threat to the regime? Is the regime fully in control at this point? Is its brutality working?

Clapp: The regime is fully in control. I wouldn’t say it’s just brutality that it uses to maintain its control. It has its fingers in every aspect of life in the country. They even do bed checks on people to make sure that they’re in the houses at night and that they don’t have any visitors, if you can imagine that degree of intrusion. In short, the protests will not bring down the government, nor are they aimed to do that. They’re aimed to stimulate a dialogue with the government, to have the government at least discuss dramatic decisions with the public before they make them -- something that is going to affect everybody’s life as drastically as this fuel-price rise did. It was just sprung on the public very suddenly. It’s symbolic of general disgust and I’d say, weariness of the population with the continuing military dictatorship that increasingly pays less and less attention to the vast public in the country.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, what’s your sense of what people are calling for in these protests?

Hla-Tint: We have to look at two different pictures. One is, in the short term they are very seriously suffering from the skyrocketing commodity prices. They want the S-P-D-C (State Peace and Development Council) or military junta to take effective measure to bring down the commodity prices first. Long-term, they know that this is a consequence of mismanagement and corruption and the lack of good government. So they want to see a peaceful solution -- dialogue between the Democratic leadership, ethnic and military itself. This is [what] the people [are] expecting, but at this point they’re focusing on how to take -- how to see the effective measures by the responsible regime to take effective measures against skyrocketing prices.

Host: Tom Malinowski, how do protesters go about trying to get themselves heard in an environment where people are hauled off and disappear to prison camps?

Malinowski: One advantage that they have now that they didn’t have ten or twenty years ago is the use of new technologies that allow them to communicate amongst each other and with the outside world. That’s not to say it’s easy. The Internet and the cell-phone network is also tightly controlled in Burma. But they do have ways -- very creative, very brave folks -- have ways of getting the message out and letting us know that these protests, as Priscilla mentioned, that are happening not just in the capital but in many provincial areas in Burma -- we know about this now because they’ve been able to get the word out.

Host: Priscilla Clapp, these protests coincide with what seems to be a renewed effort by the U-S government to push for change in Burma. President Bush calling for release of political prisoners and an opening up toward Democracy. What impact does that have on the situation?

Clapp: It has an impact. I would hesitate to measure the impact because it’s very hard to tell what’s actually going on inside Burma and what is motivating people. The comments that our government makes are played back through V-O-A [Voice of America] and R-F-A [Radio Free Asia] and D-V-B [Democratic Voice of Burma] and various outside radio and television stations much more effectively now than ever in the past. Because, as Tom mentioned, the progress of technology is overtaking the regime. People have cell phones. They can take pictures with cell phones. So they are getting feedback from the outside world, but I would say that what’s happening inside Burma is largely propelled by internal situations and internal concerns, and not listening to what the outside world is saying. They’re not motivated by the outside world. The government is trying to put the blame on the outside world, by the way, but that’s not where the blame lies. It lies inside with the government.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, does the pressure coming from the U-S play into the government’s hands, or does it help activists who are trying to build momentum in Burma?

Hla-Tint: Absolutely, because our movement is a non-violent movement under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi. So we need a very strong response from the international community. It is very helpful, the strong position, the strong stand of the United States government in doing not only the unilateral level but also the multilateral level within the U-N mechanism. So this is very encouraging to the movement inside. But as the President mentioned, at this point, people [are] more focused on how they can take this international awareness [and use it] for the solution [that] they want.

Host: Tom Malinowski, what’s your sense of what sort of pressure should be being brought, not only by the U-S but by other countries around the world?

Malinowski: There are different kinds of pressure that could have an impact. First of all, just moral and diplomatic pressure: it’s very important. Although this is an entirely internally driven movement, as both of the other guests mentioned, it is very important for people inside who are taking these risks, making these sacrifices, to know that they are being noticed, not just by the United States but particularly by other countries in the region like Indonesia, that have in the past been silent about these events in Burma, but are now increasingly vocal and concerned. If no one were noticing, it would be very dispiriting to the people inside Burma. So it’s important to notice. They care about what the United Nations says and does. The U-N Security Council is going to hold a briefing on Burma in about a week, which will, I think, be very important in bringing international attention to the situation. There are other pressure points, as well. I think there will be an increasing focus in the United States, among other countries that are concerned about this, about some of the financial dealings of the Burmese military outside of Burma, particularly in some regional countries like Singapore. That’s something to look at very carefully. The people around the military, the people who finance the military, hold their money in foreign banks -- they’re vulnerable to very direct pressure in the form of sanctions, and that’s something that we may see happen.

Host: Priscilla Clapp, what’s your sense on that, particularly this role of neighboring countries?

Clapp: Tom hits on a very important point -- they all bank in Singapore. They have apartments in Singapore, they go to Singapore -- this is the military leadership -- they go to Singapore for hospital care because they can’t get it at home. The hospitals are in such desperate condition. And I know that they live very well in Singapore. I think it’s an important aspect of their dealings that we need to look at and that the region needs to look carefully at, because I have no doubt that a large part of the revenues from the sale of national resources right now is going into the pockets of the military leadership and their families and their entrepreneurial cronies. Right into their pockets, and that’s why there is a financial crisis in the country that required the raise in fuel prices. All of these things are related, and if we could get at the Singapore banking situation, it would answer a lot of these questions.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, is Singapore supporting the military junta in Burma?

Hla-Tint: Not only does Singapore, you know, ASEAN -- Singapore is a member of the original Association of South East Asian Nations. The S-P-D-C or Burma is part of that as well. But ASEAN, up to now doesn’t even have, yet, a clear-cut policy toward Burma -- previously they were calling their policy “constructive engagement,” but up to now, there’s no tangible result. So Singapore is a part of ASEAN, so we have to see two different pictures, if we look at it as an ASEAN nation. The civil society, the media, and even the elected members of Parliament in ASEAN are strongly supporting democratic change in Burma. But the governments stay reluctant because of the very weak nature of the South East Asian association, ASEAN itself.

Host: Tom Malinowski, is ASEAN a vehicle for bringing some pressure on Singapore or elsewhere?

Malinowski: I think if you look at the history of Democratic movements around the world, one of the most important factors is always the reaction/response, the actions of countries in the region of the country concerned -- they always have the most influence. In the past it’s been significant that Burma’s neighbors have supported and propped up the military government. For the same reasons, it’s very significant that ASEAN countries are beginning to lose patience with the Burmese government. Indonesia has been particularly outspoken, and that’s very, very important. And that’s something that, I think, the U-S government, European governments, are interested in encouraging and working with countries in the region to try to have a unified front, and to call on the Burmese government to take these very simple and important steps that we all would like to see them take.

Clapp: I might just add that since 1988, which was the last big upheaval in Burma, ASEAN governments, ASEAN countries have been Democratizing themselves. There’s been a tremendous amount of political change in the whole ASEAN environment, and in recent years, the emergence of an ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary caucus on Burma has been a very important development. They have been much more outspoken about how ASEAN should relate to the situation in Burma, and they have pressured their governments, the executive branch of their governments, to take a more forthright stand. It’s [stronger] in some countries than in others, but the impact of the Parliamentarians now on the ASEAN governments is significant. And I would say another major factor is the rise of China. China has gone through tremendous changes since 1988 -- and mainly economic, but along with economic comes political, foreign policy. There are lots of changes in China. That has affected China’s relationship with ASEAN, it has affected China’s attitude towards Burma, and I think the way that China goes will have equal, if not more, weight as ASEAN.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, China is signing deals with the Burmese regime for natural gas. China’s been very interested in getting fuel resources for its growing economy. What are the prospects that China is going to put pressure on the Burmese regime to change?

Hla-Tint: Not because of being the giant neighbor of Burma, but because of their saying that they are now taking the international political leading role, we think that Burma will be a very classic case for China, or challenge for China: are they ready to take the international political leading role? Because Burma’s case, really, on one hand is very easy because everybody has a clear -- we have consecutive U-N resolutions, and the international body has been repeatedly calling for dialogue and a national reconciliation process in Burma. So China, you know, only [being interested] in the energy of Burma is not the long-lasting solution for them, as well as for Burma. Even for their security and stability question -- you know, China needs to address the situation in Burma, and to prove they are ready to take part of the international leadership role. So we think that Chinese government, if they don’t agree that U-N Security Council is an appropriate venue for a Burma solution, they have to take initiative or they have to send a clear message to the regime that they want to see the national reconciliation processes taking place immediately in Burma.

Host: Tom Malinowski, how does pushing for Democratic reform and change in Burma fit with China’s own spotty human rights situation?

Malinowski: China’s interested in stability in Burma. They’re interested in having a relationship with the country on its Southern border that is strong and stable. They’re interested in the trading relationships. They’re interested in access through Burma, to the Indian Ocean. They’re interested in not having tons and tons of heroin and amphetamines flooding into China from Burma. And, so, you know, I don’t think the current Chinese government is going to be a principled champion of democracy, but I think they understand that having a government in Burma that is essentially at war with its own people is not something that is in China’s national interest. And they are struggling to figure out how to use their influence constructively to bring about a more stable situation.

Host: And not only has the U-S government been speaking out on Burma recently, but the First Lady, the wife of the President, Laura Bush, has made this a prime issue for her own efforts, and let’s hear what she had to say recently:

Laura Bush: "Her story is really an example to us, to all of us. Her courage and also her very sincere desire to have reconciliation, to have a non-violent reconciliation in Burma, for the best of all the Burmese people."

Host: Priscilla Clapp, there she was speaking about Aung San Suu Kyi and her efforts to bring about non-violent change. How important is the First Lady’s involvement in this? Is that something that is different from what the State Department or what the President might be doing?

Clapp: I think it’s very important because she is, like her husband, a symbolic leader of the free world, in effect, or partner of the symbolic leader. And for her to be speaking out on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi and Democratic transition in Burma is very important. People listen. It can affect things in the U-N. She has been trying to articulate this to the U-N, and I think that it helps a lot.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, we only have about 30 seconds left. What do you think the prospects for change are at this point?

Hla-Tint: The inside movement by the people is gaining momentum, gradually, but if we have international communities closely monitoring and encouraging the movement of the people. We hope that in the near future we can see the result.

Host: I’m afraid that’s going to have to be the last word for today. We’re out of time. But I’d like to thank my guests, Priscilla Clapp, former U-S Chief of Mission in Burma, Bo Hla-Tint of Burma’s National League for Democracy party, and Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. Before we go I’d like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. From the line, I’m Eric Felten.