Transcript

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

The military junta in Burma has mounted a brutal crackdown on protestors who had been calling for democratic reform. Leading the protests had been thousands of Buddhist monks in saffron robes, who peacefully took to the streets in Rangoon and other cities. Burmese soldiers opened fire on the protesters. And that was only the start of the government’s attack on those who question the junta’s rule. Night after night, soldiers and secret police have been hunting down those who participated in the demonstrations. According to news reports, more than a thousand people have gone missing, dragged from monasteries and private homes. The German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that the huge monastery at the Shwedagon pagoda had been completely emptied of the thousands of monks and novices who lived there. It is not known how many are in prison camps or how many have been killed.

In a speech at the United Nations, President George W. Bush called for tough, new sanctions to pressure the military regime:

Bush: "The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We’ll continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma. And I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom."

Host: What next for the people of Burma? I’ll ask my guests: Bo Hla-Tint, a representative of Burma’s National League for Democracy, and Senior Program Manager for Human Rights at Freedom House: Ellen Bork. Welcome. Thanks for joining us today.

Bo Hla-Tint, what do we know about what’s going on in Burma right now?

Hla-Tint: In Rangoon, because of the heavy presence of military troops -- According to our sources, more than 20,000 troops are going around, hunting the people who participate, as you mentioned before. And monasteries were absolutely occupied by the troops. And house by house, they’ve been checking and pressuring people not to continue in their fight. But in other remote cities in the middle of Burma or other places, there were no shoot-down orders by the regional commander or local commander. The protests are continuing.

Host: Ellen Bork, is there some hope that perhaps the regime doesn’t have complete control of its commanders if the regional commanders have not yet cracked down on protests happening outside of Rangoon?

Bork: I think there’s always hope that the legitimacy of the regime has been called into question. There’s no doubt in Burma that the outside world is watching, that despite the regime’s efforts to cut off communication that images and information is still getting out. I think the regime and especially the lower levels of the military and the regime have to take very seriously the possibility of international action -- referrals to the International Criminal Court and other kinds of sanctions that are being considered right now.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, we’ve heard reports of government trucks driving through the streets of Rangoon broadcasting out of loudspeakers to people, “We have your photographs. We’re coming to get you.” How far is this regime willing to go?

Hla-Tint: They are absolutely threatening to the people. In some cases -- for example, one monastery was raided by the troops and the local people were trying to protect [it]. But one [was shot] and killed. When his wife came out, the soldiers said that the whole village will be burned down if she dared to continue. So they completely arrested the whole monastery and [threatened] the people. This is very common nowadays in Burma. The very brutal crackdown is continuing.

Host: Ellen Bork, what can be done when you have a regime that’s willing to – that has the guns, it has all the power, and it’s willing to use them against monks peacefully protesting in the street?

Bork: I think we’ve seen other brutal regimes that had all the guns fall in the past. It’s not always an exact science how we go about bringing about these changes. But we have seen that individuals in Burma are willing to give their lives for this. And it’s incumbent upon the international community to respond. We don’t know what will make the difference, but we do know that we can keep trying to isolate the regime financially. I think that’s something good that the Bush Administration’s done -- something they have experience with with North Korea. We have the International Criminal Court, as I just mentioned. And we can, frankly, pressure Burma’s backers, and that means China, Russia, and, unfortunately, our good friend India.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, what’s the hope for there being enough pressure on the backers of Burma at this point to make a difference?

Hla-Tint: Pressure from the United States and European Union and other democratic nations, we very much appreciate that. But, as I mentioned before, pressure alone is not bringing any change in Burma. At the same time, we have to, you know, convince all the members in the United Nations Security Council to take effective action now.

Host: What would be effective action?

Hla-Tint: At this point, because of a division in the Council members, the military junta is exploiting the situation. We want China, Russia, and all members to cooperate, you know, and [adopt] tough measures. For example, a clear and strong message to the junta: If they don’t listen for a change or follow, they have to think about multilateral sanctions or U-N sanctions against the junta.

Host: Ellen Bork, what do you think would be effective sort of sanctions against the regime?

Bork: We know that Russia and China sell them arms. We know that many countries trade with them. People like to talk about how isolated Burma is. Apparently it’s not quite isolated enough. And I think a whole range of economic pressures ought to be brought to bear. But I think the point about the U-N security action is very helpful because I think we’ve come to minimize the importance of that. And that’s because it’s so difficult to bring about unanimity there. And we have to really isolate the obstacles to unanimity. It would be very meaningful if the U-N Security [Council] were able to act. And since it’s not, we have to go right to the source of that inaction. And those are China and Russia, in particular.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, that organization of which Burma is a member, had been pretty reluctant to stake out a tough position on Burma. And yet, in the midst of these crackdowns, there’s at least been a statement from ASEAN of revulsion at the crackdown. Is there hope that ASEAN, this international organization, regional organization, may actually make some difference?

Hla-Tint: We expect because of the brutal crackdown, especially, the ASEAN leadership now changing their position, and they are speaking up. They are openly saying that they are very upset at the situation in Burma. And they are openly asking to stop this brutality against their own people. But in terms of measure, we are still asking ASEAN to fully cooperate with the international community, especially democratic nations around the globe.

Host: Ellen Bork, First Lady Laura Bush has taken a particular interest in Burma and the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi. The Nobel Prize winner, who is the leader of the democratic opposition, has been under house arrest. And she has said that China has “a huge amount of influence over Burma” and should stop, as she put it, “propping up the regime.” What’s your sense of how much influence and power China would have over Burma if they wanted to use it at this point?

Bork: I think there are two different ways of looking at it. One is that China has this very close relationship. But, on the other hand, China has very different interests. They like dealing with a friendly junta. And they don’t want people inside China to see successful democracy protests along China’s borders. So, China has different motives than we do. But, on the other hand, China wants a good relationship with the United States, and I see no reason for China not to pay a price with its U-S relationship for propping up the junta. I think Mrs. Bush is right. I’d like to know if Mrs. Bush and President Bush still plan to go be China’s guest at the Olympic games. They could make that decision final much later, but for now, I think they ought to introduce an element of doubt into that.

Host: The Olympic game question is one that China has been very sensitive on. Not only has it been raised in the context of Burma, but, for example, Mia Farrow has made it a prominent issue with regard to Sudan and the crisis in Darfur, where China, again, has a great deal of influence over that government. Recently, as the Olympic-game issue has been brought up with regard to Burma, Wang Baodong, who’s a spokesman for the Chinese embassy here in the U-S said, “Irrelevant issues should not be linked to the Beijing Olympic games.” Bo Hla-Tint, is Burma an irrelevant issue to the Beijing Olympic games?

Hla-Tint: When your neighbor’s house is burning, you cannot happily host any international sports or any international event happily. So, as a regional leader or giant neighbor of Burma, especially, they can have a better opportunity after fully cooperating with the international community, finding the best solution for the Burmese people. And then, in 2008, the Chinese authority can happily and successfully host the Olympics. Otherwise, if they let continue the [brutality] of the military junta, as citizens of Burma, we, frankly, have to say that they are not ready to host an international event like that.

Host: Ellen Bork, how much leverage is the Olympic-game question going to have with China and Burma?

Bork: I think it’s going to get uglier internationally as well as domestically before it gets any better, and I hope people have the stomach for that, which is we’ve defined our U-S-China relationship for so long in terms of good relations instead of pursuing interests and objectives. Bringing about democratic change in Burma should be a huge objective in the U-S-China bilateral relationship. And I’d just like to throw out one other thing, which is consideration of recognizing Burma’s government-in-exile. As you mentioned, there is a democratic opposition that overwhelmingly won elections and for many years has been prevented from forming a government, not to mention being the target of just unspeakable abuses. I think it’s time for the international community, by which I mean the democratic international community, to take a look at that very seriously.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, you’re a representative of that government that was not allowed to take its parliamentary majority and was crushed by the junta. Would it make a difference for your efforts if there were a recognition of your government-in-exile in an official way?

Hla-Tint: Absolutely. It is important after experiencing this brutal crackdown inside. The democratic leadership inside are not able to take the lead at this point under the very brutal brute force of the military junta. So, we are in exile. Previously, we had very much respect [for] homegrown solutions -- negotiate a settlement, a national reconciliation. We expected too much. But after experiencing this brutal crackdown, we ourselves are reviewing that this is time for international community. If we can have a better and closer cooperation, we can bring change in Burma effectively.

Host: Ellen Bork, with the U-N and whatever role there is for the U-N, you had -- While this crackdown was going on, while people were being rounded up night after night in the streets, you had a U-N special envoy there meeting happily with Aung San Suu Kyi, but also meeting with the military junta ruler. And yet, at the same time, the crackdown, the protests of the protestors is going on night after night. What does that say to the U-N about how the regime envisions the leverage that the U-N has?

Bork: It says a lot about the U-N system, unfortunately and, in particular, its record on Burma. Mr. Gambari’s been there before. I’m afraid he --

Host: This is Ibrahim Gambari, who is the special envoy.

Bork: I believe, unfortunately, it’s a stalling tactic of the regimes’. In fact, they literally stalled, delaying his meetings, as I understand it. He didn’t, as I understand it, have contact with the broader democracy movement beyond Aung San Suu Kyi, as important as she is. He could have really demonstrated and helped support and helped to protect individuals by demanding access. I’m not sure what, if anything, he’s accomplished. And I hope that whatever lull there’s been while he’s been traveling has given at least some time to democratic governments to launch a strategy. And I’m looking forward to seeing what that is.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, what needs to be done now? Is there something for the U-N or for other human-rights organizations to find out what has happened to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been detained by the regime in Burma?

Hla-Tint: That is why we are working very hard at the U-N Human Rights Council. And they just passed a stronger resolution yesterday. So, we want the U-N not to [just pass] this resolution, but, as a follow-up action, the international community should find what is really going on because we are very much concerned about thousands of people, especially Buddhist monks already missing. So, we want to know the truth. Our people deserve to know the truth. And through the United Nations -- At the same time, if [in] the U-N is quite difficult, the United States as well as the European Union, all the democratic nations across the world, they have to work harder to find the truth in Burma.

Host: Ellen Bork, is there anybody in a position at this point to find out where the missing people are?

Bork: The regime is, of course. We need accountability from the regime. We need to find ways to get more information out of Burma. I noticed today that Senator Lieberman has talked about deploying, I believe, our intelligence resources to document abuses there. And I hope that that’s a matter that the Congress takes up to make sure that all of that’s being done. I think everybody has the regime’s number. But we can only do more to get information to document and to sort of establish that. The truth is what we need to know to go forward.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, the regime has done everything it can to stop the flow of information coming out of Burma. We have been seeing a lot of footage taken from cell phone cameras and transmitted out of the country in e-mails. And since then, the government has attempted to shut down the Internet. How hard is it now for people to get information out from Burma?

Hla-Tint: Very difficult because since Internet and all these telecommunication lines are cut off, people are faced with a very challenging situation. But we still have satellite phones and other modern technology. Only question is our financial capability. So, if we can continue with the cooperation, the movement can continue alike.

Host: And what about information getting into Burma? Are people aware outside of Rangoon what’s been going on?

Hla-Tint: This is the role of the Burmese radio broadcasts in foreign countries, like Democratic Voice of Burma, BBC, Burmese Action, VOA, Radio Free Asia. Through that radio program, people are mainly listening inside Burma today. So, everybody listens to the radio program what kind of international response is developing and how they’re going to advance their movement according to [how] the international wind is blowing. So, this is very important to have these Burmese radio stations reporting and monitoring, including not only Burmese stations, but also the T-V and media role is very crucial at this point.

Host: Ellen Bork, we’ve talked a lot about what the U-N or other countries can do with regard to sending messages to the regime, but how important is this, the message, if you will, that the people in Burma get from how governments and international organizations respond?

Bork: I think it’s extraordinarily important. I defer to Bo Hla-Tint. He’s just said very powerfully that they need to hear from us. I was really delighted to see that senators McConnell and Feinstein taped a message to the protestors. I hope that’s getting in. I hope they’re seeing that for the last couple weeks, this has not been business as usual in Washington on foreign policy. Burma’s really led the way, and I just think it’s extremely important that we keep it up at the top of the agenda.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, what is there now for democracy activists in Burma to do? Is there any room left for action of any kind?

Hla-Tint: Because of the heavy presence at this point, they’ve [taken] one step back, and they are refreshing themselves and focusing more on networking, communication -- you know, networking inside -- and strategizing in order to be able to avoid this kind of brutal crackdown and smart investments and more benefits under these circumstances. So, people are not giving up. They are sending us a very strong message: “They will never give up until they get their freedom and dignity back.” So the only thing we want the world to know is that we have to continue our close monitoring of the situation. We have to effectively encourage the movement inside. Those brave people should not be feeling that they are alone.

Host: Ellen Bork, we have less than a minute, but what’s your sense of what there is possible for people in Burma to do at this point?

Bork: That’s hard. They’ve done everything that anybody could expect them to do, but I gather they’re doing more. The international community’s spotlight on this and pressure helps them. It helps protect them. It tells the regime not to go any further. Beyond that, it’s really in all of our hands to make sure that they have the courage to keep going.

Host: Bo Hla-Tint, we have about thirty seconds left. What should we look for next in Burma to see how things are going?

Hla-Tint: Until or unless Mr. Gambari reports positive things and U-N Security Council cannot take effective measure, the brutality will be continued inside Burma.

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, Bo Hla-Tint of Burma’s National League for Democracy and, from Freedom House, Ellen Bork. 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. For “On the Line,” I’m Eric Felten.