Why the United Nations isn't in Burma

author : Marco Rosaire Rossi topic : Burma

by Marco Rosaire Rossi

At the end of World War II, when the horrors of the Nazi holocaust were revealed to the world, the international community collectively cried out: “Never again!” “Never again!” shall a people be systematically persecuted and savagely brutalized. “Never again!” shall there be massive refugees and organized extermination. “Never again!” shall there be secret police and the “disappearance” of dissidents. The only problem with this vow was that it did happen again, and again, and again, and again, and again. The latest examples of the international community’s failure to realize this promise are the horrors that have been taking place in Burma in the past few months.

Since August, the democratic movement in Burma has taken to the streets to demand the overthrow of the Tatmadaw junta—also known as the State Peace and Development Council. The initial spark of the non-violent uprising was the government’s raising of gas prices 500%—causing a crisis of inflation throughout the country. Though the gas prices were the tipping point, the movement for democracy had been stirring in Burma for almost two decades. In 1990, the people tried to elect Aung San Suu Kyi as the country’s first Prime Minister in 30 years, but Tatmadaw wouldn’t have it. They invalidated the elections, refused to step down from the government, imprisoned Suu Kyi, and launched a crackdown on all dissidents. The junta’s main strategy for control had two parts: crackdown on all democratic leaders and “buy-off” the Buddhists through spending public funds on pagodas and temples. However, after seventeen years, the junta’s domination has splintered. The people of Burma have refused to be controlled by either the carrot or the stick.

Of course the uprising has met its opposition. The State Peace and Development Council launched a vicious crackdown: arresting thousands, raiding monasteries, “disappearing” monks, destroying villages. Reports from the Asia press say up to 200 people were killed; reports in the British press place the figure in the thousands. Over 300 villages were destroyed and an estimated 1.5 million people displaced. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that Burma is one of the poorest countries in the region and one of the least developed nations in the world.

Considering the mayhem, it is important to ask: Where is the United Nations? Where’s the one international organization whose mission is to “maintain international peace and security” and to encourage “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all?” So far the only action taken by the Security Council is to send a special envoy to try to mediate the conflict. At this point, that may not mean much. Soon after the special envoy’s arrival in Burma, diplomats and reporters had declared that the uprising had failed. The junta had won. Liselotte Agerlid, a Swedish diplomat, declared: “The military regime won and a new generation has been violently repressed and violently denied democracy… Now the military has cracked down the revolt, and the result may very well be that the regime will enjoy another 20 years of silence, ruling by fear.”

The reasons for this incompetence by the Security Council are twofold: First is resistance from the east, and second is the reluctance from the west. For the east, the main players are Russia, India, and China—with China taking the strongest stance. China has used its veto power in the Security Council to block any measure that would jeopardize Tatmadaw. The area is of strategic importance to the Chinese government. The country remains China’s only access to the Indian Ocean. Burma has many rich and easily exploitable resources—like oil—and there is vested interest from the state-owned Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation. Burma also acts as an important military buffer to protect China from India. Since 1988, China has been selling a wide variety of arms to the junta. The exact amount is unknown because China has regularly ignored its obligation to report these arms transfers to the United Nations.

India, on the other hand, originally wanted to see Aung San Suu Kyi take power in 1990. It feared the junta; suspecting its harsh practices would bring instability to the region. After the junta managed to secure its place however, India decided to switch sides. Now it supports the junta in the name of stability. Also, India figures that by buddying-up to the junta it could get access to Burma’s resources and develop trade routes through the country. Earlier this year, it finalized a $150 million deal with the junta to sell India access to Burma’s gas reserves. In addition—and ironically—India has gotten the same idea as China. They support the regime and offer it arms hoping to treat it as a military buffer against China.

Russia, like China, has also used its veto power to block resolutions against Tatmadaw, and sees business with the junta as lucrative. Since 2001, it has been selling weapons to Tatmadaw. In 2006, Russia struck a deal with the junta to give it arms in exchange for access to its oil fields.

For the west, the main players are Britain, France, and the United States. None of these countries actively supports the junta. In September of 2004, the US Senate even went so far as to pass a resolution calling on the Security Council to institute sanctions against the regime. Despite these steps though, none of these countries are willing to go “too far” in their support for the democratic opposition.

Tony Blair once declared that Britain doesn’t believe “that trade is appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people.” If that is true, then he forgot to tell major British companies that still have business in Burma. Aquatic, a British company that provides services to oil and gas companies, is still operating there. The travel firms Asean Explorer and Pettitts still take British tourists around the country—even though Aung San Suu Kyi pleaded with them not to. In fact, a plethora of British companies are still doing business and providing support to the regime including Britannic Garden Furniture, Garvey Furniture, Orient Express, Rolls-Royce, and the Ultimate Travel Company.

France, too, has corporate interest in the area. France worked against a resolution in the European Union calling for sanctions against the Tatmadaw junta. Its main concern is the French oil giant Total. Total is one of the biggest investors in Burma. The company controls 31 % of the natural gas. No doubt, it’s putting great pressure on the French government to keep the status quo.

The United States has already instituted sanctions against Burma, but the law provides a clause which allows companies who were already doing business in Burma to stay. In 2005, the US oil giant Chevron bought out Unocal and its business in the southern part of Burma. Chevron is one of the largest investors in the region—with control over 28% of the natural gas. Nyunt Than, president of the Burmese American Democratic Alliance, said that “President Bush should order Chevron to cease operations in Burma immediately…That would cut hundreds of millions of dollars from this military. It would create great pressure on them to come to the table.” So far, President Bush has failed to take any such actions.

Even though support from the United Nations is lacking, and western diplomats have proclaimed that the “revolt is over,” the people of Burma persist. On October 4th, the State Peace and Development Council agreed to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi if she drops all her demands and calls off the cry for economic and political sanctions. In other words, the junta is willing to negotiate with the opposition if the opposition is willing to no longer oppose them. It is unknown how the movement will respond to these conditions, but one thing is clear: the military government is losing power. The international and domestic pressure is having an affect. The fact that the junta has cracked down so brutally is a demonstration that the non-violent resistance is working; their power is slipping away. The people of Burma, and their supporters, are demonstrating Gandhi’s truism in how power responds to the people who challenge it: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” And the people of Burma will win.

Marco Rosaire Rossi is a student in the Masters in International Law Program at the United Nations mandate school the University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica.