Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd is cautious, but says we are seeing the first signs of change in Burma, but the government there still needs to do more for its people. He is correct in saying “It is in our collective interests to work with those who want reform in Burma”, but by limiting Australian assistance to health and education reforms, he may be taking a narrower view than is needed at this time.
The United States and Japan are actively exploring how they might respond, recognising that this is the first time in more than two decades that positive political changes have actually been introduced in Burma.
Australia could be showing leadership through modest initiatives which could help embed reforms so that they are irreversible, and so that more Burmese people receive the international assistance they badly need.
It is hardly surprising that many long-time supporters of democratic change in Burma remain unconvinced that real change is under way. After all, many earlier hopes that change was in the offing have been disappointed. Various home-grown attempts at initiating reform have been suppressed, and calls to introduce accepted norms of democracy and openness were ignored.
Even now, Burma’s army continues to impose its own ruthless control over internal opponents while refusing to bring its soldiers under the rule of law or to stop their widespread human right abuses.
But some Burma experts, the country’s neighbours and even the Burmese people themselves are increasingly hopeful that tentative new openings may allow enough space for real change to develop. Even if it’s prudent to suspend final judgment about the extent and durability of changes now under way, the view is growing that the world can and should do much more in the meantime to encourage, shape, improve and sustain the reforms that have begun.
Consider the changes that have already occurred, although they are not always acknowledged or their significance recognised.
The Burmese authorities are not only giving Aung San Suu Kyi her freedom, but allowing her to meet foreign visitors, journalists and Burmese supporters, to communicate with the outside world through video messages and the internet. Her National League for Democracy is allowed to continue to function – without being registered as a political party and to maintain its own website for the first time.
Other groups and individuals have also seized the “political space” that has started to grow inside Burma for the first time in decades, with censorship slowly being relaxed, political prisoners gradually being released, and some public debate occurring over important issues of public policy, such as major infrastructure development.
Critics often ignore other significant reforms such as the restoration of parliamentary government this year. For the first time in 25 years a larger role is being played by multiple political parties and elected representatives.
Indeed, activism in the parliament is coming mostly from the non-government members, who are posing questions of ministers, submitting policy proposals and requesting better government programs – all of which is being reported extensively in the official media.
Opportunities to amend legislation through the parliament are already arising, with the 2010 election law being amended to take account of National League for Democracy criticisms of it. The imprint of the new parliament is already being felt and is positively expediting and facilitating change.
Reconciliation and economic reform
Equally important, but frequently unmentioned, are the first tentative steps towards “national reconciliation” evidenced by the Burmese president’s unprecedented talks with Aung San Suu Kyi (in part in response to her request for such talks), and the authorities’ first-ever offer to the many Burmese in exile to return home to participate in the task of national building. Some high-profile Burmese activists have already accepted this offer, but this tends to be forgotten by those who still question the changes.
Also often unreported – and under-valued – are a number of economic reforms that have already been implemented (such as the lowering of export taxes and business restrictions). The International Monetary Fund delegation recently in Burma was able to have substantive discussions about long overdue changes in monetary policy. Significantly, debate has begun on long overdue policies to alleviate poverty, something that was previously not acknowledged as a problem. Responsible economic development is badly needed but may take time to achieve.
Some of these initiatives have emanated from the former Myanmar government but most have emerged from the present, partially elected, “civilianised” government. They reflect suggestions from the international community as well as from concerned Burmese, but with little or no direct input from the outside world, which either maintains sanctions or – in the case of Burma’s Asian neighbours – are reluctant or unable to “interfere” in Burma’s internal affairs.
So it is not surprising that in many ways, the reforms that have been introduced were insufficient in their first iteration or do not measure up the standards expected by the international community or by most Burmese.