BURMA’S MILITARY regime presented yesterday’s sentence of 18 months house arrest on opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi as a concession, compared to the court verdict of three years hard labour. It is in fact a monstrous injustice and a manipulative move to keep her party out of elections called for 2010.
As her lawyers pointed out, the charges against her were actually repealed in a constitutional revision last year; and the whole trial had a Kafkaesque quality from the start, since the bizarre incident involving a US citizen who swam to her house and stayed there uninvited for two days which breached the terms of her existing house arrest.
The trial was carefully scripted to ensure Ms Suu Kyi is excluded from next year’s highly controlled election process at a time when the regime is under renewed international pressure to create a new form of legitimacy for its military rule. Its brutal suppression of the popular uprising two years ago exposed the regime to that pressure, but the picture is complicated by the readiness of powerful and influential neighbours to continue dealing with it. They have indicated a willingness to respond to any signs of political change within the state by engaging with it more intensively.
China, India and Singapore vie for access to Burma’s vast wealth in wood, minerals, rubies and metals. They are unwilling to apply harsh sanctions, saying such action would punish the poorest most and not target the military sufficiently. Already existing economic and other sanctions by western states are ineffective and have not commanded universal support through the United Nations. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) is reluctant to discipline a fellow member state in keeping with its long-running policy of not interfering with internal sovereignty. Burma’s political opposition and popular sentiment have also lost heart following widespread arrests and repression.
In these circumstances the regime calculates it can run elections next year by making token concessions capable of fending off any regional pressure for more sanctions. Ms Suu Kyi’s party reacted to these moves by demanding the release of political prisoners, a review of the constitution adopted last year, a genuine internal dialogue to resolve Burma’s crisis and recognition that it won the 1990 elections overwhelmingly. On this basis it offered to open a political dialogue with the regime. This policy deserves international support. Along with demands for Ms Suu Kyi’s immediate release, it should be a condition for any engagement.