Remarks of Eric Schwartz, Special Assistant to the President for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs on US policy to Burma Delivered at the Workshop to Address Humanitarian Aid to Burma on May 24.
|
For the better part of a decade or more, the congressional allies of the Burmese democracy movement: Senator McConnell, Senator Helms, Senator Moynihan, Senator Leahy, Representative Gilman, Rep. Pelosi, Rep. Porter, Rep. Lantos, Rep. Rohrabacher, and many others -- have helped to make it clear that the Legislative and Executive Branches retain a shared vision of a democratic Burma where the people will have the right to elect their leaders and determine their own futures. Burma is not simply a dictatorship, a country where human rights are violated systematically. It is a case of democracy denied. The Burmese people have made their views known; have struggled and sacrificed and voted overwhelmingly for democracy -- indeed, many have died for this principle. What we want for Burma is rather modest, and is what the vast majority of Burmese have said they want: a government they have chosen; one that is accountable to them; a country where people are not imprisoned for their views; where they are not forced at gunpoint to provide their labor for projects of dubious value dictated by unelected rulers. We want to see a Burma that cooperates in the fight against narcotics, instead of tolerating activities of major drug traffickers and actually facilitating their entry into the legitimate economy with their ill-gotten gams. In practicing the big lie, the Burmese government has tried to market two misconceptions about the NLD and its leadership First, they would like us to believe that what the Burmese people endorsed in 1990 they no longer now support; that they have lost interest in democracy, and that they no longer support the NLD leadership. If the Burmese military junta truly believed that Aung San Suu Kyi no longer commanded poplar support, they could easily put their theory to the test -- by allowing her party to organize and compete in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, they are not prepared to do so. Everything we know about views and expressions of public opinion in societies under repressive regimes suggests that reports of Aung San Suu Kyi's diminishing popularity are misconceptions at best and fabrications at worst; that a free and fair poll would demonstrate that she is still wildly popular; and that the regime continued efforts at character assassination are in all likelihood counterproductive. Second, the military junta would like us to think that the NLD, and Aung San Suu Kyi in particular, are intransigent, stubborn and confrontational. That is nonsense. This is a political opposition movement that has steadfastly avoided violence, has not called for strikes; and has limited itself, essentially, to the simple demand of asking for legitimacy, and dialogue with the government it opposes. In fact, the most intransigent position Aung San Suu Kyi has taken is that her party be allowed to choose who will represent it in talks with the government. Her most confrontational action may have been her effort to put herself into a car and try to drive to another city to meet with supporters. We cannot allow our definition of provocation be determined. By the standards of this brutal and. repressive regime -- it is the regime, and not Aung San Suu Kyi, who is the egregious violator here. Finally, and most importantly, there are some who discount the possibility of significant political change in Burma; who urge Aung San Suu Kyi and the international community to accept half-measures; to come to terms with the government and seek so-called gradual progress over time. These analysts ignore the fact that Burma is not moving forward gradually, but moving in the wrong direction, not just politically but economically and socially. This analysis ignores history as well. If this were not 1999, but rather 1979, and we were at a seminar on the Baltic states, how many would have guessed that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would soon be free? And how much ridicule would they have been subjected to if they predicted the fall of the former Soviet Union? Thank goodness America persisted in its naive, unrealistic belief that the Baltics -- not to mention most of Eastern and Central Europe -- could indeed be free. Two years ago, how many people were planning ahead for a democratic post-Abacha Nigeria, a democratic post Soeharto Indonesia, or -- incredibly -- the possibility that the people of East Timor might be able to decide their future To be sure, change takes time, but over and over again, we've seen that when it comes, it often does so unpredictably and through a combination of internal and external pressures. And we've seen that the democratic activists who are the beneficiaries of change -- in post-transition societies from Eastern Europe to South Africa to East Asia -- have credited those in the international community who have remained steadfast -- they have told us that international scrutiny and pressure played a role in saving lives and maintaining a flicker of hope in the most trying of times. U So, we remain steadfast. That is why we have banned new investment in Burma, where the chief beneficiary of foreign investment is the military government, which dominates the economy, extracts as much hard currency as it can from investors, while allowing few benefits to flow to people. In fact, with or without an investment ban, the role of forced labor should give investors pause. White our ban, together with our aid prohibitions, will not bring immediate political change to Burma, it does help to make clear to the regime that it cannot achieve its economic goals without talking to its people. I believe we are having an impact investor confidence is way down; foreign investment has declined substantially in recent years. And while we cannot take all the credit --economic mismanagement and the region-wide financial crisis has certainly played a pivotal role -- our efforts have helped to send an important message to Rangoon. Despite our determination to remain steadfast, we are not intransigent, and have made clear to the regime that we are prepared to respond positively to genuine movement toward political dialogue and respect for human rights. That is why we have supported the UN efforts to engage the regime in a political dialogue, and we hope that the regime will accept the visit of the UN envoy Alvaro DeSoto. It is also why we are prepared to engage in a serious discussion of humanitarian aid inside Burma -- beyond the congressionally mandated support for democracy promotion and humanitarian assistance activities along the Burma-Thai border and outside of Burma. Our policy on humanitarian aid inside Burma is simple; we believe it is the right thing to do under, and only under, the right circumstances. We share Aung San Suu Kyi1s view that judicious use of assistance funds could help needy Burmese and advance prospects for democracy by targeting grass roots, self-help efforts to build civil society. For instance, we have supported public health and education programs in ethnic minority areas outside Burmese government control. We have launched an innovative AIDS education program that reaches millions of Burmese via the only mass media they trust -~ foreign radio.
But we do believe that humanitarian aid must meet several reasonable, straightforward conditions. First, it must function without interference by the authorities and delivered on a non-discriminatory basis. Second, it must be organized in consultation with the National League for Democracy, for it is the only legitimate representative of the Burmese people, the only organization with genuine grassroots support around the country. And that is the best way to avoid misuse, and the only way to ensure that aid meets the real needs of the population. These conditions shouldn’t pose any major obstacles to aid to the Burmese people -- in fact; they are designed to make it more effective. The obstacle is the Burmese government, which is deeply suspicious of any activity not under its direct control, which places enormous restrictions in the path of the very few foreign NGOs it has permitted into the country, which has harassed representatives of international organizations that meet with the NLD. As we reflect on this issue, we need to remember that the humanitarian tragedy inside Burma is not a natural, but a man-made disaster. In fact, Burma is a country rich in natural resources and economic potential that has been drive to near ruin by decades of disastrous government policies. The government has stifled private economic activity, damaged agriculture, exploited labor and resources of the country for its own ends, spent vast quantities on the military while allowing health and education to suffer. According to one report, the number of hospital beds in the country declined by a third from 1986 to 1996 while the military more than doubled in size. Burma is now a center of the Southeast Asian AIDS crisis, but the regime denies it. The WHO estimates 500,000 Burmese HW-positive persons, though the regime acknowledges 8,000 and denies of the existence of prostitution, or involvement of corrupt local officials in trafficking of women. The education system is in ruins not because the country is poor, but because the government is afraid of its people High schools have been disrupted by regular closures in recent years and colleges and universities have been open for less than two years since 1988. Elementary and secondary drop-out rates are rising, reportedly, in part, because the government keeps raising unofficial fees that parents cannot pay. If we have learned anything about development in the last generation, it is that foreign assistance does little good in promoting development when a government misallocates resources as dramatically as does the Burmese regime. If we have learned anything about humanitarian tragedies, it is that freedom from hunger and freedom from repression go hand in hand; people need both, and it is patronizing to suggest that some people only care about one. If we have learned anything about humanitarian aid, it is that it is rare to find purely humanitarian solutions to humanitarian crises. The fundamental problem in Burma is political -- a government that denies its people the right to shape their destiny, the right to interact with the world, the right to live in a society where public authorities are concerned with their basic needs. We must do what we can to help those whom we can reach without the kind of interference that makes our assistance ineffective. But our most important contribution will be to help those suffering under this regime bring about change in their society so that they will finally be free to work with us to help themselves- That is what the Burmese people have told us they need, and that is the goal of American policy.
Link: The National Security Council
|