Predictable Injustice for Suu Kyi

The Western world is uniting against the unjust conviction of Suu Kyi, but only China and India have the power to stop corruption in Burma.

To the surprise of no one, on August 11, 2009, Judges Thaung Nyunt and Nyi Nyi Soe found Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese opposition leader and Nobel Peace laureate, guilty of violating the terms of her house arrest. They immediately sentenced her and her two companions to three years hard labour. There have been no reports indicating whether sentencing submissions were made to the judges before the decision was reached.

In an action that revealed the lack of an independent judiciary in Burma, the sentence was immediately commuted to 18 months house arrest for Daw Suu and her two companions Khin Khin Win and Win Ma Ma. That commutation was done by an order signed by the military dictator of Burma, General Tan Shwe. Clearly Than Shwe could not have had time to make an order to commute the sentence unless he knew the verdict and sentence before they were handed down.

Among western democracies there was outrage at the ruling and the sentence.

Perhaps the strongest reaction was from Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He condemned the sentence, called it not in accordance with the rule of law, said the charges were baseless, and that there was no due process in the trial. He said Canada believes the regime had manufactured an excuse to keep Daw Suu from participating in the elections scheduled for 2010. He called for the release of all of Burma’s political prisoners (they number 2,100).

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the sentencing brutal and unjust. The EU stated that it was ready to impose targeted sanctions against those involved in the case.

American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the release of Suu Kyi and said she should not have been convicted.

Fourteen Nobel Peace Prize recipients are calling for the UN Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity committed by the Burmese military regime. The British and French governments are calling on the same body to impose a global arms ban against the regime.

Some ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries indicated that they find the decision unacceptable. The strongest ASEAN reaction came from the Philippines, which called the verdict “incomprehensible and unjust.”

It should be noted that much of the international investment in Burma comes from the ASEAN countries. ASEAN has for years been engaged in a meaningless process with the Burmese Generals called “constructive engagement.”

A respected NGO called Security Council Report has put out Update Report No. 1 Myanmar, which outlines possible actions by the Security Council.

The UN Secretary-General has been active with regard to Burma but on his recent visit to the country he was denied the opportunity to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi.

Will any of this make a difference in Burma? Sadly I think the answer to that question is no.

The two major influences on Burma are China and India.

Clearly China will take no steps to curb (or even discourage) the inhuman treatment of the people of Burma by the generals of the State Peace and Development Council. China, in its own self-interest, regards all internal matters as not a proper concern for the international community.

India, the world’s largest democracy, has gone from support of democracy in Burma in 1988 to a position of almost total silence. Important Indian leaders like Jawaharial Nehru and Indira Gandhi must be spinning in their graves at the inaction of the Indian government on such important issues as freedom, justice, and democracy in a neighbouring country. Prime Minister Monmohan Singh should be ashamed of, and censured for, his silence regarding these important issues.

And where is Sonia Gandhi? Why is she not speaking out in support of an iconic woman political leader from a close-by country?

India’s conservative and pro-junta position on Burma is widely believed to derive from three considerations: an eagerness to enlist Burma’s help in fighting insurgencies in its turbulent north-east, India’s interest in Burma's natural gas reserves, and India’s anxiety to contain and counter China's influence in Burma, and more broadly, Southeast Asia.

India is making a major mistake. When democracy comes to Burma, the country’s new government will favour the neighbours who supported the struggle for democracy.

It pains me to say this, but unless there is concerted international action, or a change of heart by some of the military leaders in Burma and an overthrow of Than Shwe, change in the country is not close on the horizon.