In the aftermath of the rare double veto to reject the United Nations Security Council resolution on Burma we have seen the expected flury of comment and criticism. That South Africa sided with Russia and China to oppose the resolution is one part of this episode that has elicited special attention.
Inside Burma only a handful of the country’s diverse “civil society organisations” have come out publicly against the resolution which was backed by the United States, Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Ghana, Panama, Slovakia, and Peru.
In support of the stances taken by China, Russia and South Africa, today’s The New Light of Myanmar carries translated statements from the Kachin Development and Security Army (abbreviated by the paper to KDA - I assume this previously unknown organisation was what we once called the Kachin Defense Army) and the Myanmar Writers and Journalists Association (more political context on this organisation is available here, here and here).
This KDA is the Kachin Independence Army’s former 4th Brigade. It co-administers Special Region Number 5 in the northern Shan State. Interestingly, and as an aside, a simple search for “Kachin Development and Security Army” yields no results. Although I am not certain, I assume this is because a recent re-branding has taken the organisation away from the more macho sounding “Kachin Defense Army”. As New Mandala readers know, politico-military organisations in Burma do sometimes change their names for public relations points.
The KDA has some harsh words for the UN Security Council resolution and its backers. Part of its statement reads (my emphasis added):
“4. Because of their envy of Myanmar’s gradual developments, the US and Britain gave a reason that Myanmar affairs is not just internal problem, but has become a threat to regional peace. But the neighbours confirmed that Myanmar affairs cannot pose a regional threat. The slanders of the US and Britain and the neighbours’ statement are contradictory. The KDA, on behalf of the entire Myanmar, thanked the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Africa for their support for Myanmar as those countries understood the realistic situation.
5. KDA believes that the Myanmar affairs should be addressed within the nation by the national races. We cannot accept foreign interferences in this matter. We of the KDA pledge to take part in the task of implementing the seven-step Road Map and firmly believe that the best way to solve problems is through the holding of discussions at the National Convention.”
As has become clearer over the passed few months, the authoritarian apparatuses of mainland Southeast Asia’s dictatorships are well-equipped to deflect critical attention. Censorship - such as the General’s apparent efforts to stop Thaksin from being heard in Thailand - is but the crudest tool available to military-backed regimes.
In the Burmese case, it is hardly surprising that tame pro-regime groups have been trotted out to echo the stance of China and Russia.
That South Africa - which only assumed its seat on the Security Council at the start of 2007 - has provided further succor to Southeast Asia’s most repressive regime is, however, cause for much further reflection.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 17, 2007 at 6:40 am
That South Africa – which only assumed its seat on the Security Council at the start of 2007 – has provided further succor to Southeast Asia’s most repressive regime is, however, cause for much further reflection.
I must admit I am surprised on how unexpected South Africa’s position was. The Nation in an editorial the other day said the same thing:
“Nobody in their right mind would ever have thought that South Africa would offer strong support to the Burmese junta”
However, given the strong support that the South African government has given to the Zimbabwe government despite the horrific situation that is happening in Zimbabwe, I thought South Africa’s position was expected.
To give you an idea on how bad the situation in Zimbabwe is and what South Africa is doing, here is a quote from The Times:
“World Health Organisation figures show that life expectancy in Zimbabwe, which was 62 in 1990, had by 2004 plummeted to 37 for men and 34 for women. These are by far the worst such figures in the world. Yet Zimbabwe does not even get onto the UN agenda: South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who has covered for Mugabe from the beginning, uses his leverage to prevent discussion.”
2 aiontay // Jan 17, 2007 at 11:24 am
How influential is the KDA these days? I don’t think anybody thought too much of them from the start. They’ve always been seen as being pretty accommodating towards the military regime. The definitely were spending a lot of money back about ten years ago, trying to buy loyalty, or at least respectability; the Baptist Church compound in Lashio had some pretty prominent plaques in the building walls showing how much money the KDA had given towards the construction of the building. I’m just not sure how successful they were in buying people’s loyalty.
Nevertheless, even for the KDA, this is quite a comedown. The Kachins used to have some respect among the rest of the Burmese population for their resistance to the military regime. After all, part of the NLD uniform was the Kachin pattern longyi. I kind of doubt that would be the choice of ethnic attire among Burma’s pro-democracy movement these days.
3 Aung Kyaw // Jan 17, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I believe that China and its economic influence in South Africa (China is South Africa’s 4th or 5th largest partner and trade is growing) and Africa as a whole, was crucial in the country’s decision to vote no.
It’s typical of Burmese state-run media to enlist the help of former rebel/ceasefire groups to prove the point that they identify with the government’s viewpoints. After all, the New Light of Myanmar has a daily headline of NLD members resigning. And the renaming of KDA echoes of the “State Peace and Development Council”.
4 White Elephant // Jan 18, 2007 at 12:36 am
Aung, South Africa’s primary trading partners are the UK and USA. China has less than a fifth of their combined trade. By your logic, South Africa should have voted yes!
In Africa (as a whole), China has signifigant trade relationships Nigeria and to a lesser extent, Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.
South African rejection of the UN proposal was attributed to Burma not posing a signifigant international threat. Surely this represents a strange irony in that sufferers of a polarising aparthied regime voted to continue a 40 year military dictatorship in Burma. However, rather than wallow in a ‘the international community won’t help us’ depression, can it not be foreseen that this will solidify a Burmese movement much like that which formed the ANC in South Africa? No international favours helped Nelson.
5 New Mandala » Tutu on South Africa’s Burma vote // Jan 23, 2007 at 1:38 am
[...] Further to my previous posts on the UN Security Council vote on Burma, Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu has now been widely quoted in the South African media. He does not mince his words: I am deeply disappointed by our vote. It is a betrayal of our own noble past. Many in the international community can hardly believe it. It is inexplicable…The tyrannical military regime is gloating, and we sided with them… [...]
6 New Mandala » Fifty Viss: “Civil society” backing the Burmese junta // Jan 24, 2007 at 12:08 am
[...] Over at Fifty Viss, Aung Htin Kyaw’s terrific little post summarises the range of organisations that have been trotted out in The New of Light of Myanmar to denounce the draft UN Security Council resolution on Burma. For some context, I discussed one of these tame groups, the Kachin Development and Security Army, in a post last week. [...]
7 IB // Jan 25, 2007 at 7:58 pm
It is not surprising that South Africa would have sided with China in the Security Council vote regarding Myanmar. Not only is China one of South Africa’s most important trade partners, but it is, more importantly, a crucial politicl ally. South Africa has great aspirations to a permanent seat on the Security Council: China has the potential to be highly influential in this regard, if SA plays its cards right. Furthermore, China, as a leader amongst developing countries, is important to South Africa in boosting its own status amongst developing countries, as well as being a mouthpiece for developing country interests. Hence, South Africa needs China within the international political arena and will therefore tread carefully within the Security Council. It is unlikely that we will witness South Africa voting against China’s interests.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.