Yesterday’s The Independent carried a combative article about Burma by John Bercow MP. It drew its inspiration from a visit to the Thai-Burma border undertaken by a group of British parliamentarians. Bercow argues:
The thugs and impostors who rule the roost practise some of the most egregious human rights abuses known to mankind. Rape as a weapon of war, extra-judicial killings, water torture, mass displacement, compulsory relocation, forced labour, incarceration of political prisoners, religious and ethnic persecution, and the daily destruction of rural villages are all part of the story of savagery that has disfigured Burma.
In his wide-ranging appeal to the new British Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, to re-prioritise humanitarian work in Burma, Bercow reflects that:
Good work is undoubtedly done in Burma by dedicated international public servants and experienced NGOs. Yet the blunt truth is that we are failing the people of Burma. Co-ordination is abysmal, communication with border groups and exile organisations is pitiful and the policy response to the continuing humanitarian crisis is frankly dysfunctional.
In the past, I have posted on other parliamentary efforts in Australia and Britain to argue for change in Burma. Elected representatives from ASEAN and the United States have, at various times, also been active in lobbying for different policies on the country. Some of their efforts have been successful in determining government policies on Southeast Asia’s most controversial country. It obviously remains to be seen whether John Bercow’s arguments will gain any traction with his parliamentary colleagues and, in particular, with the new International Development Secretary.
I will be following any developments closely and will do my best to keep New Mandala readers up-to-date with future changes to the official British approach.
Thanks to David Knezevic for drawing my attention to The Independent’s interesting article.
1 response so far ↓
1 jonfernquest // Jul 28, 2007 at 7:03 am
The actual article itself sounds a lot like they are going to engage with the country:
“its programme must include complementary **in-country** and cross-border approaches to ensure even coverage of the most vulnerable people across the country.”
So there is going to be an in-country portion. That’s great. I don’t think that exists now. The last in-country Magsaysay Prize winner was Luce’s wife in the 1950s. There certainly have been hardworking people in-country who deserve a Magsaysay but they just can’t be seen because there hasn’t been engagement.
“Thirdly, it should begin appropriate funding for exile groups, such as trade unions and women’s organisations, to support them in raising awareness, giving assistance to IDPs and building capacity to prepare for transition to democracy.”
Famous exiles: Aquino, Kim Dae Jung, both ran rear guard actions from outside of the country, probably a lot more effective effective than waiting it out in a closed country with sanctions over its head, the least economically open country in the world at exports 0.01 of GDP, Brazil next at 0.07, the average about 0.22. If you can’t build a civil society inside the country build one outside of it.
Besides the obligatory acknowledgement that the leadership and the country has been very messed up for a long time, the editorial seems a lot more positive than the quoted paragraph.
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.