A number of people have got in touch to make sure I don’t fail to mention an article in Tuesday’s The Guardian. In this much emailed piece, Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy take aim at Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent performance. Over on the Guardian’s website it has already sparked a wide-ranging debate. There are some fiery contributions. The final flourish, for those wanting a taste of “Not such a hero after all” (which, by the way, strikes me as an odd title), is:
Instead of waiting the junta out, and turning its back, the party [the National League for Democracy] and its leader would have to begin engaging with its enemies as well as its friends. With any one, in fact, with whom it could form a dialogue. But when it comes to leaders, some in the party are asking whether it is it time to move on from Aung San Suu Kyi.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Ben Bland // Nov 12, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Hi Nicholas – I’ve just come across your blog, which looks like a welcome addition to my daily online trawl.
The Guardian piece is thought-provoking although it strikes me as pursuing iconoclasm for its own sake. The real problem is not with Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership skills but with the unreasonable expectations that have been put on her by Burmese and international activists.
In the binary view of many journalists and Western Burma activists, the junta can only lead to the destruction of Burma while Aung San Suu Kyi represents the sole route to national salvation.
But, in reality, the main challenge that Burma faces is the fact that it is a country without a functioning state apparatus (save for the Army), as depicted by Mary P. Callahan. A simple change of regime, even if it were to happen in a peaceful and orderly manner, would not even begin resolve many of the country’s issues.
Because Aung San Suu Kyi has been represented in the West as an almost goddess-like, Gandhi/Dalai Lama-esque celebrity peace activist, far too much is expected of her. That is not, however, through any fault of her own.
2 aiontay // Nov 12, 2008 at 11:43 pm
As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. For those critical of ASSK and her approach, please explain exactly with whom there is to be dialogue. Ne Win? Saw Maung? Than Shwe?
The reason there is no state structure in Burma is because the military systematically removed it, unlike Indonesia. I think Jon Fernquest said it best:
“Please study the “Burmese Way to Socialism” which eventually became the “Burmese Way to Present Deplorable Human Rights State of Burma” with no dissent allowed at all.”
How does that allow for dialogue?
3 Hla Oo // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:34 am
Bulls eye! The Guardian article is dead right spot on.
There were two crucial points in the recent time line of Burmese politics. In 1988, U Nu, Ex-general Aung Gyi, and ASSK collectively squandered the rare and only opportunity to lead Burma out of doldrums while the army was on its knees just after the sudden collapse of Ne Win’s Socialist government and aftermath of a massive popular uprising where many thousands of lives were lost.
The dialogues with the army were publicly offered later to the ASSK and NLD before Than Shwe led SLORC becoming self-assured of itself with the policy about turn of China and its massive support, but NLD has chosen to fight head on than negotiate with the only surving institution, aka army, in Burma.
By trying to isolate the army and also the country by morally and politically authorizing the economic and political sanctions by the West where she is extremely popular, ASSK led NLD has played itself miserably into the brutal and calculated hands of Mad Generals.
4 burin buranasin // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm
What about the other lady in Thailand? Some comment should be in order.
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.