Buddhist monks, those most pacific of religious people, have marched through the streets of Myanmar's main cities, Yangon and Mandalay, over the past week. They were protesting against years of hardship, gross mismanagement and corruption inflicted on their long-suffering people. Ordinary people joined in, holding hands to form a protective cordon around the monks. The few hundreds swelled to thousands, then to an estimated 100,000.

The demonstrators were a silent reproach not just to the secretive generals who have repressed the country for so long, but also to their main paymasters in Beijing - and to the rest of the world, which has looked away for so long.

There are several burning questions now. The most obvious one is whether the people of Myanmar will get an opportunity to enjoy a measure of freedom after 44 years of military repression. But equally important is whether China can show maturity, wisdom and vision by promoting a peaceful solution to what could easily end in savagery and mass murder. Myanmar's plight is also a test of whether Beijing can be a world leader. So far, the signs are not good.

After days of peaceful demonstrations, the patience of the secretive generals running the country snapped, and they sent in the troops. A whiff of tear gas, shots in the air and beating of monks were followed by tougher stuff: real shots, real deaths, pleas of "Don't shoot your own people." But the military is in no mood to listen or accept a challenge to its rule.

Thanks to modern technology, the rest of the world has been able to watch these events from mobile telephones via the internet. The images were strong enough to catch the notice of the United Nations, that fragile guardian of world peace. The UN  Security Council met to consider what could be done to stop possible bloodshed, and immediately demonstrated its helplessness and incompetence in the face of real threats to international peace. The council urged restraint and sent its envoy to the region.

China, India and Russia led the resistance to any firmer action by singing the tired old tune that what is happening is an internal matter for the people of Myanmar to settle by themselves. Almost equally pathetically, the US and European Union issued empty threats of tightening their sanctions against Myanmar. That has not, and will not, work because China, India, Russia, Singapore, Thailand and others are making money by trading with the generals.

It is especially sad to hear India, the much-vaunted "largest democracy in the world" use the excuse of not getting involved in Myanmar's internal affairs. India's external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee had the cheek to claim that the people of Myanmar must decide about their own government - knowing full well the chance unarmed people have against ruthless military rulers.

When it comes to interference in a country's internal affairs, isn't it gross interference to offer billions of dollars in trade deals and to supply weapons - not to mention millions of dollars in personal bribes - to prop up the military rulers and allow them to repress their people? In this game, India is only a neophyte. Fear of falling behind China in influence in Myanmar prompted New Delhi to give up its previous policy of support for the democracy movement. China is the undoubted leader in propping up Myanmar Military Inc. Official trade between the two nations rose by almost 40 per cent this year; about a million Chinese have settled in Myanmar; and China is the biggest weapons supplier to the country.

Yes, Beijing is right in saying that sanctions will not work. But it would have an immediate, salutary effect if Beijing stopped dealing with the military, which has a stranglehold on all lucrative economic opportunities, including oil and gas, timber, gems and drugs. It is easy to understand why Beijing has taken its position: it is easier to deal with a pliant client state than with a lively democracy. If Beijing encouraged democracy in Myanmar, it might raise questions about China itself.

But now the situation is so serious that it is in Beijing's interest to think the unthinkable. It is not merely that, on the eve of the Beijing Olympics, China does not want to be seen supporting repression and murder. The military in Myanmar has shown itself to be so corrupt and incompetent that it is an embarrassment to China. Instability in the form of drug use and HIV/Aids infections are spreading across the border into China.

Myanmar's military is in stark contrast to the rulers of China. The Chinese Communist Party has the legitimacy of having fought for the country, and of running an economy that has brought great benefits to the masses.

According to Transparency International, Myanmar is now, jointly with Somalia, the most corrupt country in the world. The military rulers have transformed one of the richest and most promising countries into a desert of poverty - except for the oases of plunder and plenty around the military. When the daughter of the junta leader, Senior General Than Shwe, got married in a glittering event last year, the cost was reportedly equal to the country's annual health budget.

Beijing should tell Than Shwe to hold talks with political parties - with a view to elections under UN supervision - or it will stop supplying arms and cutting corrupt deals. The military may be stubborn, but it's probably not stupid enough to think it can fight both China and its own people.

Any new government that emerges would be grateful to Beijing for its wise advice and help. In addition, China would be the principal beneficiary, after the Myanmese people, of a competently run government that would bring a measure of prosperity after years of misery. Better to have a happy and prosperous country on the border than a pariah.

Kevin Rafferty is a political commentator

 

Re: Cries from Myanmar's darkness
I’m writing to respond an article titled as “Cries from Myanmar’s darkness” written Kevin Rafferty (September 29).

 

First of all I want to make my stance clear; what the junta in Myanmar is doing on the monks and the civilians are wrong and it should be condemned in the highest possible term and I strongly support the implement of democracy in this country urged by its own people. However, I don’t agree with the “solution” suggested by Mr. Rafferty.

 

Basically what Mr. Rafferty was trying to say is “China should take more responsibility, lead the world to resolve the crisis happening in Myanmar” (…important is whether China…promoting a peaceful solution… end in savagery and mass murder. Myanmar’s plight is also a test of whether Beijing can be a world leader) and he went on suggested that sanctions would be the solution (it [sanctions] would have an immediate, salutary effect if Beijing stopped dealing with the military…)

 

As an ordinary citizen born and raised in Hong Kong, I don’t have particular affection on CCP and it definitely is not my favorite party. But I don’t think getting China involved too much would help to resolve the crisis. First, I can’t see based on what good reason “China should lead the world and proved that it can be a ‘world leader’”. China, as far as I know, wants to be perceived as having a “peaceful rise”, instead of an “aggressive rise”. It is therefore understandable that Beijing is reluctant to interfere with another country’s affairs which Beijing classifies as “internal”. Isn’t it funny when people want to see China’s “peaceful rise” and at the same time expect it to take the role of “world police”? Is China legitimate in playing such a big role? Shouldn’t the responsibility be more on the shoulder of the United Nations?

 

Second, I don’t think sanctions would do much help to solve the problem so to have an “immediate, salutary effect”. Yes, I’m sure sanctions leads to the junta lose lots of money which is what support the purchase of weapons. But can it be possible in near future? I don’t think so. The deadly military crack-down is happening right now and there is no evidence showing that the junta is in lack of weapons of any sort. What’s the point of sanctions other than telling the junta they are morally wrong? In fact, I strongly believe that if sanctions are imposed on all the exportable products in Myanmar, the harm it brings would be far more than the benefits the Burmese get. The reason is simple; it is probably true that over 90% of the loss from sanctions would be on the junta's side, but they are also simply too ridiculously wealthy that there won't be ANY immediate damage. However, the less than 10% loss on another side, the still-surviving merchant, is good enough to make their lives more miserable.

 

Moreover, there is still one possiblity: even there are sanctions, it is just an IDEAL that the trading would then just halt. If these 2 countries are so corrupt that as Mr. Rafferty stated in the article, I'm sure people from both countries would find their ways around the sanctions, such as smuggle. And then the junta would probably ask the Chinese to pay more for the goods because they now are bearing more risks. Is this scenario possible?

 

Third, when I was reading this sentence written by Mr. Rafferty “When it comes to the interference in a country’s internal affairs, isn’t it gross interference to offer billions of dollars in trade deals and to supply weapons…to prop up the military rulers and allow them to repress their people”, I personally feel that this is an accusation towards all the countries who import any goods from Myanmar. Let’s imagine a scenario, a pedophile (assuming a man) has a sick habit of taking pictures and video record the kids, do we blame his boss who pay him the salaries every month so he gets the money needed to buy the equipment? Obviously the answer is NO. It’s just a normal practice that you pay for something if you want to buy it from a person and this is how the trade works! It is ONLY that the way the person spend the money can be justified, not the way he/she gets the money.

 

Fourth, the sentence “…it is easier [for China] to deal with a pliant client state than with a lively democracy. If Beijing encouraged democracy in Myanmar, it might raise questions about China itself.” really annoyed me. So what is it now that China trading with the countries such as United States, Britain, France etc. Is he implying that all these countries are not actually democratic enough? In fact, though I support the urge of democracy in Myanmar, I don’t think it’s the panacea nor it’s the only way out. I mean look at how democracy works in those countries in Africa and look at how people think about their Sultan in Brunei.

 

Last but not least, though I hold some very different opinions against Mr. Rafferty, I do agree with him that Beijing (and also other countries in the region) should encourage talks between Than Shwe and the political parties (though I don’t know how influential these parties are) with a view to elections under UN supervision.

 

May the peace comes to the soil of Myanmar soon.