Day: January 14, 2012
Burma gets real, but how real?
There can be no doubting the significance of Burma’s moves in the past day or two: a massive release of amnestied political prisoners and a ceasefire with Karen ethnic insurgents. There have already been some smaller prisoner releases and cancellation of a Chinese-built dam, which was the subject of local protests. Elections for a limited number of parliamentary seats are scheduled for April 1. Aung San Suu Kyi, a political prisoner for decades, has agreed that her political party will participate.
A military junta has run Burma for almost 50 years. It was only in March that the junta turned over some authority to a “civilian” government. The current president, Thein Sein, spent his entire career embedded in the autocratic regime, mainly as a military officer. Among other distinctions, he ran the much criticized relief effort after Cyclone Nargis in 2008.
Thein Sein seems to have the backing of the generals for a dramatic shift in Burma’s course, one that has already elicited from the United States a Secretary of State visit and an intention to name an ambassador. There has been none in Burma since 1990, in protest of military regime policies, but the embassy remains open under a Chargé d’Affaires.
I am not a great believer in brilliant diplomatic strokes. Most seem that way only in retrospect. Diplomacy is usually a long, hard slog. When the full story is told, this one too may turn out to be more Sisyphean than Herculean.
But I still can’t help but note the incredible difference with what is going on today in Syria or Yemen (and what went on previously in Libya). The Burmese autocratic leadership, after many years of using brutal repression, has decided to go in a different direction. The Middle East would look very different today if Bashar al Assad and Ali Abdullah Saleh had decided likewise before it was too late. Burma has at least an opportunity now to go down the well-trodden Asian road to a more open political system. South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia and others have achieved democratic reform and improved economic prosperity without violent revolution.
Still, it is not clear how far the Burmese generals intend things to go. Are they opening up the system in a way that will lead to their own loss of power? Or is this an effort to open a restricted space for civilian political competition and governance, with the generals keeping at least control of security and foreign policy? How will they react to efforts to establish accountability for past abuses of human rights? What if it proves difficult to extend the ceasefire with the Karen and other ethnic groups into political settlements? Some of the political prisoners released yesterday had been released years ago, only to be re-arrested. Could it happen again?
What is happening in Burma is real, but just how real is not yet clear.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Violence answers the wrong question
People will ask, so I’ll answer: the efforts by Albin Kurti’s “Self-determination” to block road crossings between Serbia and Kosovo are violent and unacceptable. The Pristina authorities are right to counter it with their police forces. They should do it professionally to minimize injuries, but they need to do it. Albanians are no more justified in blocking roads than Serbs in northern Kosovo were several weeks ago.
Why is this happening? It is happening because Albin sees votes in it. He has staked out a position in Kosovo politics that includes sharply contesting Serbia at every turn, advocating union with Albania and rejecting the internationally imposed Ahtisaari plan under which Kosovo gained independence. He is entitled to take all these positions, with which I disagree. But he is not entitled to physically challenge the Kosovo authorities.
I have talked with Albin about this and many other issues. I have even pressed for the State Department to give him a visa to come to the U.S., where he would hear from a lot more people like me who think he is doing the wrong things. He wants the visa. But he isn’t going to get one until he stops the violence.
There likely isn’t much chance of that until the people of Kosovo make it clear that violence does not win their votes. Even then, Albin may be so addicted that he will continue, but hopefully associates will rein him in. They would do best to start now, before this ends in tragedy.
The right question for Kosovars today is not how they can best fight Serb oppressors, but how they can best govern themselves. Even in its current democratized form, Serbia has not made that an easy question to answer: it has refused to recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty and independence, to withdraw its security forces from the north and to allow Kosovo’s authorities to control the border. But those are issues that need to be solved by negotiation, not violent challenges to Kosovo’s legitimate authorities.
That said, Albin and Self-determination are products of the Kosovo political system. So long as they forswear violence, they are entitled to participate and press their perspective. But they won’t be helping to govern Kosovo the way it should be governed. Voters will have to decide whether to reward them, or not.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Algeria: hoping for reform, not revolution
I missed parts of Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci’s presentation this morning at CSIS–urgent phone calls kept me out at the beginning and the end. But the overall tone was clear: Arab spring in Algeria will bring reform, not revolution.
The minister’s list of planned reforms included:
- the percentage of women in parliament will rise from the current 7% to 30%,
- judges (rather than the government) will run the spring elections,
- there are over 70 newspapers,
- radio and TV will be open to the private sector for investment in 2012,
- there will be increased transparency, economic and political freedom.
He was vague about reforms in the hydrocarbon sector and in the economy more generally. He also justified the rapid rise of imports as necessary to building infrastructure.
Asked about a possible Islamist victory in the elections, the minister said he was certain the military would respect the election results. He also noted that in accordance with the 2005 constitution, approved in a referendum, “those responsible Algeria’s tragedy” would not be allowed back into political life.
Big on non-intervention in internal affairs, the minister claimed Algeria is developing good relations with the new authorities in Libya and has improved relations with Morocco. On Syria, he noted that the Algerian who resigned as an Arab League human rights monitor came from civil society, not the government. Noting some cooperation from the Syrian government and some arming of the opposition, he thought the Arab League should continue its efforts with a view to a political resolution of the crisis.
RSS - Posts
