Obama's Burma overtures

It was amazing to see first-hand and at ground level the major changes that one just reads about in banner headlines or sees on television via the BBC. The openness, candour and energy of the officials I met inspired confidence that change indeed is in the offing for this proud nation.

As a Filipino who was often on the wrong end of police truncheons during martial law and who is old enough to have seen how we meandered toward freedom, I can only wish for the people of Burma that they do not repeat the foolish mistakes we made.

US President Barack Obama said before Asean leaders in Bali last month: “After years of darkness, we’ve seen flickers of progress in these last several weeks” – referring to the release of political prisoners, peace talks with ethnic minority rebels, the first high-level anti-corruption conviction, the cancellation of a hydroelectric project with China and the return of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) to the electoral process.

For sure, America’s engagement is a foreign policy coup for Burma’s leaders, who have long been pariahs for human rights activists the world over. But those who follow the history of US policy in Asia will know it’s not all about American altruism. It’s also about checking the power of China and winning over Burma, which borders China’s southern flank. Thus the recent reforms are most telling.

In September this year, Burma’s government seemed to bow to public pressure – including Suu Kyi’s – and cancelled the Myitsone project sponsored by the Chinese to dam the Irrawaddy River to generate electricity. It would have displaced 10,000 people of the Kachin minority, and submerged historical temples. Junking the project was a powerful statement, both to China and to Burma’s democracy activists. Filipinos should recognise their own struggle against the Bataan Nuclear Plant and Chico Dam. 

 But we should also recognise the differences in Burma’s transition to democracy.

Three great women, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, Hillary Clinton and Suu Kyi, now hold a place in history distinct from the stature of two husbands and a father who had preceded them. Burma should learn to use Suu Kyi’s father Dau Suu’s symbolic power wisely and deliberately. We Filipinos dissipated Cory’s, and allowed her subalterns wantonly to use her name for short-term politics rather than structural changes.

Burma should also see the folly of how we romanticised democracy as merely a procedure for communal decision-making. Democracy is not just about voting and having our votes counted (though the second is problem enough)  it’s about voting wisely. 

We Filipinos thought it was enough to recite the mantra of free elections and the rule of law. Mercifully, Dau Suu’s political party has had more than 20 years to mature, compared to the three years we had between Ninoy’s death and Edsa 1. It shouldn’t squander the momentum and goodwill that it has earned with its decades of sacrifice and which history now brings to its doorstep.