Sad but not unexpected
Inquirer
03 Mar 2010

Filed Under: Foreign affairs & international relations, Diplomacy, Politics, Human Rights Burma’s Supreme Court has just rejected the appeal of democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi against a verdict finding her guilty of violating the rules of her house arrest. The outcome is disappointing but not unexpected. The process was never about the rule of law or justice, and the trial itself was a sham. There was really no reason to think the appeal would be any better.

Aung San Suu Kyi and her two live-in companions were arrested on May 13, 2009 and charged with breaking the rules of her house arrest following the intrusion of American John Yettaw into her compound. From May to July they were placed on trial in a process the UN determined illegal. On Aug. 11, 2009, Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced three years’ hard labor, commuted to an 18-month period of further house arrest, a sentence also imposed on her companions. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the verdict as “further proof that the military regime is determined to act with total disregard for accepted standards of the rule of law and in defiance of international opinion” and wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and fellow UN Security Council members calling for a global arms embargo against Burma. The UK worked with EU partners to impose further targeted EU sanctions in response to the verdict. And Aung San Suu Kyi appealed the verdict.

The Burmese elections planned for later this year present a historic opportunity to reverse Burma’s bitter decline into poverty, stagnation and international isolation. A favorable outcome of Aung San Suu Kyi’s appeal would have been the start of a more optimistic outlook by the international community. That small hope has now been dashed. As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, “I am appalled and saddened that Aung San Suu Kyi’s appeal against the sentence imposed by the regime has been denied. That failed appeal is sadly no surprise. From start to end, the sole purpose of this show trial has been to prevent Daw Suu Kyi from taking part in elections.” If she is kept out of political life and while over 2,100 other prisoners of conscience remain incarcerated, the regime’s elections will not gain recognition nor international legitimacy.

In an open letter to Aung San Suu Kyi in December, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that this should be a historic year for Burma (Myanmar). Free, fair and genuinely inclusive elections would allow the country to move forward, to map a new path. But the generals are motivated by fear: fear that decades of brutality and economic mismanagement will catch up with them; fear that Aung San Suu Kyi will yet again unite Burma’s people in hope for a better future for the country. It is indeed striking that a military government with 400,000 soldiers at its command is afraid of one—albeit remarkable and deeply courageous—individual in her mid-60s. And someone who has been under house arrest for 14 of the last 20 years.

The regime’s fear is misplaced. The greatest threat to stability and security in Burma is the absence of an inclusive political process. Decades of conflict with Burma’s marginalized and excluded ethnic groups put this beyond doubt. In a country like Burma, there can be no national reconciliation, no peace and no prosperity without a political process that engages all sides and holds some prospect of meeting their aspirations.

The UK government will continue to do all it can to press the Burmese regime to engage in such a process and take advantage of the opportunity the election presents to bring reconciliation and prosperity to the people of Burma. I am encouraged by the strong stand the Philippines has taken on the human rights situation in Burma, and its leading role in the Asean in this regard. It demonstrates our two countries’ shared commitment to human rights and democracy for all people.

If there is progress, we stand ready to respond quickly and positively.

(Stephen Lillie is the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the Philippines, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. He was the head of the Far Eastern Group in the Asia Pacific Directorate at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London before coming to the Philippines.)