Sir, You rightly condemn the regime in Burma (leading article, October 24). A peaceful, largely Buddhist, population has been cowed by an apparently well-armed and murderous regime. General Ne Win’s coup d’etat in 1962, followed in the four decades since by imprisonments without trial, repression of professionals, intellectuals, and those needed for a country to be governed and to thrive, was a slower moving, but no less dangerous, form of social engineering than that tried by Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Where has such a pariah state been able to buy the arms which are used to terrorise the population? The answer is, I believe, from China, which has in turn stripped the country of natural resources and, through trade, helped those in power to fill their bank accounts.
British governments have, from time to time, said supportive things of Aung San Suu Kyi, and have been critical of the regime. But they have actually done nothing. The contrast with Iraq is startling. With far too great haste after the killings in Tiananmen Square the West encouraged ever closer economic relations with China, without stipulating, and enforcing, a total withdrawal from all dealings with the Burmese junta.
The West’s current focus on a kindly pacifist with little political experience, and the simplistic assertion made that there exists a “democratically elected alternative” to the junta, ignores the passage of time since that election (15 years), and the vast effort required to re-educate, and remotivate, what remains of the once most literate population in Asia.
The international community should unite for Burma, and for the overthrow of the regime, in the same way and, using the same means, that it did against apartheid in South Africa.
TIMOTHY DUTTON
London EC4
Sir, As anyone who has travelled extensively in South-East Asia knows, corruption is rife, fabulous wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few who support the governing elite and voter turnout is generally uninspiring. In the developing world, elections are held to satisfy the West’s obsession with democracy, thereby ensuring that the country that holds “free” plebsicites is entitled to greater development funding from the World Bank. Aung San Suu Kyi would be far more effective should she, like the Dalai Lama, go into exile and travel tirelessly around the globe to raise Burma’s profile.
M. SIDDIQUE
London SW10
Sir, Following the lead of the US, the British Government has now agreed to support discussions on Burma at the UN Security Council. However, it has so far refused to put Burma on the agenda itself, or work with other council members to ensure the nine votes required.
As a permanent member of the council, Britain is in a strong position to build support. Instead, the Government stands idle, waiting for someone else to take the initiative. Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma’s democrats deserve better. Britain must take the initiative and put Burma on the agenda now.
MARK FARMANER
(Campaigns Manager, Burma Campaign UK)
London N1
Sir, Though the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi is quite intolerable, and though I support Security Council intervention in Burma, her party, the National League for Democracy, won 80.82 per cent of the seats in the 1990 elections, not 80 per cent of the vote. The actual vote for the NLD was 52.44 per cent (valid and invalid votes cast). In terms of all eligible voters, it was only 38.11 per cent.
DEREK TONKIN
(Ambassador to Thailand, 1986-89)
Guildford, Surrey
Sir, As long as Aung San Suu Kyi is alive the generals will not sleep easily at night. It is a miracle that she has been able to keep her party in being, despite near-Stalinist conditions. Keep up the pressure and something is bound to give, as the economy worsens, not so much because of sanctions as the ineptitude of the Government.
Meanwhile, do not forget the plight of the Burmese people. Humanitarian aid is being stepped up, quite rightly provided it can be delivered without being siphoned off by the military. Aung San Suu Kyi is particularly concerned about the breakdown of the education system, starved of money and heavily censored. She explicitly supports Prospect Burma, a non-political education charity which tries to help to fill the gap by enabling young Burmese to obtain degrees abroad.
MARTIN MORLAND
(Ambassador to Burma, 1986-90)
London SW6