While it is still too early to know if the moves by the Burmese government toward democratisation and social justice signal a permanent shift in policy, clearly there is reason to be optimistic. Burma staged its first general election in 20 years on Nov 7, bringing to power a pro-military but ostensibly civilian government led by ex-general President Thein Sein. Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest a week later. She has since met President Thein Sein to discuss reconciliation measures and had positive things to say about the meeting. Last week, Burma released 6,359 prisoners, including 220 political prisoners. There is much justified criticism that nearly 2,000 political prisoners remain incarcerated. Yet these developments are an indication that the new government realises the futility of trying to cling to power in isolation from the rest of the world. However, no one can doubt that the real work lies ahead.
One of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, obstacles to reconciliation is that the populace of the country is so diverse. While the repression under various military dictatorships in past decades can never be excused, it must be admitted that the task of integrating so many different ethnic groups under one national identity isn't easy. There are altogether more than 130 minorities in the country and eight major ethnic groups, most of which maintain armed militias either under ceasefire agreements with the government or engaged in active hostilities.
In the past and continuing into the present, the Burmese army has selectively targetted certain ethnic groups with systematic human rights violations that include including forced labour, rape, torture, extra-judicial killings and forced relocations. Until this is stopped it cannot be said that Burma is ready to rejoin the international community.
At the same time, the hopeful signs coming out of Naypyidaw should not be dismissed or derided. It is a difficult situation for the international community, one that can only really be improved by positive steps for ethnic groups in the area of human rights. President Thein Sein made a public offer of peace to the armed ethnic minority resistance groups, inviting them to join in Border Guard Force under the control of the Burmese army, but most of the groups have eyed this proposal with suspicion.
Aung Lynn Htut is a former Burmese counter-intelligence officer who sought political asylum in Washington in 2005. In an opinion piece for the Irrawaddy online magazine he argues for equal treatment for all ethnic armed groups, and says the new government is following the policy of the old regime in clashing with ethnic armed groups in Kachin, Karen and Shan states, while at the same time conducting negotiations with two armed groups which have influence inside China, the Wa and Akha militias.
Even with the best of intentions it is doubtful the government could bring about peace and reconciliation with all the various groups. Unfortunately there is no real reason to assume that these are the government's intentions, but regardless, it may be possible to establish United Nations-brokered peace negotiations. Considering the ''Balkanised'' makeup of Burma and the prevalence of armed ethnic militias, coupled with the long history of bad blood, it seems extremely unlikely that reconciliation will come about without an international presence.
Realistically it seems a long shot that the government would agree to any such arrangement, but clearly the UN and the international community do have leverage inside the country. For one, it is obvious that the government desires the removal of sanctions placed on Burma by the West. Just as important is the threat of international prosecution of Burmese government figures past and present. In a report to the UN's Human Rights Commission (HRC) in early 2010, Tomas Quintana, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to Burma, called for convening an international court of inquiry to look into possible crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma. Neither the HRC nor the UN Security Council have acted on the recommendation, but there is a great deal of evidence compiled by human rights groups that might be brought forth in such an inquiry. If the new government were made to understand that this would be a likely development if they don't show their commitment to democratisation in general and reconciliation with ethnic minorities in particular, it might yield the desired results.