Since Vaclav Havel and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have called on the UN Security Council to take action on the Burma issue, it seems the heat’s really starting to turn up on the junta. The US is also pushing for the Security Council to put Burma on the agenda during the next month. The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar (Burma) Caucus has also called on ASEAN to increase pressure on the junta to implement democratic reforms - and to suspend its membership if progress is not made within a year. Even a Thai Senator, Kraisak Choonhaven, stated that the relinquishment of the 2006 ASEAN chairmanship “heralded the start of further action against the generals”. (Watch out Mr. Thaksin, a senator supporting sanctions against Burma might lead to an epidemic of people following their own conscience instead of government rhetoric.) One could almost feel as if we are reaching a turning point in the crisis.

This sudden attention and increase in pressure from the international community, however, has been met by an apparent increase in cooperation from Burma’s neighbors. General Thura Shwe Mann, likely the SPDC’s third in command, is currently in Dhaka for a three day visit to discuss bilateral economic cooperation with Bangladesh. On the discussion table officially is the tri-nation gas pipeline, the Dhaka-Rangoon highway, and bilateral trade. (Unofficially, though, activists suspect he’s there to discuss a cooperative crackdown on insurgents in the border region.) China continues to aid the junta’s mission to rape and pillage the country’s resources. Thailand is clinging to its ‘Open Door’ policy on Burma, even going so far as to criticise the US for its sanctions. In the last year Thailand has pushed plans to go ahead with hydroelectric dams on the Salween river, purchased shares in offshore oil fields, and deported thousands of refugees back to Burma. But since certain politicians seem to have a hard time telling the difference between capitalism and democracy, perhaps that’s what Thailand’s Foreign Minister, Kantathi Supamongkon, was talking about when he said Bangkok’s engagement was “hastening the achievement of democracy in the military-run country”.

The minister was kind enough to downplay any potential ideological conflict with the US, saying, “Different countries have different approaches. We don’t have a problem with that, But the goal is the same.” Mai pen lai, na? Actually, Mr. Suphamongkon, I think those of us in the real world do have a problem with that. If two entities share the same goal, but take paths which directly contradict and impede the other, then there is definitely a problem, especially given the consequences of failure in this instance.

The ‘engagement vs. sanctions’ debate between Thailand and the US, raises some issues in need of consideration, though. ‘Engagement’ almost sounds like a good idea, and might even work for some countries, but in Burma it will only play into the hands of the generals and their macabre king-of-the-hill game, a fact that should be obvious to anyone who knows what’s going on there. But the fact also remains that sanctions alone will not bring democracy to Burma. Sanctions should be maintained, if only to stem the destruction of the environment and natural resources for the sake of future generations, but without cooperation from Burma’s neighbors, sanctions are a severely limited political tool.

But hopefully, wishfully, getting Burma on the UN security council agenda will be a step in the right direction. Because it feels like the crisis is reaching critical mass. The junta is making claims that it will have the new constitution drafted in a matter of months, and that a referendum will be held by the end of the year. A friend, who speaks Burmese, informed me that during a BBC radio interview, NLD leaders within Burma said that they would respect the result of the election. NLD leaders in exile claimed they would not. Obviously, I don’t know the details of the questions, but having a disagreement over such an issue is a pretty big deal. The constitution drafting process hasn’t exactly been a model of transparency, and despite the fact that there are token representatives from all the cease-fire groups, I think its pretty obvious that the document will be written with a mind towards securing the Junta’s own power and well-being. In one form or another. It’s simply not realistic to expect that the junta could oversee a fair voting process. There are rumours that Gen. Than Shwe will retire to become ‘President for Life’ under the new constitution. Perhaps the NLD leaders in Burma are optimistic that the constitution will not pass. It poses an interesting dilemma - do people vote yes on a dodgy constitution in the expectation that it might change things, or to vote no on principle and be left with the junta claiming the nation doesn’t want democracy?

The junta knows the rules to this game, and they fully intend to manipulate this situation to their advantage. The Thai Foreign Minister seems to think the imminent finalization of the constitution is a good sign. He obviously has more faith in the murdering despots than I do. How can a constitution drafted in secrecy, by a military government and non-democratically elected state representatives pave the way to democratic reform?

The junta seems to think this constitution farce is the event of the century, having expressed the sentiment that 2006 is going to be a pivotal year for Burma. It could be pivotal, I believe, but whether the tide turns in the favor of democracy or not remains to be seen. The international community definitely cannot afford to wait and see what happens. The referendum could turn out to be nothing but another stunt, neither strengthening nor weakening the junta, but if played right by the resistance, it could also prove to be an opportunity to intervene. The international community and the UN needs to give a serious think about its strategy in this situation; that is, a different and coordinated strategy. What if the Security Council doesn’t consider the issue? What if they don’t take action? It would be a disappointing testament to the efficacy of the UN, and I think the opposition movements would have to reconsider their own strategy in light of how much and what kind of support they can realistically expect from the international community.

Heat Turned up on Burma as UN General Assembly Meets

US to Push Again for UN Security Council Debate on Burma

Thai Foreign Minister Criticises US Policy on Burma

Groups must complete the constitutional convention