• 
• 

Published on September 24, 2007

However, a few days in Washington DC demonstrated that a sudden shift of attention could happen at any time. Washington-based diplomats usually agree that US officials in the capitol have a short attention span. But it will be different this time round because the world's most powerful couple, President George W Bush and Laura Bush, have their eyes fixed on Burma as well.

Reports and hundreds of photos of the peaceful protests by Buddhist monks in the past week were seen and discussed by the powerful couple at the White House. Bush has renewed his call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Apparently, the president is willing to do more bilaterally and internationally to bring pressure to bear on Burma. His wife has already become a tireless and gracious campaigner in the effort to promote women's rights in Burma, as well as Afghanistan.

Last week, Ibrahim Gambari, the UN special envoy for Burma, called for a unified global approach during his briefing to the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC). He said the latest events were a clear setback for Burma. He also expressed concern for those in detention, especially those on a hunger strike and said he hoped that the junta would heed worldwide calls for their release, as well as that of all political prisoners. He urged the international community to persevere.

For outsiders watching the drama unfolding in Burma, there are many questions. How long must the country wait for the international community? Does the resolution of the political turmoil there depend on the amount of blood spilled on the streets? Has the UN learned a lesson from its handling of the Darfur crisis?

Among diplomats in Washington, two schools of thought prevail concerning Burma's present crisis. The first group supports a more biting resolution at the UN to further isolate the country, while the second group prefers an incremental approach that everybody - including China and Russia, Burma's biggest supporters on the UNSC - would eventually accept.

Despite their differences, both groups agree that the UNSC's hands-on and sustainable engagement of the Burmese junta is pivotal to breaking the current impasse there. It remains to be seen whether there is enough time to persevere, as Gambari suggested. After all, it has been nearly two decades since the regime in Rangoon took over and began systemically oppressing the Burmese people.

Obviously, many are anxious to see whether the monks' protest will spread throughout the country and be sustainable. Violence and carnage could result if street tensions continue. If that were to happen, a blame game would begin. Diplomats over here talked about how the international community must stand, ready to extend a helping hand. Unfortunately, Burma today is surrounded by other troubled countries with problems of their own.

Thailand is still under the spell of the coup. As a frontline state for Asean, Bangkok has all but lost its moral authority to have a positive influence on the current political developments in Burma. Bangladesh is no different from Thailand. The whole country has been focused on political conflicts and mammoth domestic problems. Only China and India can make a difference.

The US-led effort to further isolate and punish Burma through a UNSC-sponsored resolution has made little headway. When it was last introduced, the resolution was vetoed. A similar resolution this time would draw the wrath of China and Russia. It would instead be preferable for the US to engage these two council members and keep the debate on Burma alive on the agenda.

Quite a few Western diplomats advocate this strategy, arguing that any way out for Burma would require China's cooperation. It is better to have council members discussing the Burma situation regularly with some benchmarks to pursue. Over time, these diplomats hope, additional pressure would be placed on Burma's backers in the absence of progress in the country.

Beijing has showed its diplomatic shrewdness by encouraging Burma to accelerate its democratic roadmap. Trying to emulate the success of efforts to put pressure on China over the Darfur crisis by linking it to next year's Olympics in Beijing, Western campaigners on Burma are now highlighting China-Burma relations, which could hit Beijing's international standing.

Interestingly, the current Burma debate also dwells on the growing concern of the aloofness of the world's largest democracy. Obviously, New Delhi's influence is no match to that of China but its seeming indifference over the trauma on its eastern flank has had the immediate effect of diverting pressure away from China, at least for the time being. It is also possible US-India ties could be affected if Bush decides to take the matter up with India and is met with the same attitude.

Asean has been unusually quiet on the ongoing protests in Burma, as it is trying to wrap up drafting of the Asean charter. Asean foreign ministers will put their stamp on the charter this week in New York before it is forwarded to their leaders. The Burmese situation is high on the agenda of the scheduled meeting on Thursday between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Asean foreign ministers.

The international community has the option to act now with the UN. Events since 1988 have shown beyond any doubt that the Burmese people want change. A failure to bring about greater democracy will certainly encourage the Rangoon regime to continue to oppress their people because so far their leaders have got away scot-free.

 Kavi Chongkittavorn