2009 Myanmar/Burma Update Conference
Coombs Lecture Theatre
Australian National University
17-18 August 2009
Background
Significant changes in Myanmar/Burma since 2007 mask a situation that seems superficially to be "more of the same". The adoption of a new constitution through a referendum conducted under questionable arrangements in May 2008 restores a form of legal governance for the first time since 1988. Elections at both the nation-wide and regional level, scheduled to take place in 2010 for the first time since 1990, purport to restore participative government. This will represent another challenge for the citizens of Myanmar and, in a different sense, for the international community.
The military regime, the State Peace and Development Council, not only maintains its tight grip on power, but since 2007 has if anything reduced the space in which its authority can be contested and challenged. A new crackdown against political opponents during 2008, apparently aimed at weakening opposition groups before the elections, has resulted in a higher number of political prisoners than at any other time in the modern period. Moreover, the military government has not been seriously challenged by the various campaigns by its political opponents inside and outside the country, including the new array of sanctions (imposed outside the United Nations) since the 2007 crackdown against civil protests. Those UN Security Council members supporting Myanmar maintain that support, even though during 2008 they occasionally urged the military regime to cooperate more fully with the United Nations, as the UN looked increasingly impotent in dealing with the problem of Myanmar/Burma.
The major humanitarian disaster caused by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 prompted greater international focus on assistance issues and provided an opportunity for both the regime and the international community to review their positions. For the first time ever, the UN Secretary General visited Myanmar in July 2008, although his visit deliberately concentrated on the humanitarian crisis and avoided major political issues. However, the Myanmar regime's insistence on controlling humanitarian assistance jarred strongly with international donors, whose generosity was significantly dampened by what they saw as evidence the military leadership's disregard of the plight of their own people. Some of the negative reactions to the regime's response can be attributed to the international media who were irritated by their lack of free access to Myanmar and the affected area, and were consequently inclined to see the regime's actions in almost entirely negative terms. Greater media freedom by the regime would certainly have resulted in more nuanced reporting.
The cyclone coincided with a debate in the United Nations about the 'responsibility to protect', and some such as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, used the Myanmar/Burma case to justify forcible intervention, but to no avail at that time. But is this an appropriate response to the situation faced in Myanmar/Burma? What conditions should be met when humanitarian crises occur but effective governance cannot be assured? When Myanmar's fellow members of ASEAN stepped forward to provide significant political leadership in managing the cyclone recovery efforts, the regime cooperated extensively with this exercise during 2008 without receiving much credit for this among the wider international donor community. Ultimately, the regime was ultimately its own worst enemy on international assistance, as on many other matters.
What should be the role of international assistance in the case of Myanmar/Burma? How far should it go in seeking to underpin the fundamental livelihood of the people, enhance their basic food security, and help them withstand and recover from future natural disasters To what extent should it seek to influence broader socio-economic conditions outside the purely humanitarian area? In what ways and through which organisations can assistance be most effectively delivered without providing unintended support for the military regime?
The lack of transparency, lack of legitimacy, and lack of integrity of the regime in Myanmar raise profound questions about broader governance in Myanmar/Burma not only about the role of international assistance. To what extent, if any, do the return to constitutional government and the anticipated 2010 election followed by the partial transfer of power to civilian representatives raise prospects for improved governance in Myanmar? Are they steps, albeit small, towards some genuine change or merely towards more of the same? What sort of interventions at this time could realistically effect more far-reaching and durable improvements?"
A striking feature of the SPDC's ongoing authoritarian socio-political controls remains the extraordinary secrecy with which the military leadership continues to cloak its own political intentions. The public does not know what kind of accommodation, if any, is to be forged between the military leadership and non-military elements. There is still no process of political negotiation, which means that any outcome is unlikely to command credible legitimacy or wider support. There is no sign of any political compromise that might acknowledge some legitimate interests of the military while allowing greater participation by non-military representatives.
How the military authorities envisage managing the transition to a new arrangement for political and legal governance is not clear. Myanmar has almost no experience of participative responsible government; little acquaintance with the consultative processes that might help achieve more open forms of governance; and equally little practice of implementing accountability systems to assist in introducing more dispersed forms of governance. What steps can be taken gradually to establish the rule of law and the proper functioning of the judiciary? How can improvements be introduced ahead of wider political and social reforms, in the interests of better protecting the people's rights in the short term? Meanwhile, Myanmar/Burma continues to stagnate economically and socially, worsening quality of life for ordinary Burmese. Internal security remains somewhat fragile, but while no real threats to state unity and stability are in evidence, security and unity remain the dominant regime concerns.
These are the main themes that will be covered in the 2009 Myanmar/Burma Update. In format, the Update Conference differs from an academic studies conference in having a single program with a selected but limited number of presentations, in its explicit focus on contemporary issues and trying to provide an analysis of recent developments, and in its stronger emphasis on the policy implications of these developments.
Call for Papers
Each Update Conference seeks papers from scholars and other analysts significantly engaged over the course of the pervious period within Burma, on the issues upon which the Update is focusing. Scholars and analysts are invited to submit proposals for papers on the suggested topics as well as for the political and economic update segments Proposals should be between 600 and 1,000 words in length and should be sent by 1 April 2009, along with a brief cv, to:
Monique.Skidmore@canberra.edu.au
Trevor.Wilson@anu.edu.au
Nicholas.Cheesman@anu.edu.au
Proposals for papers should outline the content, structure and conclusions of the paper, the scope of research envisaged, and should relate clearly to the issues set out in this background paper. Proposals for the political and economic update papers should identify the key issues and trends they propose to cover.
A selection panel of conference organisers will decide which proposals to accept and will invite the scholars selected to present their papers to the August 2009 conference. The organisers reserve the right to solicit papers from recognised scholars who may not have submitted proposals, if this is desirable for the overall balance and coverage of the Update. Each paper for presentation at the conference should be from 5,000 to 8,000 words in length and should be submitted no later than 30 days before the conference. Decisions on successful proposals will be communicated to scholars by 15 April 2009.
Joint Conveners
Monique Skidmore, Adjunct Professor, College of Arts and Social Sciences, ANU: Dean of Communications and International Studies, University of Canberra
Email: Monique.Skidmore@canberra.edu.au
Trevor Wilson, Visiting Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, ANU,
Email: Trevor.Wilson@anu.edu.au.
Nicholas Cheesman, PhD Candidate, Department of Political and Social Change, ANU,
Email: Nicholas.Cheesman@anu.edu.au
