 Print This Story  E-mail This Story
Resistance, Not Repression, Is the Real Story From Burma
By Cynthia Boaz
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 09 October 2007
Note: the events within Burma described below come from a member of
the exiled pro-democracy leadership of Burma 8888. This individual is now deeply
involved in the current movement's strategizing and communications, and is in
regular contact both with groups on the Thai-Burma border and within the country.
Because of the sensitive nature of his work, he has asked to remain anonymous.
With the junta now claiming that they've found weapons caches in Buddhist monasteries,
signs are that the regime in Burma is becoming more intent on discrediting the
pro-democracy movement which, thus far, appears to have done an impressive job
of maintaining nonviolent discipline in their resistance against one of the
most heavily armed and repressive security forces in the world.
In contrast to the junta's claims of "normalcy" and "restored
stability," sources inside Burma are telling some extraordinary stories
of ongoing resistance over the past several days. These forms of resistance
represent several categories of nonviolent tactics, and they serve as further
support for the thesis that the uprising in Burma is more than a spontaneous
series of protests by a few disgruntled students and monks. Some of these tactics
include the following:
- Pro-democracy groups are reporting that on Sunday morning, three large posters
appeared on various sites around Rangoon. The one placed outside of the notorious
Insein Prison attacked the regime's well-known record of corruption and said
(translated from Burmese): "If you have money, it is a heaven
in prison. [With] no money, it is a hell. We [the regime] welcome bribes! Corruption
is everywhere under military rule." A second sign at the park
where the Capital Building is located said: "Father, General Aung
San! Although you built Burmese army to fight for independence, now they are
killing our people! Although you brought military technology and knowledge,
they arrest innocent people! They rape our country. Father General Aung San!
Please come back and teach your army to be polite." (General
Aung San is widely considered the symbol of Burmese independence, and is the
late father of National League for Democracy Leader, Aung Sun Suu Kyi. He and
six of his Cabinet ministers were killed in 1947 during a paramilitary raid
on the capital.) And yet, a third poster on an "independence monument"
(erected by the current regime to honor themselves) in the capital city said
to the people of Burma: "Remember! This is a fake independent
monument. Are we really free?" This set of actions falls into
the category of nonviolent protest and persuasion, and is intended to demonstrate
to a larger audience - the population, the international community and the regime
particularly - that the resistance represents, at its core, an unwillingness
to remain complicit in the "lie" that all is normal on the streets
of Rangoon.
- Additionally, on Friday in Mandalay, the movement leadership proclaimed a
three-day vigil of prayers in honor of the Buddhist monks who had been killed
or injured by the regime. A pro-democracy activist in contact with movement
leaders in the country reports that, "After people engaged in a 'Silent
Protest' the whole night, some people left 'coffins' at downtown. On the coffins
is the name 'Than Shwe.'" (Shwe is the head of the ruling junta.) This
tactic can be considered a form of non-cooperation with the regime's insistence
on maintaining an appearance of "life as usual." It is a sign individual
citizens - acting collectively - are withdrawing their consent to be controlled,
in this case, by signaling that moral authority lies with the monks, not the
regime.
- Meanwhile, citizen journalists, possibly emboldened by other signs of resistance
as well as daily rumors of cracks in the ranks among soldiers, have reportedly
begun submitting lists of names of military commanders, soldiers and informers
to the Democratic Voice of Burma. The lists, said to be provided by witnesses
to the repression, include names of who has done the shooting, who is doing
the arrests and who is passing information about protests on to the junta leadership.
Movement leaders say they hope this direct accountability (and lack of anonymity)
for those carrying out orders against the people of Burma will have the effect
of making the generals and their security forces "understand how hated
[this regime is] by the people, and will [cause them to] hesitate to commit
more cruel torture and oppression." This kind of tactic, which falls into
the category of nonviolent intervention, can have the effect of upsetting the
normal flow of life by confounding or frustrating its targets.
- And still, the "silent protests" are ongoing, amid excited talk
spreading its way through the country that Air Pagan, owned by Tay Za, son-in-law
of General Shwe, has closed down. Movement leaders credit the closing of the
airline to two simultaneous sources of pressure: a boycott led by pro-democracy
groups around the globe and the visa ban placed on the regime and its supporters.
This additional form of non-cooperation, being applied by Burmese exiles and
pro-democracy supporters outside of the country, is yet another point of pressure
on the regime, and is an encouraging sign the movement may also be having some
efficacy in undermining some of the economic pillars of support for the regime.
In any struggle for rights or freedom, a critical variable for a movement's
survival is its ability to adapt, to continue to come up with new and creative
tactics that keep the oppressor on notice, and remind the people the will to
resist is shared by their neighbors and countrymen. Observers of nonviolent
resistance will sometimes point to extreme use of violence by a regime as evidence
against a movement's potential success. But an oppressor's willingness to use
repression is not necessarily a determinant of nonviolent success or failure
(refer to the cases of Chile and South Africa) because it is not up to the members
of the regime themselves to do the shooting, but those in the security forces
whose job it is to carry out their orders. In the Burma case, members of the
security forces are just as able as any ordinary person to see the regime has
committed violence against the heart and soul of Burma. By exploiting this conflicting
set of loyalties among soldiers - to the regime (who in most cases has conscripted
them) on one hand, and to their Buddhist (and human) values on the other - the
movement is showing signs they have been able to effectively sever most of the
remaining ties between the regime and the people. In describing this phenomenon
in the Serbian case back in 2000, one of the pro-democracy leaders there said,
"We together [with the security forces] were victims of the system, and
there was no reason to have a war between victims and victims. One [group of]
victims were in blue uniforms and other [group] was in blue jeans, but there
was no reason for blood[shed]." When a regime's own defenders begin to
doubt its ability to survive, it can no longer count on them to enforce its
mandates. In any kind of system, authoritarian or democratic, the authority
to rule comes from the people themselves and as said by Hannah Arendt, "where
commands are no longer obeyed, the means of violence are of no use."
With no moral authority, no remaining political legitimacy, increasing pressure
from the international community, an increasingly tenuous hold on the country's
remaining sources of economic support, and more signs that its own defenders
may be less willing to risk being on the losing side of the actual - as well
as moral - conflict, the issue is becoming not whether this regime will disappear,
but when. There's no doubt this group of generals has thus far appeared unwilling
to budge, but stubborn reliance on repression can be just another form of denial.
And there's no denying the people of Burma have had enough.
-------- Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science and international
studies at the State University of New York at Brockport and is on the academic
advisory board to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story E-mail This Story
|
|
