The European weakness

Emancipated from British colonial power in 1948, Burmese democracy would survive for fourteen years before being usurped by the military in 1962. The military coup d’état led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime that has survived to the present day. Various uprisings aimed at toppling it have broken out. The democratic movement in the country had the merit of permitting the proclamation of free elections in 1990. The election was won, with over 80% of the votes, by the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel Peace-Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of a hero of the independence struggle. But the military in power contested the verdict at the ballot box and refused to surrender power to the opposition. On 19 August 2007 there were street demonstrations in Rangoon – the former capital and the biggest city in the country – to protest against the inexorable and unchecked rise in the price of petrol, public transport and basic commodities. On that occasion, the Buddhist monks were beaten up by the security forces, and since then the protest movement has been transformed into mass opposition to the regime in power, with the monks marching for scores of miles in protest. Since they are the object of particular veneration in the country, they were joined by numerous militants of the National League for Democracy, which demanded the release of their President, under house arrest since May 2003.After hesitating for a long time, the military power opted for the brutal repression of the demonstrations on 26 September. Numerous arrests were made and the tally of the dead and injured rapidly rose to several hundred. The protests of the international community had no result, in particular those of the European Union and the USA – but it has to be said that the weakness of European and American investments in Burma limits their capacity for action, or leverage, in this field. The situation is very different for the three great allies of the Burmese junta: China, Russia and India. China has represented for many years one of the main backers of the Burmese regime on the international scene. On 13 September Beijing expressed the “ hope that Burma would contribute to the formulation of a correct democratic process“. That ought not however to conceal the fact that China is trying first of all to obtain stability along its own frontiers and protect a valuable source of raw materials. In fact, China imports timber, minerals and hydrocarbons from Myanmar. Hence the need to maintain good relations with Naypyidaw.Russia is conducting a similar policy. Permanent member of the UN Security Council, just like China, Russia considers Burma the backyard of Beijing, but there are Russian petroleum companies that are currently prospecting hydrocarbon deposits in the territorial waters of Myanmar. As for India, it finds itself in a more delicate situation: the “biggest democracy in the world” awarded the Nehru Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995, but it also has to come to terms with its investments in Burma in recent years, which bring with them a grave dilemma for New Delhi: whether to support or not the Burmese military in power? All this is nothing in relation to the profits of the big multinationals. They include the Total Group, which has 270 employees in the Yadana field alone and produces almost 20 million cubic tons of natural gas per day. Questioned on the matter, Thierry Desmarest, chairman of the company, replied: “ A forced withdrawal ( on our part) would only lead to us being replaced by someone else”. An argument whose hypocrisy will not escape the Burmese people.