A. Politics

SLORC has been trying to separate the urban politcal struggle from the broder ethnic struggles since the two were brought together in 1988. The release of ASSK seems to effectively be doing that. International attention is being more and more focused on the urban center of Rangoon and the political activities happening there. This bodes badly for the ethnic struggles since attention will be diverted away from the terrible abuses they continue to experience, and away from the ethnic issues which must be dealt with if true peace is to come to Burma. If this situation is not dealt with cautiously, human rights abuse will continue unreported to the international community and civil war in the country could increase.

To further separate these two struggles, SLORC may well give an amnesty to political exiles who wish to return to Burma and work "legally" through the system. Presently there is little chance that such an amnesty would attract many people.

The release of ASSk has been dealt with silently by SLORC since July 10. They have said almost nothing about her in the nation's media which is totally controlled by the military. However, recent issues of the State-run newspaper, New Light of Myanmar, have carried articles indirectly criticizing her and suggesting that she is an enemy of the country because she is discouraging foreign companies from investing in Burma. Referring to her as "the person" (they also refer to Thailand as "that other country") they suggest that she bears ill will towards the country. This could well be the start of process to confront and eventually take action against ASSK. ASSK is like a cat walking on a hot tin roof; she must step very carefully, and almost anything she does will burn her slightly. As the October date for the reconvening of the National Convention nears, SLORC will need to take some kind of action to put things back to "normal." ASSK's release will embolden representatives at the convention and it will become more difficult for SLORC to push through a constitution which gives them power in any new government.

B. Cheap Labor

As Burma moves more and more into an open market economy dominated by the military elite, the rural areas will suffer, industrialisation will be emphasized, and the people of Burma, especially the rural folk, will become cheap labor. The only way this can be avoided is if a different kind of economic system, based on the traditional forms of the villages, can be created. SLORC, however, seems disinterested in such ideas, so as long as they are in power, the people of Burma will become more and more pulled into the cheap labor market.

C. NGO Presence

Recent changes in Burma have meant at least some possiblity for foreign NGOs to operate in the country, something not possible since 1962, as well as the possible formation of locally based NGOs. While it is, perhaps, a very positive step towards rebuilding the civil society of the country, some cautions should be expressed. NGOs should not be presented as an answer for the people. The only hope for Burma is a true grassroots people's movement (the most fringe of the society) which is aware of the political, economic, and social mechanisms of oppression, and can design effective strategies and tactics for ridding their country of these mechanisms and subsitituting more demorcratic, people-oriented ones. NGOs can only assist in this process, they can not lead it. Therefore, caution should be taken in enouraging NGOs to rush into the country. Experience shows that many times NGOs divert people's attention away from the most important issues they need to confront and struggle with. If this happens, the democratic stuggle in Burma will be set back, perhaps stymied altogether.

Burma is not a poor country. It has sufficient resources to comfortably care for its people. Although the economy is in ruins, the amount of foreign exchange in the country has increased over the past few years. SLORC could and should, take responsiblity for the health, education and well being of the people. If NGOs take over these responsibilites, they give SLORC more opportunity to divert funds to modernizing and expanding their military and thus they encourage the militarization of the country. This is anti-people. If NGOs enter the country, they should do so in a way which pressures the military junta to use the resources they have for the people.

The trend, however, is probably quite different. Repeating the experiences of neighbouring Indochinese countries, NGOs are "discovering" Burma, and will rush in without careful analysis and planning. The people will become the victims, perhaps willingly, of even this goodwill.

It should be noted, however, that the ICRC is planning to withdraw from Burma because they cannot get SLORC to agree to visits to all political prisioners in the country. This is a stance which should be respected and applauded.