Common Grounds for Dialogue

Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi has initiated a process aimed at lifting international sanctions on Burma that would begin with a political dialogue with Snr-Gen Than Shwe and subsequently lead to a renewed position for her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), ahead of the 2010 election.

As a prerequisite to a political dialogue, Than Shwe and Suu Kyi took some cautious first steps: the regime released more than 100 political prisoners; and Suu Kyi officially announced that she was prepared to cooperate with the regime toward the lifting of international sanctions.

She managed to extract a rare concession from Than Shwe in being allowed to meet with three senior diplomats from the embassies of the US, the UK and Australia. 
  
If there were to be a dialogue in the near future, there would undoubtedly be one key issue that Suu Kyi would focus on to reconcile with the generals. It would be the role of the Tatmadaw (the armed forces) in the country’s future political makeup.

It is an issue that the NLD has addressed in the past: the party announced its intention to maintain a strong armed forces in a democratic Burma in its manifesto for the 1990 election.

The policy was reaffirmed in a report titled “Formation of a Modern Tatmadaw in the Democratic Era,” which was written by the Defense Affairs Committee of the Committee Representing People’s Parliament (CRPP), a body set up by the NLD in 1998 made up of elected parliamentarians who had been refused office by the ruling junta after the 1990 election.

Chaired by U Tin Oo, a former commander in chief and current vice-chairman of the NLD, the committee submitted the report to the CRPP in November 1999. The report said that the role of the Tatmadaw in Burma’s future democratic society should be based on the policies and guidance of Gen Aung San, the founding father of the Burmese armed forces.

A review of Than Shwe’s recent speeches, the 2008 Constitution and the NLD’s policy documents reveals that the three key concepts that the Tatmadaw has long and firmly held as doctrine have never been opposed by the NLD’s policies.

The first and most fundamental concept that the Tatmadaw has always placed as its utmost priority is its role in the “national politics” of Burma. There is no evidence that the NLD has ever denied this proviso. However, in its chapter on National Defense in the 1990 manifesto, the NLD stated its policy clearly: “The army must be free from party politics.”

Second, is the military government’s mantra that the army must defend three major national causes—the non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national solidarity, and the perpetuation of Burmese sovereignty. Again, the NLD has never moved to deny the Tatmadaw these priorities, which were also enshrined in the 2008 Constitution.

Third, is a policy Than Shwe and the top military brass have often stressed in public speeches and which is written into Section 20(a) of the Constitution: “The Defense Services is the sole patriotic defense force which is strong, competent and modern.”

To achieve its goal of being the sole army in the country, the generals are currently striving to transform the armed ethnic groups into border guard forces under the command of the Tatmadaw before the 2010 election.

In the CRPP’s defense policy, the NLD stated: “Tatmadaw should be a modern force, emphasizing quality before quantity … There should be only one national Tatmadaw. All other armed groups, including those with official or semi-official status, should be disbanded.”
 
In principle, the Burmese military and the NLD share a common ground on the three concepts. However, in practice, an antagonist atmosphere has overwhelmed the intense relations between the two and any differences have widened due to a mutual distrust, which has resulted in years of political deadlock.  

One underlying factor that will continue to divide the Tatmadaw from the pro-democracy parties is the military’s undemocratic seizure of 25 percent of parliament through the Constitution.

Whether the generals believe that this article is in line with their policy of “national politics,” the fact is that a “Parliament” should be an arena of political parties in a functioning democracy and the generals’ claim to power has undermined a demarcation between party politics and civil administrative organs, including the armed forces, which should be strictly barred from meddling in the affairs of political parties.