RIGHTS-BURMA: Dissident Movement Debating Violence Option

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Apichart Suttiwong

BANGKOK, Oct 25 1999 (IPS) - The hostage-taking by dissident students at the Burmese embassy here in early October, apart from souring Thai-Burma ties, has kindled heated debate within the Burmese pro- democracy movement over the use of violent means to further its cause.

Some have condoned the action by the five armed students on Oct 1 as being misguided but understandable, given the standoff between the military and pro-democracy, opposition forces.

Others fear that resorting to violence could damage the overall pro-democracy struggle which is largely non-violent in its actions against the junta, which calls itself the State Peace and Development Council.

On Oct 1, five members of the so-called ‘Vigorous Burmese Students Warriors’ (VBSW), armed with guns and grenades, stormed the Burmese embassy and seized 38 hostages, demanding restoration of democracy in Burma.

The hostages were released after protracted negotiations with the Thai government and after Thai deputy foreign minister Sukumband Paribatra offered himself as a substitute for the captured foreign tourists and Burmese embassy staff.

Although the hostage-takers made political demands from the military leaders in Rangoon, there is no doubt that they were never seriously expecting a positive response from the regime.

The main objective of the embassy seizure was to embarrass the Burmese military rulers and make an international, well-publicised protest against them.

But even more than the students’ action itself, what seems to have infuriated the Burmese military more is the tacit support shown to the pro-democracy movement by the Thai government — which until recently had been one of the staunchest allies of the Rangoon regime.

During negotiations with the hostage-takers, Thai Interior Minister Maj Gen Sanan Kachornprasart referred to them as “students fighting for democracy” rather than terrorists.

That episode has also upset a lot of Thai human rights groups too, which have been at the forefront of efforts within Thailand and in Asia to support the Burmese pro-democracy movement.

They have voiced their disagreement with the violent means used by the students. “We are afraid that all exiled Burmese students and refugees living in Thailand will be blamed as pro-violence activists in the aftermath of the incident,” said Somchai Homlaor, secretary general of Forum Asia.

Human rights groups say that though they understood that the students were under pressure to respond to the harsh dictatorship in Burma, the use of violence would only be counterproductive.

The All Burma Students Democratic Front (ABSDF), the largest and best known of pro-democracy student organisations in exile, said none of the students involved were members of their group. “We will always follow the policy of non-violence in our struggle against the Burmese regime,” said Dr Naing Aung, president of the front, soon after the incident.

ABSDF members trace the action of the hostage-takers to the failure of the 9-9-99 campaign, launched a few months ago to spark off an uprising against the Burmese regime by Sept 9 this year, to make any headway.

“The members of VBSW were desperate that the 9/9/99 campaign could not shake the Rangoon regime’s power. They then decided to use violent methods to draw the attention of the outside world,” an ABSDF member said on condition of anonymity.

According to Burmese pro-democracy sources the Vigorous Burmese Student Warriors, which carried out the embassy seizure, was formed as recently as September 1999. Two of the key leaders of the group are Kyaw Ni or Johnny, 31, and Myint Tein or Preeda, 30, identified as pivotal assailants in the embassy raid.

According to Thai intelligence sources the other three involved in the seizure were not students but soldiers with a faction of the Karen ethnic minority which has been fighting for independence from Rangoon for the past five decades.

The history of the Burmese student pro-democracy groups, in recent times, goes back to 1988 when they spearheaded a popular uprising against the General Ne Win regime, which responsed with bloody suppression of the movement.

Hundreds of students who fled to the Thai-Burma border formed the ABSDF with the help of the Karen National Union (KNU), the main political body of the Karen ethnic minority group.

“At that time, they were young extremists, wanting to be rebels. They thought that their movement could topple the dictatorial regime before long,” recalled Sittipong Kalayani of the Chiang Mai-based Images Asia, an NGO working with Burmese students for the past decade.

The ABSDF split in 1989 itself due to ideological differences between its leaders Moe Thee Zun, a left-winger and the more moderate Dr Naing Aung.

“Moe Thee Zun thought that ‘the Burmese way to socialism’ was not genuine socialism. He wanted to pursue revolution by using armed force,” Sittipong said. “In contrast, Naing Aung was a moderate with political charisma.”

Both factions however started off with the perception that the Burmese regime could be overthrown only by the use of armed action. Both therefore formed student armies.

The armies, always small in number and poorly equipped, made little headway in any meaningful action against Burmese forces and slowly dissipated into ragtag bands of armed students fighting alongside ethnic rebel groups. The split in the ABSDF was also a factor in the fall of the student army.

In recent years however, both factions of the ABSDF have reconciled their differences and reunited. Subsequently, the students’ group has renounced violence and spelt out a non-violent strategy for bringing democracy in Burma along with other democratic forces inside the country led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

The non-violent path of struggle has also been endorsed by NGOs and human rights groups around the world backing the Burmese pro- democracy movement. Most advocate sanctions against the Burmese regime and an economic and political boycott to bring about change within Burma.

But the international campaign against the Rangoon regime, despite a few minor victories, has yet to make any real impact on the political situation in Burma.

Since the pro-democracy uprising in 1988 the regime has only changed for the worse domestically, while improving its international image through diplomatic support mainly from countries in the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) like Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Rights groups here say that they can understand the pressure that Burmese students feel to make a genuine impact on the regime’s hold on power against the wishes of the Burmese people.

“The pressure on the Burmese students may make them resort to violent political means in the future,” said Somchai. However, he also points out that the path of violence can be avoided only if there is more concerted international effort to oust the Burmese military rulers through peaceful means.

Meantime, Somchai urged the Thai government to treat the exiled Burmese inside Thailand according to human rights principles and give them the opportunity to express their political demands peacefully. “Only then can we avoid any possible violence and also contribute positively to a democratic Burma in the future,” he said.