If it were left to the court of public opinion, Aung San Suu Kyi would not be incarcerated in one of Myanmar’s most notorious prisons this weekend. The Myanmar opposition leader is hugely admired in Western democracies and her own country, where her party won a landslide general election in 1990.
She has spent 13 of the past 19 years under house arrest on Lake Inya in Rangoon, and her sudden transfer to prison follows a bizarre incident in which an American Mormon John Yettaw swam the lake and stayed a night at her house.
Myanmar authorities say she has violated the Stalinist-sounding law Safeguarding the State from the Dangers of the Subversive Elements, even though she begged Yettaw to leave as soon as he swam ashore.
It looks as though a frustrating cycle of human-rights violations, international condemnation and Myanmar governmental indifference is set to be repeated. We have been here before, and the unpleasant truth is that the West has limited influence with the Myanmar generals, having done its worst (short of military invasion) quite some time ago.
Economic boycotts are in place and many Western companies have already withdrawn from Myanmar. China protects the junta at the UN, and its interests in the country are so extensive that Myanmar is well on the way to becoming a Chinese client state.
But Myanmar has another neighbor which is in a very different position.
This weekend, as the people of India reflect on the results of the general election, the fate of Suu Kyi might not be at the front of their minds. But India’s cosy relationship with the Myanmar junta is starting to symbolize the contradictions that threaten to undermine the country’s moral status as the world’s largest democracy. In theory, Indian governments support Suu Kyi’s pro-democracy campaign, conscious of her longstanding personal ties with the country; Suu Kyi lived in New Delhi when her mother was posted to India as a diplomat. In the 1990s she was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding, despite being under house arrest and unable to travel to receive it.
Such considerations have not dissuaded Indian governments from investing heavily in Myanmar. Bilateral trade between the two countries grew to $650 million by 2006 and India’s sights are firmly fixed on a share of Myanmar’s abundant energy resources. It was beaten by China in the race for a contract to build a pipeline to Myanmar’s gas fields, but the Indian Army has done most of the work on the so-called Indo-Myanmar Friendship Road, which is a major commercial transport route. All of this should be borne in mind when Indian politicians make feeble statements in support of pro-democracy campaigners in Myanmar.
Look, for example, at the response of the Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to the brutal repression of protests in Myanmar: “We are concerned at the situation in Myanmar and are monitoring it closely. It is our hope that all sides will resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue.” It’s not immediately obvious how unarmed monks and political activists can initiate a “dialogue” with the Myanmar Army; no wonder the outspoken former Defense Minister George Fernandez has described the Indian government’s stance on Myanmar as “disgusting”.
The UK has little influence on China, but it does have leverage with India.
This week, Myanmar’s most famous political prisoner faces yet more trumped-up charges. I can’t think of a better opportunity for India’s politicians to speak out and demonstrate their commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
