The world watched this fall as Buddist monks protested in Burma and as policemen arrested the protestors. Ordinary citizens told their stories to the world by using cell phones to videotape rallies and subsequent police clashes; blogs and social networking sites were filled with stories of abuse and appeals for international support. The government response was to shut down activist bloggers and to block access to certain websites where they could network and organize against the government. Within a month after the government Internet clamp-down in Burma, stories continue to fill the blogosphere, but the attention of the prime time media has moved on.

The Internet is only one of many tools available to activists and parties interested in affecting change in regimes where human rights abuses are rampant. Government and intergovernmental bodies can also apply pressure via sanctions and companies and activists can start campaigns to divest or boycott companies associated with the regime. All of these tactics have been used against Burma with mixed outcomes. Human rights abuses still continue in Burma and the Junta has not relinquished their power. For success to occur, efforts will need to encompass more players, especially China, India, and ASEAN countries, who provide crucial economic support for the Junta

Brief history of Junta rule in Burma

In 1947, Burma gained its independence from British colonial rule, but saw many insurgencies by communists aligned with China. In 1962, a socialist coup took over the government with a “Revolutionary Council” of senior military officials, the Junta.

The 1980’s brought falling commodity prices and increasing debt for the socialist country and, in 1988, student-lead protests were brutally stopped by the police, causing the deaths of hundreds of students and civilians. The military restored power and killed thousands in the process.

In 1989, the military changed the country’s name from “Burma” to “Myanmar.” Multi-party elections for the assembly were even held in 1990 and the opposition party (National League for Democracy) won; however, the military would not let the assembly convene and kept the League’s leaders, U Tin U and Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. Since then, there have been various constitutional meetings that were held, but the Junta refused participation by major pro-democracy parties, such as the League.

In August 2007, the Junta announced that it would remove fuel subsidies, causing the price of oil to double and the price of natural gas to increase fivefold within one week. Protests by students and opposition groups began. World attention was captured by protests of thousand of Buddhist monks on September 18th 2007 and news outlets started calling the protests a “Saffron Revolution.”

Between 30,000 to 100,000 people protested in Burma on September 24th 2007, the biggest anti-government protest in 20 years. Within days, curfews were instituted, pro-democracy figures were jailed, clashes took place at protest sites resulting in beatings and the use of tear gas to disperse protesters. Buddhist monasteries were raided and thousands of monks were arrested. The Junta shut down the Internet in Burma for a week to stop the barrage of negative reports. By mid-October, “calm” descended on the country. Only small-scale protests persist, due to fear of government reprisal and harsh prison terms.

The use of the Internet to publicize and protests actions in Burma

While social networking, blogging, and Youtube has been around for years, the “Saffron Revolution” is one of the first movements to truly take advantage of all these web2.0 technologies to raise world-wide awareness of their cause.

Thousands of videos are posted on Youtube about Burma, including scenes from protests, celebrity calls to actions, a video calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics, and clips of speeches by world leaders. Accompanying each video are pages of dialogue amongst the viewers, debating and discussing the conflict. One video that emerged showed the Burmese police taking away the camera of a Japanese journalist who was soon thereafter shot at “point-blank” range, the Burmese government denies the allegation.¹

On Facebook.com, a social networking site, a search for Burma, leads to postings for rallies, demonstrations, concerts, and other events; links to users’ blogs; petitions; the Burma Campaign UK and other non-profit entries; Aung San Suu Kyi’s personal page where she connects to supporters; more than 500 discussion groups, such as “Support the Monk’s Protests in Burma” (with nearly 800 members from around the world) and “Myanmar (Burma) Uprising: Worldwide support” (with more than 8,500 members from around the world); and applications that users can add to their profile to show their support for the cause (i.e. virtual banner).

In addition, there are thousands of blogs by people living in Burma, Burmese expats, and by supporters. Eye-witness testimonies, videos, photos, interviews, news updates, links to different support groups are posted. In one blog, http://jotman.blogspot.com/, four escaped monks give an account of their experience:

“We gathered in Shwe Maw Dow Pagoda in Pegu Division — a ten minute walk from our temple. We recited the meta-sutta (the surtra of loving-kindness). In the beginning, we were a small group. We all walked around the back part of the pagoda, and then went through the town.

Along the way, to expand our group we called out to people: “Come and join us!” We reminded them of our demands to t he government to reduce prices, to end the people’s suffering. “Why can’t you join us? Don’t just look. Join! Only by standing shoulder-to-shoulder can we can send a message that things have to change.

Ordinary people along the side of the road began distributing water to the monks. Others went out from the crowd to fetch water for the monks.

It was then that the USDA troops appeared. A big broad soldier approached. In his left hand he held a shield, in his right hand a baton. He didn’t look like a Buddhist. He looked like a bull, an angry bull. His nostrils flared like a fighting bull about to charge me.”

I saw this soldier lift his baton to strike the monk walking beside me. I put my hand out so as to cut the force of the blow. The stick struck my hand, badly bruising it. The stick was hard and heavy — not the bamboo kind — but hardwood.

After that, the monk behind tried to pull the soldier away. But the soldier stuck him, smashing his forehead. We heard a loud “Crack!” sound. Blood everywhere. I took off my under-robe and tied it around his head to stop the bleeding…”²

Despite the plethora of information and support for the people of Burma, not everyone agrees that it has changed the situation on the ground. Michael Hume, a journalist for the Times, writes:

“What Burma needs most is surely internal democracy, not international diplomacy. To achieve that end, history suggests that the activists will have to mobilise the Burmese people more than appeal to world opinion. If it is to get rid of the generals, their movement may need to deploy political weapons other than prayers, blogs and digicams… Publicity is important, and real international solidarity more so. But it would be naive to imagine that internet petitions or UN representatives in Rangoon could somehow confront armed power.”

Boycotts and sanctions

The Internet has not only shed light on the conflict, it is also an effective tool for activists organizing boycotts against companies doing business with Burma. The site, www-burma-watch.org, lists companies doing business with Burma, such as:

• Chevron, which is developing the Yadana offshore gas field bringing in millions of dollars to regime;
• Daewoo International Corporation, a South Korean conglomerate, that is working with Burma on gas exploration, has a car assembly plant in Burma, supplies IT services and other services in Burma; and,
• Siemens, a German engineering and technology company, that supplies gas turbines for companies working in the Yadana offshore gas field.

The Burma Campaign in the U.K. organized a “Day of Action” against French oil company, Total, which is Europe’s largest investor in Burma. Total is another partner is developing the Yadana offshore gas fields.

Natural gas, teak, precious stones, and illicit drugs are four industries which serve as economic lifelines for Burma. An article, “The List: Burma’s Economic Lifelines” in Foreign Policy highlights the scale of each industry and how sanctions would affect each of these industries.³

• Teak represents an estimated 11 percent of Burma’s official foreign exchange earnings. Sixty percent of the world’s teak reserves are found in Burma. Sanctions on teak have backfired because of all of the illegal smuggling and because there is still a strong demand for teak, especially in China.
• Natural Gas: Twenty percent of Thailand’s electricity comes from Burma, which exports $2.8 billion dollars worth of natural gas every year to Thailand. India and China are also buying large quantities of natural gas. U.S. sanctions are not effective since neighboring countries are not interested in participating; they want and need this source of energy.
• Precious gems: More than $60 million dollars worth of rubies, sapphires, pearls, and jade are exported annually (mainly to China and Thailand). The Burmese government is a majority shareholder in these mines and run them as joint ventures with private companies. At least 90 percent of the world’s rubies come from Burma. A loophole in U.S. sanctions allows companies to import stones mined in Burma and further sanctions would drive the business underground.
• Illicit Drugs: Burma is the world’s second largest exporter of opium (after Afghanistan). Most of the opium goes through China and is trafficked into Thailand and Laos where foreign criminal organizations make a huge profit. The FP article notes that sanctions can help by restricting Burmese imports of precursors that go into meth.

The U.S. has implemented sanctions against specific senior government officials in Burma, as well as specific businessmen; the sanctions freeze their assets in U.S. bank accounts and prohibit U.S. companies from doing business with any of these individuals. An article in Irrawaddy.org, a blog published by Burmese citizens living abroad, calls the sanctions positive and calls on other countries to institute similar measures.⁴

In October 2007, the European Union implemented new sanctions against Burma with a ban on imports of Burmese gems, timber and metals, and a ban on investment in these sectors. Burma Campaign UK calls on the EU to expand these sanctions to include banning all investments, sanctions on banking and financial transactions, and a ban on insurance companies providing cover for Burma.⁵

India and China

Many believe that targeting Burmese companies is not the most effective way to address the problem and that but pressuring China and India would lead to more results. China and Burma have extremely strong relations throughout its history. China has given more than $200 million dollars in foreign assistance for the construction of roads, railroads, airfields, ports, and dams.⁶

China has publicly criticized Burma, but has blocked the UN Security Council from imposing sanctions or taking strong action. China has traditionally not meddled in other countries affairs, since pressures for free and fair elections in Burma might lead to similar pressures on China.⁷

India has reacted to Chinese influence by strengthening its own ties with Burma and has a “good friends” policy toward Burma. Burma and India set a $1 billion bilateral trade target for 2006-2007, a little less than double the 2004-2005 target. The two countries are cooperating in agriculture, IT, cars, textiles, telecommunications, and oil and gas. India gave Burma a $7 million dollar loan for two telecommunications projects.⁸ During the latest crackdown in Burma, India has refused to make any statements condemning the government.

Outlook for the future

Geopolitics and the quest for energy and other natural resources are huge obstacles to overcome when trying to find a way forward in Burma. While the U.S. and the EU are willing to enact sanctions, China, India, and ASEAN countries are not willing to do so. Technology has been helpful in publicizing human rights abuses and for mobilizing support of activists around the world, but it is not powerful enough to combat economic and geopolitical forces at play. It may mitigate the regime’s abuse, but even then media blackouts and shutting off Internet access has been somewhat effective in stopping the onslaught of first-hand accounts. Pinning one’s hopes on pressuring China before the 2008 Olympics (similar to the Darfur Campaign), will probably not be the silver bullet.

There is no silver bullet. In the end, a combination of international pressure and continued internal resistance will be necessary. Unfortunately, Burma is only one many countries under autocratic rule, as seen in Iraq, the transition to democracy will not be an easy one. The fact that the opposition is united and that they use technology to promote their cause is glimmer of hope in an otherwise depressing situation.

1 Bergman, Barry. “Burma’s transformative moment.” Public Affairs. October 24, 2007. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2007/10/24_zook.shtml
2 Hume, Michael. “Those blogs and videos will get you nowhere.” The Times. October 3rd, 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article2577795.ece?openComment=true
3 “The List: Burma’s Economic Lifelines.” Foreign Policy. October 2007. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3986
4 “Targets of New US Sanctions Feeling the Heat.” Irawaddy. October 22nd, 2007. http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=9082
5 “New EU sanctions welcome, more must follow if regime continues to delay talks.” Burma-UK Campaign.November 19th, 2007. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/
6 “Burma-India relations: A betrayal of democracy and human rights.” Burma-UK Campaign. March 2007. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/India_Briefing.pdf
7 “China’s power — and will — to push for change in Myanmar limited at ASEAN, analysts say.” International Herald Tribune. November 21st, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/21/asia/AS-GEN-ASEAN-China-Myanmar.php
8 “Burma-India relations: A betrayal of democracy and human rights.” Burma-UK Campaign. March 2007. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/India_Briefing.pdf