Democracy in Burma?

Democracy in Burma?

Bluestocking Discussion Group (May 2012) 

At the Bluestocking discussion group last Sunday, we discussed the promising chain of events occurring in Burma/Myanmar at the moment. From a strict military regime to fair elections, all occurring within the space of 2 years, there’s certainly a change in the air. The questions these circumstances prompted us to ask were: What led to this change? And: Is it as wide-sweeping and permanent as people in Burma, and around the world, are hoping for?

A brief timeline of events can help to answer some of these questions... though only time will tell if Burma’s experiment with democracy will continue. (For a more detailed timeline see BBC news www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12992883 and www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16546688.)

After colonisation by the British and invasion by the Japanese in WWII, Burma became an Independent nation in 1948. Following a short spell of democratic governance, the national government was removed in a military coup, with the subsequent establishment of a military-backed ‘socialist’ government (by the mid-1970s).

Over the following decades, human rights abuses and international sanctions left Burma’s populace economically and politically disempowered. While ties with ASEAN countries and China kept the national economy afloat, there was discontentment on the ground, with several significant public protests. The two most well-known of these protests were in the late-1980s and in the late-2000s. One result of the first of these ‘anti-government riots’ was the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the opposition party NLD. Aung San Suu Kyi was kept under house arrest (with brief stints of reprieve) for the next 20 years.

From the late-1980s to the late-2000s, the Burmese government oscillated between appeasement and enforcement: with political prisoners, for example, released and re-imprisoned, often in response to fluctuating international pressure. In late 2007, however, public sentiment flared again, with anti-government street protests, most notably by a large contingent of Buddhist monks.  A government crackdown ended the demonstrations, and in 2008 the government published its new constitution, which favoured the military and barred Aung San Suu Kyi from contesting elections.

In 2010, under the new constitution, elections were held, and the ruling party claimed a resounding victory amid wide-spread condemnation of the corrupted electoral process. From these very unpromising beginnings, though, a change can be seen in the government’s approach. From 2011 to 2012, the new government and president Thein Sein released Aung San Suu Kyi, suspended construction of a controversial dam, freed political prisoners, enacted new labour laws, and began ceasefire agreements with several rebel groups. Most significantly, as far as the international media was concerned, the government allowed Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD to contest in by-elections, in which they won 43 out of 45 seats.

So where does Burma go from here? Are these genuine reforms, are they temporary changes to appease international interests and spark the economy, or is there intern political power struggles within the government which will determine Burma’s future reforms? For answers to these questions, we will just have to wait and see. The NLD is in the government now, but it only holds 43 out of 664 seats. Ceasefires with the Karen and the Shan appear to be progressing, but there is still little government commitment to negotiations with the Kachin rebel group. Yet, we have also seen, over the last few months, some of the most promising changes in Burma’s undemocratic history- changes that we can only hope will continue.

Discussion Group: Kony 2012

At this month's discussion group we looked at the Kony 2012 campaign.

The film: Kony 2012 was created by Invisible Children, Inc. and released on 5 March. The purpose of the film is to promote Invisible Children's 'Stop Kony' campaign which seeks to make Ugandan war criminal, Joseph Kony, globally known to assist in his arrest. In the film the acts of Joseph Kony are explained through filmmaker Jason Russell's explanation to his son. The film also features Jacob Acaye, whose brother was killed by Kony. In the film Jason Russell promises Jacob that he will do everything possible to 'stop Kony'. The film is approximately 30 minutes and it has received over 100 million views. Following criticisms of the film, Invisible Children Inc. released a sequel video, 'Kony 2012: Beyond Famous' on 5 April. It received much less interest, with only 1.7million views in its first two weeks.


Joseph Kony: Kony is the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). He claims to be a spokesperson of God and a spirit medium. The LRA formed over 26 years ago and according to the film, in that time it has kidnapped over 30,000 children, many of which have been subjected to appalling crimes including rape and mutilation. Initially the LRA claimed it was a resistance movement against the central Ugandan government who were viewed as privileging southern Ugandan ethnic groups at the expense of northern ethnic groups. The LRA has been classified as a Christian militant group although many commentators argue that it no longer has any ideology or political programme.  


The 'Stop Kony' campaign: The purpose of the movie is to raise global awareness of Kony to assist in generating support for foreign military involvement in his capture, such as preventing the cancellation of a US advisory group mission that was deployed by President Obama to assist the Ugandan military. The film suggests that people go to the Invisible Children, Inc. website and send emails to 40 influential people, including 20 'celebrity culture makers' and 12 policymakers. The campaign also involves the 'Cover the Night' action which took place on 20 April. To raise awareness of Kony, the film advocated plastering campaign materials across cities around the world on 20 April. Invisible Children offer posters online and sell action kits that include buttons, posters, bracelets and stickers. 


Responses: 'Cover the Night' was widely perceived to be a failure. Across the globe the anticipated crowds did not come out, leaving many cities 'unplastered'. The LRA purportedly released a statement that condemned the film as 'a cheap and banal panic act of mass trickery to make the unsuspecting peoples of the world complicit in the US rogue and murderous activities in central Africa'. Meanwhile, two US senators put forth a resolution on 21 March condemning Kony and backing the efforts of a combined central African military force to capture Kony. It received bipartisan support from 37 senators. On 23 March the African Union announced that it would send a brigade of 5000 troops from central African countries where Kony is believed to be active, namely Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This force is led by the Ugandan military and has the backing of the US. It is planned to exist until Kony is captured.


Support: Many influential and high-profile people and organisations have supported the film, including Luis Moreno Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the ICC; Abou Moussa, Special Representative and Head of the UN Regional Office for Central Africa; Anthony Lake, Executive Director of UNICEF; and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Support for the film has generally centered on the high degree of public interest that the film sparked. 

Criticisms: The film received many criticisms. It was argued to be highly simplistic in that it barely mentioned that Kony and his forces, now much reduced in numbers, are no longer in Uganda. Nor did the film highlight the Ugandan military's earlier use of child soldiers during conflict with the LRA. The film's focus on the capture of one person as a solution to this conflict was also criticized. The film also did not highlight the importance of a Ugandan-led solution in ensuring the longevity of any solution. It was argued to unfairly represent Uganda, given that the country is no longer in a state of conflict. Alex de Waal also argued the campaign glorified Kony, rather than presenting him as a "common criminal and failed provincial politician". The finances of Invisible Children Inc. have also been the subject of controversy, given that they received funding from anti-gay Christian groups.

Possible impacts: The 'Stop Kony' campaign clearly sparked a lot of public interest and debate, and spread awareness of the atrocities committed against so many children. Importantly, individuals could unite globally to take action in support of this issue, and this unique feature was most likely the source of strong public interest that it received. The campaign did, however, leave a lot to be desired, evident in the numerous criticisms it received. It didn't lead to the public action that the organisers had hoped for, seen in the failure of 'Cover the Night'. It's not known whether the failure of the campaign to move from the internet to the streets reflected apathy, or rather that people became aware of the campaign's criticisms. If the lack of action followed people's awareness of these criticisms, then the film did have a positive effect by prompting people to engage with this issue.

The ASEAN Civil Society Conference: a ‘people-oriented’ ASEAN?

20 April 2012: East Asia Forum

Kelly Gerard 

The first of two ASEAN Civil Society Conferences to be held under Cambodia’s chairmanship took place in late March, alongside the first ASEAN Summit for 2012. The Cambodian government’s intervention in this event set a new benchmark for measures employed by ASEAN governments to oust civil society participation from official discussions. This event presented numerous challenges to Southeast Asian civil society groups, and provides insight into the current state of ASEAN-civil society relations.

The ASEAN Civil Society Conference has been held eight times under various titles, and is organised by members of the Solidarity for Asian People’s Advocacy (SAPA) network. This occurs in consultation with national civil society groups in the host country and the relevant ASEAN government where necessary. Consequently, it is considered the ‘genuine’ forum for Southeast Asian civil society organisations to present their ideas, network, collaborate on common areas and attempt to engage ASEAN officials on issues of concern.

The event shadows the ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting and comprises a series of plenary sessions and workshops where participants discuss regional issues and collaborate in drafting a ‘People’s Statement’ addressed to ASEAN leaders. Participants also appoint a civil society representative from each country, who later participates in an interface meeting with ASEAN heads of state. In some instances, these meetings have lasted up to 30 minutes, as seen in Hua Hin in February 2009; at others the host government has not permitted the interface meeting to take place at all, such as in Singapore in November 2007. Here, the ‘People’s Statement’ was submitted to officials in the hope that it would be tabled during their discussions.

This year’s event presented a number of challenges to Southeast Asian civil society. The conference was held from 29-31 March at the Lucky Star Hotel in Phnom Penh, and attracted 1200 participants from 300 organisations across the region. The first obstacle the conference faced was the rival ‘ASEAN People’s Forum’ held at the Chaktomuk Conference Hall from 28-30 March. It was organised by a Cambodian organisation, Positive Change in Cambodia, which is widely perceived to have close ties to the Cambodian government. The event was supported and attended by senior Cambodian government officials, and some other ASEAN governments also supported the rival event. This was evident in the transfer of 30 Laotian delegates by the Laotian ambassador from the ASEAN Civil Society Conference to the ASEAN People’s Forum. The rival forum also divided civil society participants, who were forced to choose between groups viewed as independent and those portraying themselves as wanting to work with governments.

The second obstacle was the Lucky Star Hotel management’s opposition to a number of workshops. The management threatened to cut power and padlock the venue if particular workshops proceeded. These included workshops on Myanmar's current political and human rights situation and its planned ASEAN chairmanship in 2014, as well as land evictions, the expansion of mono-culture plantations and the protection of ethnic minorities’ rights to land. SAPA network members noted that it is difficult not to believe the Cambodian government had a role in these prohibitions. These obstacles came on top of delays in gaining access to the venue, following the slow release of necessary permits by Cambodian officials.

The third issue was the Cambodian government’s request that ASEAN member states nominate a civil society representative for the interface meeting, rather than allow civil society groups to conduct their independent nomination process. Only the Indonesian and Philippines governments consulted with independent civil society groups on this matter, and their representatives subsequently boycotted the meeting.

These events cast doubt on the credibility of ASEAN’s commitment to becoming a people-oriented organisation. ASEAN began promoting its efforts to build a community in Southeast Asia following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and after the signing of Bali Concord II in 2003 the idea of a ‘people-oriented community’ became a buzzword. This was reinforced by the ratification of the ASEAN Charter in 2008, which committed member states to democratic norms and to the promotion and protection of human rights. After 30 years of having little to no impact on the lives of average citizens in Southeast Asia, these developments created the expectation of change. But the Cambodian government’s intervention in the ASEAN Civil Society Conference, and the support it received from other member states, belie the hollowness of these commitments.

Through these efforts, the Cambodian government has also demonstrated it rejects the value of civil society’s contributions to ASEAN processes. It disregarded their expertise in numerous areas relevant to the discussions of this ASEAN Summit, including drug and people trafficking, the plight of migrant workers, the environmental impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects, and disaster preparedness. The exclusion of civil society groups is likely to prove costly in the coming decades, both in undermining ASEAN’s efforts to distance itself from its previous image as an ‘old boys club’ and in not utilising civil society’s expertise in its ongoing reform agenda.

Discussion Group: Occupy Oakland

5:30pm - 7pm Sunday 11th March 2012, Moon Cafe (Northbridge).

Welcome to Bluestocking’s Discussion Group series for 2012!

The first Discussion Group of the year will look into the ‘Occupy’ movement which is sweeping the globe. Our very own Sky Croeser has recently returned from Occupy Oakland in the US, and will share with us some of her experiences and insights.

Come along for a fun, informal discussion! At the Moon Cafe (323 William Street, Northbridge), 5:30pm this Sunday. All welcome. RSVP here.

For more information on Occupy Oakland:-

Over the last few months Sky has been populating her website (and the media) with her accounts of Occupy Oakland, and the broader Occupy movement, including activities here in Perth. This experience has been part research (via Curtin University) and part personal interest for Sky. And, as you can read in the articles below, she has certainly been keeping in the thick of it.

Below is a few links to Sky's blogs, and a copy of her article in Global Comment concerning her experiences at Occupy Oakland:

http://globalcomment.com/2012/whose-streets-claiming-public-space-and-occupying-oakland/

From skycroeser.net:

“Occupy Wall Street: movements and manifestos”

http://skycroeser.net/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-movements-and-manifestos/

“The violence we don’t see” http://skycroeser.net/2011/11/15/the-violence-we-dont-see/

“Why I’ll be at Occupy Perth (and the protests against CHOGM)” http://skycroeser.net/2011/10/26/why-ill-be-at-occupy-perth-and-the-protests-against-chogm/

Whose Streets? Claiming Public Space and Occupying Oakland

February 8, 2012 - Global Comment
Sky Croeser

As we marched down the road a man with his face covered in a black bandanna ran up to me and tapped me on the shoulder, pointing to the intersection ahead of us. “The police are up there,” he said, knowing from an earlier conversation that I had to be careful not to get arrested, “you might want to get onto the sidewalk.” I ran up towards the front of the march: police were blocking roads in at least three directions, and I couldn’t see the fourth. A group of people who’d been arrested at Saturday’s Move In Day started walking off down a side street and I joined them, worried that the police would start moving in at any moment.

Occupy Oakland has been criticised for taking a more militant tone than other Occupies. The Mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, has attempted to widen divisions within Occupy by calling on ‘leaders’ of the Occupy movement to oppose Occupy Oakland for its failure to commit to nonviolence.

On January 28th, Move In Day, which was meant to lead to a building takeover to set up a social centre, people brought down home-made riot shields, barricades, and gas masks. For the last six weeks, sections of Occupy Oakland have also been having a ‘Fuck the Police’ (FTP) march every Saturday night, which the Tactical Action Committee describe as “a militant action” and “not a march intended for people who are not fully comfortable with diversity of tactics” (a phrase which refers to tactics that might include resisting the police and property damage).

However, what critics often miss is that the same people who carried barricades at Move In Day go to Occupy events in San Francisco empty-handed. When I went to Occupy Wall Street West in San Francisco on 20th January, I didn’t see any barricades or riot shields, and very few gas masks. The reason for this is clear: activists don’t expect to be teargassed, shot with rubber bullets and beanbag guns, maced, and beaten in San Francisco.

The FTP march may make some activists uncomfortable. Honestly, if I wasn’t trying to get a better understanding of Occupy Oakland for my research, I may not have attended: it’s not the kind of event I would usually be comfortable with as an activist. But then, I was never teargassed, shot at, or kettled until Move In Day, and my interactions with the police have been shaped by the fact that I’m a middle-class white woman living in Australia. I am now more anxious around police than I have ever been before.

What the FTP march, barricades and gas masks assert is the right of protesters to be in public space, and the willingness to resist being pushed out of that space. This is a vital right for activists to assert. It is possible for activism to take place in private, or in public only with permission: in rented offices, through letters to politicians or news sources, through decisions to boycott products or buy fair trade, in marches that have been granted permits or ad campaigns paid for by donation. But to believe that activism should be bounded by what is polite, unthreatening, and legal is to accept a system that configures as primarily as consumers, and channels our politics through the funnel of consumption. It means accepting that only those who can afford to speak loudly should be heard.

Being present in public space is an important part of activism. It makes it easier for people to stop by and get involved, to watch from the fringes and try to work out what is going on with the movement. It is a small step towards reclaiming the commons, asserting that healthy communities need shared spaces in which people can spend time without participating in acts of consumption. It also forces activists to work out ways to deal with the contradictions we face: to organise across lines of race and class, to build safe spaces for women, for people who are queer, trans or genderqueer, for children, but also to include those who have been pushed onto the street by a lack of mental health and welfare services.

Saturday’s FTP march demonstrated that people are willing to stand up to police intimidation in order to reclaim their streets. Many of those there were nervous: some had been arrested on Saturday and held in terrible conditions, others knew that being arrested might get them fired. They marched anyway. There were young people there with their faces masked, but also older people in suits, couples holding hands, people carrying pets, people who had never been to a FTP march before but came because of what happened on Move In Day. As they walked through Oakland I saw people watching from balconies and windows and cars, often waving and smiling. I didn’t see any hostile reactions from those who were watching.

I don’t know where Occupy Oakland is headed. In a week, I’ll get on a plane and head back to Australia, where I doubt I’ll be teargassed in the near future. In the meantime, the debates will continue, and activists will keep trying to build a public space for themselves in the face of police confiscations of their property and bad weather.

And, as I have heard so many activists say: Spring is coming. Who knows what the sunshine will bring?

What does it take to make a difference?
How do we translate passion into a useful campaign?
How can we make a big splash on a tiny budget?

Activist Campaign Tools (ACT) is a series of three day courses for community organisers in Perth, WA. Priced for an activist budget, they are designed to provide practical skills and campaign secrets for people trying to improve the world. The courses are designed to provide practical skills and professional training for non-profit organisations, advocates, and anyone working for change!

Three ACT courses are coming up soon:

CAMPAIGN SKILLS: Freo Sunday 29 Jan, 5 & 12 Feb
Translate passion into action! Campaign Planning, marketing and media, politics and lobbying, events, activism tactics and people skills.
COMMUNITY SKILLS: Perth Sunday 11, 25 Mar & 15 Apr NEW
Build your organisation! Volunteer recruitment and management, fundraising secrets, increase membership, Web 2.0 and Cyber-activism, networking and partnerships.
SPEAKING SKILLS: Perth Sundays 6, 20 May, 10 June
Compelling Communications: Speaking with Confidence, Speech Structure and Content, Vocal Skills, Body Language, Persuasive Psychology, Dynamic Debating, Impromptu Speaking.

For more details and bookings, visit ACT or call Katrina Bercov at ACT on 9443 7454.

Sustainable Food Fundraiser

Strictly Hypothetical: City Farm Sustainable Food Fundraiser

In the spirit of Geoffrey Robertson, Strictly Hypothetical is a truly different night out!

Help raise funds for City Farm's inaugural Food Film Festival in 2012, as we sink our teeth into some of today’s juiciest food issues!

Follow the adventures of an average Aussie family as they meet our live food panel. Help them decide what to do in the face of delicious dilemmas and percolated problems!


Eating for a Small Planet
Cows, Carbon, Culture and Climate Change

25 November


Darling, What’s for Dinner?
Sustainable, Seasonal, Secure and Shared

9 December


The panel will include:

• WA Young Chef of the Year, Matt Stone (Greenhouse Restaurant)

• Wholefoods trailblazer and author Jude Blereau

• Senator Rachel Siewert and Hon. Lynn MacLaren, MLC for South Metro

• Dr Felicity Newman: food culture lecturer and unashamed Jewish mother!

• Sustainability pioneers, horticulturalists and radio gardening experts Chris Ferreira and Steve Wood

• Vince Gareffa: celebrity butcher and organic meat specialist


Bookings Essential: www.strictlyhypothetical.com

Advocacy Across Borders is Now Available

Advocacy Across Borders: NGOs, anti-sweatshop activism and the global garment industry by Shae Garwood is available from Kumarian Press.

The clothing and textile industry employs nearly 30 million people worldwide, mostly in Asia and Central America. Workers frequently face long hours, inadequate wages, harassment and abuse. While some resist such conditions by joining labor unions, many are prevented from doing so or find it difficult to adjust to transitory manufacturers. Because of these challenges, garment workers have reached out to allies across political borders in order to apply more pressure on garment manufacturers.

The transnational anti-sweatshop network is at a critical stage in its development and is due for serious analysis. Advocacy Across Borders reveals the relationships that Northern-based NGOs forge in order to exert influence on powerful actors in the industry. An exhaustive dissection of the strategies of many organizations involved in this extensive network, Garwood’s study points the way forward for civil society actors reaching across borders to advocate for a better world.