The New Light of Myanmar’s article condemns the UN Security Council’s decision by pointing fingers at the United States for engineering a ploy to overthrow the sovereign government of Burma. It intrinsically suggests that the decision has worried the junta and their robust reaction give clues to the international policy makers. The junta’s paranoia of the US militarily overthrowing them dates back to the democracy summer in 1988 when US Navy stationed in the Indian Ocean moved toward Burmese waters in case of emergency any evacuation of the US diplomats and citizens.

The Burmese military panicked and requested the US Navy to spell out their mission in Burma water. No doubt, how the xenophobic the military junta is but it does seem to wilt or waver to the pressure from US. Soon after military seized the power in 1988, ex - General Saw Maung claimed in his one of the lengthy speeches that it has reasons to jolt to the pressure from US as compared to India.

The international Burma campaign organizations and advocacy groups have a worthy cause to celebrate the fruits of their hard work. Furthermore, it evidently signifies their ethos that the international pressure works in Burma. It is undoubtedly a good result of the report commissioned by ex-president Havel of Chez Republic and Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. A gong goes to the International law firm Piper Runick Gray Cary for their hard work in writing and submitting the report to the UN Security Council.

The campaign organizations were also quick to claim a well deserved credit of their hard work by updating their websites promptly with individual names quotes in their press releases. They certainly came across as PR savvy in their operations. Off course for worthily cause. It would be interesting to place brand value on these organizations. The National Coalition Government of Union of Burma (NCGUB) rather settled for a humble short press release thanking UN Security Council and member states which voted in favour of discussing concerns on Burma. It technically defines the vote as a procedural vote rather than painting it with a broad brush of success on the international campaign front. It is welcoming to find NCGUB moving cautiously.

No doubt Qatar, Russia and China may have voted against the UN Security Council’s decision on Burma for their vested business reasons but one can not underestimate China’s involvement in the international political arena. It seems to be moving into a rapid relationship building exercise with Africa. The West neglected African nations after the Cold War. Today, China is reported to import 30 per cent of its oil from Africa, mainly from Sudan, Angola, and Congo. In a recent interview with BBC the Chinese Ambassador to UN in Geneva Mr Sha Zu Kang clearly lays out China’s ambition: _

“Clearly China can’t have what it wants in Africa without changing the destinies of many Africans and disturbing western interests. The same holds throughout the developing world. And although China’s delighted if it can beat the Americans on their own terms, it may be playing the game at another level as well.”

The Chinese diplomats too are also changing in their style of presentations inline with the current trend of 24 hours rolling news wire service. They no longer respond to the international media by regurgitating from the script provided by the Central Communist Party Headquarters in Beijing but they are given a freed reign to carve out their own presentation style according to it’s need. Without being too personal, Mr Sha the ambassador to UN Geneva screams at the BBC correspondent to make a point, “shut up America!”. Similarly in the UN Security Council meeting on 15 September, the US educated Chinese envoy to UN in New York Wang Guangya reads out UN charter4s with full of gorgons and slams the whole thing “preposterous”.

It is important not to elude from the fact that the Burma military junta’s friend China is more powerful than it seems. China is increasingly getting its way around the globe through the deployment of “soft power” - aid, trade and the promotion of a political model which puts development before democracy. Hours after UN Security Council’s vote on Burma, China promised to send its troops to join the UN Peace keeping mission in Lebanon. The outgoing Iranian President made a pack with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela on not to share oil resources with US. Venezuela is also said to be taking a rotating chair of the UN Security Council. The Western democracies cannot ignore smaller countries like Burma as insignificant to their economic interest. The countries with dictatorship or autocratic governments seem to be uniting with China to rise against the democracy and the West.

My fear over the UN Security Council’s decision is that it may turn out to be a talking shop. The military junta can manipulate the international community with every little single reform which may appear to be significant. The ‘rubber stamp’ National Convention in Burma is said to be producing a draft resolution. The junta may well enact the resolution in haste to avoid discussing with the International community on handing over the power to the elected political party. Following the UN Security Council resolution the military junta is probably seeking advice and support from countries like China or foreign diplomats with UN experience on how to tackle or avoid the pressure from UN. I once came across a diplomat in Rangoon from an X country in Rangoon who actively trained the junta officials on how to refute human rights abuse claims publish in UN reports. I tried to explain the credibility of the claims in the UN report and he shuts me up with his experience of working in the UN publication.

The UN Security Council’s vote does not mean anything to me if it cannot relate to the ordinary lives in streets of Burma. I wish the National Coalition Government of Burma’s press release spelt out more on how the outcome of UN Security Council’s decision can reflect upon ordinary lives in Burma. The junta will certainly avoid the international pressure but an intense pressure from the International community is needed to make the junta accountable to people.

The international campaign organizations should ensure that it does not become prolong international talking shop on Burma and the junta continue to rule by bargaining with the International community with lots of photographic opportunities with or for Aung San Suu Kyi. It is perfectly fine for the advocacy groups to brand their products or services based on Aung San Suu Kyi if it serves the purpose but they also need to focus on how their actions can benefit or reflect lives in Burma. I congratulate their efforts and I am sure it has given them a good experience in campaign work.

It is certainly not the end of it for people of Burma or inside Burma. I met a young fellow Burmese on the bus a few hours after the UN Security Council’s news broke out. He asked if these news meant everything is over in term of achieving democracy in Burma. Bless him! It shows how successful the junta has been in taking politics out of people’s mind. It is also amazing to see how the curiosity surrounds people of Burma in driving the junta out of power. I tried to explain it is as simple as it sounds but we need to keep the hope high. The New Light of Myanmar’s article truly reflects what people inside Burma thought of the UN Security Council news. Recently it bewildered the journalist from the Economist when found out that people in the capital are waiting for the US troops to come in to throw the junta out of power like Iraq. It makes one wonder if it is viable to argue a case for US’ military assistance in overthrowing the military junta. Well! It is a discussion in its own right for another time another place.