_ by Roland Watson

Right now the focus of the Burma Democracy Movement is 90% on the international community and 10% on the people of Burma. This ratio needs to be reversed.

Until the people of the country rise up, Than Shwe is secure. Of course, we shouldn’t drop our efforts to get the SPDC on the formal Security Council agenda, particularly now that the United States finally seems to be getting serious. But we have to help the people in the country as well, politically. Burmese media that is broadcast or distributed inside should convey revolutionary messages and education.

Anyone outside who is in a position to help organize underground networks and resistance groups inside should do so. For activists around the world who don’t have these abilities, the missing ingredient is funding. Revolutions do not come free. Even $100 can make a huge difference by enabling an internal network to pay for transport and checkpoint bribes. Everyone can help with fundraising, and then convey the money to individuals and groups who are in direct contact with revolutionaries inside.

It is a fatal mistake to depend on diplomacy and dialogue. When we concentrate our efforts on diplomacy, we have to recognize that we are putting all our eggs in one basket. There is no fallback plan.

Diplomacy and dialogue are risky not only because of Than Shwe’s intransigence, but also due to “geopolitics.” No one, not a single government on earth, not even the United States, really cares about what is happening to the fifty million people of Burma. The proof of this statement is simple. If they did really care, they would do something. Even the U.S. has refused to assist real democracy activities inside the country (and also to fund IDP crisis relief projects).

We should also understand that while we may think we are, we are not in fact asking international parties to sincerely care about Burma. Rather, what we are really asking is for them to tip the geopolitical game in our favor, to throw us a bone. This is a dangerous strategy for many reasons, not the least of which is that it takes forever, and even when we do get support we might lose it at any time and for any reason. I would like to ask the people of Burma: How do you feel about being a pawn in the game of international geopolitics? Or to the Karen, Karenni and Shan: How do you feel that the atrocities committed by the SPDC against you are simply not large enough to demand action?

I was at a seminar about Burma recently that as far as politics is concerned focused entirely on the international community. In the question and answer period I commented that the seminar had ignored the people of the country—the room was full of Burmese people—who surely would like to participate in the struggle for freedom. A panelist—a Thai journalist—then commented that the people of Burma were afraid and would do nothing. My translator asked me to refute this, and I responded that I wasn’t the right person to do it, since I am not Burmese. I write about Burma, document the abuses of the regime, and try to organize various pro-democracy initiatives. But the people of Burma themselves have to win their freedom; they have to lead this change. (And then, when they are free, they will have to build a well-functioning nation and democracy.)

We waited, but no one in the room stood up and challenged the journalist.

[Roland WAtson is the founder of Dictator Watch; and this article is an excerpt from his policy paper ASYMMETRY IN STRATEGY.]