Free Myanmar

Censorship and Public Diplomacy in Burma

I was so delighted to learn about the recent release of the Democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi this third weekend of November 2010. What was said by the former UK’s PM, Sir Gordon Brown, was:

- She is “THE” leader of the Democratic World, after standing so firmly against the military Junta for 20years now.” (BBC World News, 13.11.10: Aung San Suu Kyi release long overdue, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11750146)

He pledged his sustain support and close relationship with her to defend the democratic cause in Myanmar. David Cameron also supported her cause and greeted her release with joy after the announcement. During her first meeting in the NLD central office, she met the diplomats and reporters who have supported her for more than 15years. Would she have had the capacity to resist the Junta pressure without the international public support? I am not putting into question her determination to achieve her political ambition in Myanmar, no. Here, I am underlying the consistent international support for her cause. This could be compared to the case of Ingrid Betancourt in Colombia, who was released in July 2008 (BBC World News, 13.07.10; Betancourt hails “perfect” rescue; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7487026.stm). Serious collaboration between French and Colombian authorities under intensive diplomatic support permitted the operation, which led to her release.

Now, it’s all about how she will manage her new role in the public world, outside of detention. She calls for a peaceful revolution in Myanmar and direct dialogue with the ruling generals, knowing the regime brutality, for instance, against the monk protest in 2007. However, what are the real intentions of the Junta? BBC reporters already see her release as a threat to their military rule in Burma. Weirdly, the Chinese media didn’t cover the subject.

Indeed, looking at Xinhuanet web site for the last two days, since Aung San Suu Kyi release, they haven’t mentioned what’s been happening in Myanmar (Xinhuanet, 14 & 15.11.10: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/asiaoceania.htm). The Chinese authorities could fear the “white propaganda” (Berridge, 2010, 179) from the Western countries, a direct threat to the authoritarian communist party in China. Other Asian countries reacted carefully after the announcement. Only Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia made clear statements supporting the democratic process in Myanmar. On the other hand, China congratulated the Burmese authorities after the fake election they (the ruling generals) had organised which ended only 6 days before Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. The Chinese government called it “a great leap forward” for democratic rule. Furthermore, it seems bizarre that this was happening just after President Barack Obama’s tour of Asia, deeply marked by his speech in India and Indonesia, promoting them as major world democracies (BBC World News, 9.11.10; Obama in Indonesia, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11334555). The promotion of democratic values in Asia looks similar to the politics of contentment underpinned by the US during the Cold War against the USSR, but in this case encircling China. Cameron’s allusion to the Human Right during an official speech to the Chinese communist party was the only direct communication to the Chinese people on democratic values (BBC World News, 9.11.10, Cameron raises Human Rights in China talks; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11715216).

Public diplomacy in the “Ancient Greek style”, People to People (P2P) is seriously undermined when the authorities impose an unshakable censorship, like in Burma and China. Nonetheless, straight after her release, when Aung San Suu Kyi walked to the door of her residency, Burmese’s people bombarded their informal leader with flash photography and recorded the event. We can all expect that they will share their memory with their fellow citizens, but how could the junta survive the pressure from this “soft power”?

From my point of view, it’s now just a matter of time to see Myanmar becoming a new democratic regime in Asia. If it does happen, it will have an impact on Chinese internal policy. Diplomatic support and the use of soft power would have been proven strong enough to bend military rules to the will of the people. However, I will disagree with Berrigde saying that this is “white propaganda” because as said by the American Diplomat in Burma:

- “It is not for the US (or Western countries) to determined … Burma course. It’s for the Burmese people to work that out”. (BBC news, 15.11.10: Aung San Suu Kyi aims for peaceful revolution, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11755169)

Therefore, public diplomacy is not acting in a way to promote our own values abroad, in this case, but in order to defend the interest and will of the people living under oppression and misery.