Many political analysts agree that Burma’s conflict seems intractable

In recent months, international and regional leaders have blown a lot of hot air concerning progress towards reconciliation in Burma. But now is the time for action, not hot air. People must stop using the word “reconciliation” for political power play. The recent meeting between Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin and US President George W Bush resulted in a joint statement stressing their common objectives on this matter.

The statement stressed their “shared objectives of promoting democracy and national reconciliation in Burma” and emphasised that “both sides [to the conflict] must agree to have closer consultation on this matter”.

The question we might ask at this juncture is how dare Mr Thaksin speak of reconciliation in Burma, when he is not truly committed to seeing it happen?

Mr Thaksin has particular and significant interests in keeping the generals in power.

Nowadays, the word “reconciliation” is trendy, especially in Asian politics.

The proliferation of National Reconciliation Commissions across the region, such as in Thailand, Aceh Indonesia, East Timor, Sri Lanka, and the recent UN-sponsored reopening of war crime trials in Cambodia.

Civil society evidence suggests that many victims are still neglected and reconciliation processes remain under heavy criticism.

There is, as yet, no good example of such a process in Asia yet, and the term continues to roll off politicians’ tongues.

It is, in fact, Mr Thaksin’s autocratic approach to solving the problems of the troubled South that resulted in the escalation of violent conflict there.

The recent establishment of a National Reconciliation Commission in Thailand is in reality aimed at hosing down international concerns over the issue, rather than providing a means to address the causes of the conflict and providing redress for those harmed.

How can Mr Thaksin handle the issue in a fair manner when his regard for the law is problematic?

In addition, Mr Thaksin’s one-sided attachment to the Burmese generals makes for a vulnerable process.

Reconciliation means bringing together conflicting parties and requires those advancing the process to have good relations with both sides.

Does Mr Thaksin have good relations with the main Burmese opposition group, the National League for Democracy?

If he really wants to help the Burmese reconciliation process, it is not too late to start developing a relationship with the NLD and ethnic minority groups. Perhaps he just needs to be given their phone numbers?

Regarding the meaning of “reconciliation”, there is no one common interpretation of the term.

In Asia, reconciliation is more like the story of the six blind wise men. Six blind men try to figure out what an elephant looks like by touching one. One wise man touches the elephant’s ear and says an elephant is like a fan. Another touches its tail and says an elephant is like a rope, and so on.

This story reflects the process of national reconciliation in Burma. Can blind men lead a reasonable reconciliation process in Burma?

Prime Minister Thaksin and President Bush are not the only leaders who are concerned about Burma. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has proposed to achieve change in Burma by 2006.

Yet, all the UN has done is dispatch a special envoy, Razali Ismail, to initiate `’secret talks” between the generals and Daw Aung San Su Kyi. This got us nowhere. Mr Annan should join ex-Czech President Vaclav Havel and Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Peace laureate, in their urgent call for the UN Security Council to consider applying pressure to bring genuine reform and national reconciliation in Burma.

In Burma, reconciliation is interpreted in starkly different ways by the ruling State Peace and Development Council, religious groups _ both Buddhist and Church-based non-governmental organisations _ and the opposition, particularly the NLD.

On the one hand, the SPDC is achieving “national unity” under military tutelage. Its strategy has included a politically exclusive National Convention and a weakly conceived `’road map” to a more disciplined form of democracy.

In fact, plans are afoot to finalise this process by November.

On the other hand, two senior Buddhist figures have appealed to both sides to be flexible and to end the suffering of the Burmese people. They are Sayadaw U Zawtipala, abbot of Kyakhatwaing Monastery in Pegu, and Ashin Kundalabiwuntha of Mahaghandharon Monastery in Mandalay.

Meanwhile, the NLD has released a statement calling for thin-bone-kyay (meaning “amnesia” or `’forgetting”), in which they define their goal of national reconciliation as about finding “ways to condone each other”.

Whatever the differences in interpretation, all parties seeking national reconciliation should consider each other’s positions and work out some common ground, or points of convergence.

It is time to establish a proper process comprising the UN, SPDC, NLD, religious leaders and ethnic nationality leaders. Fifty-two million Burmese people are waiting.

As I have suggested above, in bringing national reconciliation to Burma, everybody has a role to play.

Mr Kofi Annan should encourage the UN Security Council to discuss Burma’s situation. President Bush should stand firm on the Burma issue and support the adoption of Burma onto the UN Security Council agenda. Mr Thaksin can start to develop open relations with the NLD and revive the “Bangkok Process” initiative.

Recently, I met a Burmese medical doctor on a World Health Organisation fellowship programme in a Western country, and asked him about the situation in Burma.

He replied that whoever actually is brave enough to bring a genuine reconciliation process which can produce tangible, “visual outcomes” will win the hearts and minds of the people.

Burmese people desperately want peaceful change. And now is the time to start a genuine `’inclusive” national reconciliation process in Burma.

Toe Zaw Latt is a research associate with The Burma Fund