Audio: Dr Jason Abbott on Burma after the conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi...

13 August 2009

For more information on Dr Abbott's work and research interests, visit his profile page.

Audio produced by the webteam.

Transcript 

Q: I’m here today with Dr. Jason Abbott, Lecturer in Politics at the University of Surrey. Jason, one of your areas of expertise is Burma and, of course, Burma is in the news at the moment with the verdict announced yesterday on Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese opposition leader. Could you give us, first of all, a brief explanation of events leading up to this verdict?

00.22

Jason: Of Course. It all began in May, when an American Vietnam war veteran (or alleged Vietnam War veteran), John Yettaw, swam across Iniya Lake which Aung San Suu Kyi’s house backs onto. He invaded security and managed to intrude upon the premises where he then remained for the next 2 days. On his departure, he was captured. As a result of his intrusion, Aung San Suu Kyi was charged with violating the terms of her house arrest and as a result she was then detained, put on trial, as we saw yesterday, she was found guilty and as a result she is now serving a commuted sentence of 18 months, which will effectively mean she will play no part in the election scheduled to take place in Burma next year.

01.30

Q: Was this the verdict that people were expecting?

01.34

Jason: Everyone was expecting that there would be a guilty verdict. In fact, in the days leading up to it, many were very pessimistic that Aung San Suu Kyi would receive the harshest penalty that she could get for this crime which would have been 5 years imprisonment. What was surprising, yesterday, was not so much the verdict, but the manner in which the verdict was determined and presented. The military junta allowed a handful of foreign journalists to cover the announcement and a number of invited foreign diplomats from Rangoon. Initially she was sentenced to 3 years hard labour. But 5 minutes later, the Home Minister entered the courtroom and announced that in light of who her father was (Burma’s independence leader and hero), and to preserve stability and order in the country, this sentence would be commuted to 18 months and she would be allowed to serve that sentence in her home - essentially returning to the status quo. She has been under house arrest as we know, for 14 of the last 20 years. So that the military should so publically commute the sentence....that was the something that we were not expecting.

03.18

Q: What has been the response of the international community to these events?

03.21

Jason: The international community has not been united in its response; again that is no surprise though. Western governments - particularly Britain, and the European Union - have condemned the decision wholeheartedly and they’ve been very outspoken in their criticisms, of the process, of the sentence and they have called the trial, a sham, politically motivated trial in order to ensure she won’t take part in next year elections and, on the one hand, called for her immediate release and on the other called for renewed international action against Burma. On the other side of the spectrum, we have Burma’s neighbours in South-East Asia and countries like China who have expressed disappointment in the verdict, but have equally applauded the decision by the junta to commute the sentence to 18 months. They are not joining the chorus for more sanctions, a global arms embargo and so on and we might suggest - or we might speculate - that the junta’s decision to commute this verdict was done in order to divide public opinion internationally and in order to appease Burma's neighbours more than for any concern that the West might have.

05.02

Q: In your opinion, is there anything more the United Kingdom can do in response to these events?

05.09

Jason: Well, it's a difficult question, because the UK is limited in what it can do, because it acts on what is called, the 'common position', it acts in consort with the rest of the European Union. So the UK is putting pressure on the Europe Union to tighten up Europe’s sanction regime and, to be honest, Europe’s sanction regime is far more restricted than the United States. There isn't a total investment ban, for example, there is a ban on certain key areas like minerals, gem stones. There isn’t a total trade ban as yet and most of the sanctions that the EU has imposed are targeted on a few hundred members of the Burmese elite, the generals, their family and so on. So, there are more sanctions that could be imposed by the EU and the UK is calling for that. However, we do have to question whether even tighter sanctions are really going to have the desired effect namely to force the change of policy by the military junta that would lead eventually to release the political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi.

06.45

Q: Well, Jason, thank you very much, as always it's been extremely informative and hopefully we’ll speak to you again soon.

06.53

Jason: Thank you.