Herald.com | 09/26/2005 | Pacifist dreams need international backing

Herald.com 09/26/2005 Pacifist dreams need international backing

Some of my best friends are pacifists. Some are even militant pacifists. Truly, I respect their conviction and their idealism. I must confess, however, that I am less than impressed with the results that their methods have been producing.

A few years ago, I had the unforgettable privilege of visiting two nations, Tibet and Burma, whose people have spent decades struggling for freedom by following the spiritual and political guidance of their pacifist leaders. The leaders of the quest for freedom in Tibet and Burma (renamed Myanmar by its despotic military rulers) are two of the most extraordinary human beings alive today. The Western world has recognized their cause and their integrity, honoring Tibet's Dalai Lama and Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi with the Nobel Peace Prize. They have gained worldwide fame and have brought attention to the suffering of their people. And yet, they and their followers have failed miserably in achieving their goals.

The Dalai Lama, Tibet's religious leader and the head of its government-in-exile, has spent more than four decades trying to muster diplomatic support in his quest to secure Tibet's independence from China. By now, he doesn't even ask for independence, having lowered his demand to mere autonomy for Tibet under Beijing's rule. We still call them demands but, even as he travels the world with a popularity that eclipses major rock stars, his political muscle has faded along with the bleached Tibetan flag bumper stickers on American cars left over from more optimistic days.

China represses Tibet

As China pushes ahead, quickly becoming an economic superpower, the people of Tibet endure under Beijing's repressive rule, and Tibet's culture within its traditional Himalayan highlands shrinks, making way for China's mighty economic engine. The Dalai Lama, it seems likely, will have to wait until his next incarnation before achieving his and his people's dream of a free Tibet.

The situation in Burma is even more depressing. The country was once the rice-basket of Asia. Today, after decades of despotic military rule, poverty, hunger and disease -- especially AIDS -- are rampant. The country is now one of the poorest in the world.

The remarkable woman who has led her people's determined push to break the shackles of dictatorship, Aung San Suu Kyi, is the only Nobel Peace Prize winner in the world currently under arrest. Fifteen years ago, when Burma's generals inexplicably allowed elections, Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won 80 percent of the seats in parliament. The generals immediately rejected the result and placed Suu Kyi under arrest, where she has spent most of the time since the election, as have many of her supporters.

As the Burmese people languish under a regime whose well-documented practices include forced labor, rape, torture and execution of opponents -- even for nonviolent activities -- the world has attempted a number of strategies to bring about change. After multiple special envoys, scattered sanctions and many, many speeches, the result, according to a recent State Department, is that the prospects for reform continue to decline.

Last week, two men who've had more success with nonviolence, South Africa's Desmond Tutu and the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, released a report urging the U.N. Security Council to take action on Burma. They argue that Burma -- a major exporter of drugs, refugees and disease -- has become a regional threat. These men of peace correctly conclude that, ``Binding Security Council intervention [is] necessary to return to democratic rule.''

Havel and Tutu are absolutely right. Nonviolence is a beautiful theory, but bumper stickers alone don't overthrow dictators.

Last January, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice listed Burma among the world's six ''outposts of tyranny,'' many Burma activists allowed themselves to believe that perhaps now the world would put some muscle behind its rhetoric. So far, however, Burma's generals have grown stronger -- and its people poorer and weaker -- because action against the regime has been inconsistent. China has helped arm Burma, while the United States, Europe and Asia each have a different policy to bring about change.

Burma has lived under military dictatorship since 1962. Beijing's soldiers entered Tibet in 1949. It would be nice if the long wait for freedom would come to an end.

Generals and despots, it appears, do not yield to nonviolent means as quickly as democratic societies do. More effective and unified international pressure is required. If there is any chance that nonviolence will help these millions of oppressed people, then supporters of freedom in Tibet and Burma urgently need to redouble their efforts and rethink their strategy.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs.