Attacking Academic Freedom or Legitimate Scrutiny?

By MARK FARMANER Thursday, September 15, 2011

Two remarkable exchanges about Burma took place recently. One started with an article by academic David Steinberg of Georgetown University in Asia Times online which prompted David Mathieson of Human Rights Watch to respond by refuting his arguments and providing alternative analysis of the issues raised.

It seemed like healthy and robust debate, but then David Steinberg responded with an extraordinary tirade in The Irrawaddy which accused those who disagree with him of bullying.

But David Steinberg’s over-the-top response to being challenged was nothing compared to the hysterical reaction of UK-based consultant Ashley South, in response to an article in Thailand’s The Nation newspaper by Naw Htoo Paw of the Karen National Union (KNU).

Naw Htoo Paw took Ashley South to task over his reports and positions about the Karen struggle for human rights and humanitarian issues. The only surprising feature of the article is that it had taken the KNU so long to respond to Ashley South’s incessant criticism, and his constant undermining of life-saving cross-border aid for people struggling in eastern Burma’s war zones.

For years he has written reports and articles without facing a considered and nuanced public response from the KNU. His reaction when finally being on the receiving end himself was to write a letter in the New Mandala blog-site implying that Htoo Paw’s article, and David Mathieson’s article in Asia Times, were an attack on academic freedom.

Why this extreme reaction? South and Steinberg appear to be arguing that the articles made personal attacks against them, rather than sticking to the issues. But this is a misleading argument if you read all elements of the debate. Both South and Steinberg put themselves forward as independent experts on Burma. They seek to influence governments, the United Nations, the media and NGOs. Is it unreasonable, therefore, to question or challenge their record and their claims?

The significance of the exchange goes beyond South and Steinberg’s sensitivity about having the tables turned, and facing more scrutiny themselves rather than just scrutinising others. It is also symbolic of a deeper rift between many organisations promoting human rights and democratisation in Burma, and a number of self proclaimed independent experts and academics.

What binds this group in most instances is criticism of the mainstream Burmese democracy movement and exile Burmese organizations, and criticism of Western policy on Burma, such as sanctions. All have in common a preference for softer engagement with the dictatorship in Burma.

But where this changes from legitimate disagreement on strategy, and becomes of more serious concern, is that some analysts also have a tendency to downplay, or pay passing lip service to, the serious human rights abuses taking place in Burma. They also tend to talk up phoney political initiatives by the dictatorship, which translates, in effect, to promoting them.

The phenomenon of having academics and experts play sycophantic support roles in dictatorships is not unique. Lenin is alleged to have dubbed intellectuals endorsing the Soviet Union as “useful idiots.”

While with Burma the academics and experts do not go so far as to actually defend the dictatorship, and many are genuine in their desire to see change in Burma, the Burmese dictatorship considers their role as positive.

Most continue to get visas to Burma, and some are given limited access to regime officials. They are allowed to be quoted in Burmese media, and diplomats from the dictatorship cite them in international fora to reinforce their diplomacy.

It should be possible to raise legitimate questions about their track record and claims of independence, without being accused of making personal attacks.

Both South and Steinberg have been directly paid for their work, and continue to enjoy (and laud) their access to Burma even as many non-Burmese researchers, academics, journalists, and aid workers keep being denied. What about the thousands of exiled Burmese dissidents or hundreds of thousands of refugees who cannot safely go home? Surely who funds both of them and their contemporaries is a relevant question, especially as they claim independence?

Look at how many of these “experts” endorsed the hardline and moderates line the military regime promoted during the time of Khin Nyunt.
The US mission in Rangoon was not so easily fooled, as revealed in a US cable dated Aug. 4, 2005.

“The hypothesis being that the disgraced Prime Minister was a moderate or a reformer who lost out to the hard-liners in a power struggle. We disagree. General Khin Nyunt was a hard-liner, albeit a more polished and approachable one. He was a pragmatist who cultivated foreign countries and a purported dialogue with the opposition simply as a means to mollify the international community and perpetuate the regime's absolute control,” claims the cable released by Wikileaks.

“His ouster was a consolidation, not simply of hard-liners, but of the top generals who time and again demonstrate a remarkable ability to eat their own in order to preserve a carefully constructed system of patronage and power sharing. Khin Nyunt made himself a tempting morsel—fattening on his patronage network and the power of his intelligence apparatus—and the SPDC maw swallowed him up just as it has others before him.”

Is this miscalculation about Khin Nyunt not relevant to raise when these same people now tell us that Thein Sein is a moderate?

Look at how many also promoted the dictatorship’s line about Aung San Suu Kyi being hardline and inflexible. Yet another US cable revealed that in 2004 Aung San Suu Kyi was even willing to resign from the NLD in her efforts to reach compromise and agreements with Than Shwe.

Even those analysts who acknowledge negatives tend to focus on vague possible positives in their conclusions.

A classic example of this was a March 2010 paper by Richard Horsey in which he stated: “The electoral legislation thus sets the scene for an election with some similar characteristics to the 1990 election—that is, it will once again not be free (the political space is tightly controlled, many political actors are imprisoned, there are tight controls on political parties, and continued restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly), but the count itself may well be reasonably fair as it was felt to be in 1990.” This assessment was completely wrong. Is highlighting this a personal attack?

Ashley South proclaims support for cross-border aid while at the same time systematically undermining it. Is highlighting this disparity in his actions and his words really an attack on academic freedom?

There is a big difference between bullying or attacks on academic freedom, and legitimate scrutiny. Perhaps what the extreme reaction to Naw Htoo Paw and Mathieson’s article really reveals is that such scrutiny has been lacking, and is long overdue.

Mark Farmaner is Director of Burma Campaign UK.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22075&page=2