The junta named it Myanmar, but I still say Burma. Burma, it was, until 1989, barely a year after a protest much like the recent ones ended in a hail of gunfire. Hundreds of thousands of protesters had taken to the streets on the 8th of august 1988, students and monks with upturned begging bowls, demanding democratic rule in Burma. General Ne Win, the leader of the Burmese Government, only said, “when the army shoots, it shoots straight.”

Burma as a nation came into being on 4 January 1948, when it became independent from British rule. It has been ruled by a military dictatorship since a coup by General Ne Win in 1962. The current leadership is led by General Than Shwe, a man said to be ruthless, xenophobic and utterly opposed to democracy.

On the 27th of September 2007, shades of 1988 returned when protesters once again took to the streets, demanding an end to the dictatorship. These latest protests were sparked off by increases in fuel prices, which in turn led to rising prices of basic necessities, like rice and cooking oil. The involvement of the Burmese clergy added moral legitimacy to the protests. The military government reacted in much the same way, with violence.

The world reacted in a predictable fashion, with vague, non-committal expressions of regret. PM Lee Hsien Loong said that, although he condemned the violent response to the protests, regime change is not the best thing for Burma. He said that the ASEAN countries would have to work with the Burmese military, which is the only institution capable of ruling Burma. More recently, Foreign Minister George Yeo said in Parliament, that removing Burma from ASEAN would result in a ‘Balkanisation’ of the region.

Attitudes like these are what keep the Burmese junta in power. It is the apathy and lack of moral courage of neighbouring nations that have sold out the Burmese people and left them alone. Who is to say what is best for Burma, when its own people cry out for democracy? The rule of law in Burma is a dim vision. In elections called in 1990, the National League of Democracy won in the polls despite the fact that its leader, Nobel Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, was under house arrest. The military flatly ignored the people’s choice and took over control.

If there is to be rule of law in Burma, the world, and especially ASEAN, must take a more resolved stance. We can no longer support the oppressive regime by including it in ASEAN, trading with it or providing medical help to its rulers. The ASEAN Charter should include a way to expel members who renege on the common values of ASEAN. More importantly, however, is the moral fibre to do it. No longer should the people of ASEAN be cowed by juvenile ‘bogeyman’ arguments of terrible things that will happen if Burma is removed from ASEAN.

Concepts like individual rights and democracy are by no means universal, and to impose it onto an unwilling nation is colonialism in a different guise. However, basic respect for people and the Burmese people’s right to choose their own form of government is self-evident. The Burmese people have chosen to end dictatorship. They have bled for it, on the streets of their city. The monks of Burma have faced the guns barefoot, a red sea of faith and courage which will not be easily parted.

For them, and for us, I still say Burma.

Akshay Kothari is a second year law student and a writer with the Juris writing cell.