Father Cervellera, why don’t you agree with those who, like Walzer, highlight the apolitical nature of the Buddhist anti-regime movement?
It seems to me to be a senseless criticism. Firstly I wouldn’t wish for a ‘social democratic’ revolt in this context because we know that the present junta claims for itself the role of socialist junta, and, what’s more, we know what this adjective means for so many countries of this continent. Then, in reality, even if Buddhism in itself does not have a political ethos, the monks in Burma have always had a revolutionary role and been critical towards the regime. It must not be forgotten that these monks also form the intellectual class of Burmese society, because they are the ones who study and who write books. And not only books on mysticism and interior spirituality, but also works which comment on social problems, seen from a Buddhist perspective. In short, they are not only the spiritual, but also the cultural axis of the nation.
What has been the attitude of the monks towards the regime in the past?
The monks have always had the function of a critical social consciousness – they criticised the British occupation, pushed for independence, and opposed the regime that in the 1980s once again violently suppressed the democratic revolt. As I said, religion gives strength to face everyday life. The monks have always defended the supreme spiritual value of choice for Buddhism, for the monastic life, and, finally, for the life of the population.
Which is closely linked to the monasteries?
Yes, absolutely. We should remember that in Burmese society, precisely because it is profoundly Buddhist, sooner or later everyone, for a longer or shorter period, enters into the monasteries. And so between the monasteries and society there is a continuous osmosis.
And yet, if the monks have always opposed the dictatorship, why is it only the projecting of images of bloodshed via internet which has finally given rise to an international revolt with respect to the oppression of the Burmese people?
Let’s remember first what the stages of the revolt have been. The first factor was that the Burmese people are well and truly fed up with the situation: the beginnings of the revolt and of the marches were prompted by the increase in the price of petrol and of transport. Our sources at Asia News in Burma have told us that there are many workers who are forced to pay something like a third of their monthly wages solely on transport, and this has aggravated the position of these people who, after forty years of dictatorship, find themselves ever poorer, whilst the military class is extremely rich. And so the first spark was, primarily, the injustice forced upon the population by the junta. Secondly, in the face of this injustice, the people had the strength to say “enough is enough”, and to take the decision to change something, despite having very little hope that the international community would support them.
Why this scepticism?
It’s very simple. In all these years the international community has shown no interest in what has been going on in Burma, ignoring decades of injustices, violence, violations of human rights and elections which have not been recognised.
Let’s return to the stages of the revolt. When did the Buddhist involvement begin?
The support of the Buddhist community, which is the spiritual axis of Burma – a very important country from a religious point of view – came after the initial popular revolt. And this also lent a sense of moral struggle to the side of the people. Let’s remember that, when faced with the first demonstrations against the increase in fuel prices, the junta responded with violence, arresting some human rights activists and beating those who had participated in the march, including some Buddhists. At this point the monks requested that the junta apologise for the violence. Not only did the junta not apologise, but it also attempted to buy over the monks, bringing gifts to the monastery where monks had been injured. In response, the monks refused not only refused to accept the gifts, but even took some of the soldiers hostage. In the face of threats, these hostages were released, but from that moment on the entire Buddhist community began to participate in the marches – which are not primarily marches of opposition, but of solidarity to individuals, to the poor, to the people who every day walk miles and miles to work because they cannot afford a ticket. So finally the monks, too, began to march within the city to express their solidarity.
And it was only later that the media arrived?
They arrived because the youth of Burma know how to use cameras and the internet, and so began to broadcast these images and this news across the world. At this point the international community could not refuse to act. And, in fact, in order to put an end to the opposition and to return everything to ‘calm’, so to speak, what did the regime do? It closed down the internet, blocked all photos, and took journalists into custody, along with all those who were communicating via these sites. In fact, those photographs are the means by which the government is finding, one by one, the people who took part in the marches. And so repression arrives.
What will happen now?
People are continuing as much as possible to show their opposition to the junta, but the junta, however, has begun a total ‘clean out’, no longer showing any regard even for Burmese tradition. It is arresting the people, yes, but also monks, and laying siege to the monasteries, starving the communities, imprisoning students. The most recent sources even state that, as well as a number of monks, the military are eliminating the soldiers who fired on the crowds in case any UN inquest should bring to light witnesses. What’s more, the junta is proceeding in such a scientific way with its repression, and with such precision, that it has catalogued dissidents into four categories: those who led the marches, those who were in the front line of the marches, those who participated in the marches, and those who did not participate but who supported the revolt. However, the junta has gone too far in challenging the religious world of the monks, and it has not gone down very well with many soldiers, and perhaps even with some generals. There was one deserting soldier, for example, who claimed to have fired on the crowd with tears in his eyes. We don’t know if this is true or not, but what is sure is that Burmese people have been forced to do things which go against their own spirituality and tradition.
Now that the media has ceased to recount the repression, however, the international community has also ceased to interest itself in it.
No, listen, the opposite is true. The interest of the media has died down because the interest of the international community has died down. Let us not forget – otherwise we are distorting the truth – that the media reflect the people. The Burmese people are continuing to try to make their voices heard, and are calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics, given that China holds the economic destiny of Burma in its hands.
China, economic interests…How important are these, and how do they conflict with the demolition of the regime?
Unfortunately I believe that there is a less noble motive on the part of the international community with relation to this affair, because Burma is also one of the richest countries in gas and petrol, at least in the South-east Asia region. There are the interests of India and China at stake, who both need energy resources from Burma, and so they are trying to cover the crimes committed by the junta. And, more generally, there are also the interests of other Asian countries with respect to Burma’s raw materials at stake, and this is why, for many years, these nations have requested that Burma improve its human rights record, but have equally refused the possibility of an embargo or of sanctions. Finally there is the West, which is also ever more sensitive to the issue of energy sources, and ever more interested in making its own voice heard. On the one hand it evokes human rights, and on the other, as always, it ensures that its own economic interests are well protected.
Translation by Liz Longden