Burma rarely gets mentioned in the western media, and the stories that do come out are almost uniformly depressing. However, at a meeting in northern Thailand - where I am writing this article - I met a number of senior members of the Burmese opposition in a surprisingly upbeat mood.
Burma, or Myanamar as the country is now officially named, has become a byword for political repression, exploitation and slave labour. Aung San Suu Kyi, its most famous opposition leader, is often compared to Nelson Mandela for the length of her detention and the fortitude with which she has borne it.
The military junta has brutally crushed all internal resistance through a brutal counter-insurgency campaign involving human rights violations and mass forced relocation. Various armed opposition groups have been steadily pushed back from the areas they once controlled. There are now 140,000 refugees in Thailand, and between 1 and 2 million people are displaced within the country.
Burma is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. It is home to up to 165 minority groups, most of which are based in the highland and border regions. The country achieved independence from Britain in 1948 and for the next 40 years was torn by a series of armed conflicts, including a communist insurgency and various ethnically based struggles for secession or autonomy.
The military extended its influence throughout Burmese society after a coup in 1962. Regional autonomy was eroded and many ethnic minority groups were displaced from their traditionally owned lands, sometimes as part of a counter-insurgency strategy and sometimes to make way for mega-development projects such as roads, dams and pipelines. Living standards fell precipitously and the country, which was once the richest in south-east Asia achieved "least developed nation status" in 1987.
In August 1988 there was a nationwide civilian uprising that briefly drove the military from power. Although the military soon suppressed the rising, the National League for Democracy, led by the charismatic Aung San Suu Kyi, swept to victory in nationwide elections in 1990. However, the military refused to accept the results of this election and Aung San Suu Kyi has spent most of the last 16 years under house arrest. Military repression was stepped up along with forced relocations. In Shan state alone, between 1996 and 1998, 300,000 people were physically driven from their homes.
The military has succeeded in crushing most internal opposition to its rule since that date, but Burma is increasingly regarded internationally as a pariah state. It has been repeatedly condemned by various UN bodies for systematic violations of human rights, most recently by the UN general assembly last year, and is subject to a variety of international sanctions. In July 2006 even the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean), which previously tolerated the regime announced that it could no longer defend the indefensible. And Syed Hamid Albar, Malaysia's foreign minister, and Asean's chairman, has urged neighbouring China and India to use increase the pressure for change.
Between them India and China are by the far the biggest investors in the country. Asean's shift also has significant implications for the possibilities of a new regional policy towards the regime.
Less publicly, the end of many of the military insurgencies - there were up to 40 taking place at one point - has led to the re-emergence of civil society organisations and an increased willingness of various opposition groups to work together, both in exile and in government-controlled areas. This in turn makes it easier for the international community to provide practical support to Burmese civil society and a unified pro-democracy movement. It is significant that internal opposition political leaders are attending the meeting that is currently taking place.
Of course, differences remain about the extent to which it is possible to pressurise from change within, and there are those who argue that any solution that does not involve regime change will only provide the generals with excuses to delay the inevitable. However, talking to opposition activists, it becomes increasingly clear that most are now thinking in terms of when, rather than if, there will be a transition to democracy, and how to deal with the challenges of building a new society based on justice and peace.
