Frank

When the sea of saffron swept into the streets of Rangoon heralding the protests by Buddhist monks as the vanguard of the pro-democracy struggle against the military junta, there were shades of a similar struggle waged more than four decades earlier when Black South Africans, in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi's concept of satyagraha, waged peaceful demonstrations against the policies of the Apartheid regime.

That process changed after Sharpeville when police fired on protesters, killing 69 people and injuring 180 others. Passive resistance gave way to guerilla warfare by the outlawed African National Congress. It's not likely that monks will be arming themselves with AK-47's in the face of ruthless repression by the government and this is perhaps one of the main reasons the Free Burma Coalition argues that any comparisons with South Africa's struggle for freedom are unfair to make, even though they fail to take account of how the latter's remarkably peaceful transition has been lauded as a model of democracy, its amnesty program emulated for the manner in which conflict resolution has been addressed and how reconciliation and nation building have become the building blocks for change.

I'd argue there are elements that are similar – the monks taking to the streets, akin to the way students and workers in South Africa marched against unjust rule; how two unjust regimes have countered peaceful protests through brutal acts of oppression, have jailed activists and ignored international appeals to end to violent crackdowns; how Aung San Suu Kyi, still under house arrest, has come to symbolize the best possible hope for transforming the country in the way Nelson Mandela, despite being incarcerated for 27 years in South Africa's prisons, represented the hopes of Blacks for a new dispensation; and how calls for sanctions to end white rule are once again being championed by organizations putting economic pressure on businesses to withdraw their interests in Burma.

While South Africa's nascent democracy grapples with issues of crime; HIV/AIDS; service delivery, or the lack thereof to poor communities, it's hard-earned image as a model of democracy on the continent is being tarnished by it inability, although some might say unwillingness, to address such challenges, not least of all confounding the international community through controversial stances such as its silent diplomacy on Zimbabwe, HIV/AIDS responses and recent posturings on Burma.

South Africa voted with China and Russia in January this year against a United Nations Security Council resolution that was critical of the situation in Burma. Deputy Foreign Affairs minister Aziz Pahad was quoted as saying that South Africa didn't believe troubles in the Asian country could pose a threat to international peace, adding that he believed the UN Human Rights Council is the forum for debating such problems. A former anti-apartheid activist, Pahad has forgotten, or chosen to ignore the fact that Burma was one of many countries which, through the Security Council, supported action against the racist Pretoria regime after the Sharpeville massacre.

After campaigning to be on the Security Council, South Africa's unpopular vote will not have endeared itself to the U.S., which was behind the draft resolution, and its European allies. But then again, it might argue that it's not occupying a seat to win friends. The military junta was, no doubt, pleased by South Africa's vote on the resolution, which effectively defeated attempts to force the military government to release political prisoners and speed up progress towards democracy. And therein might lie an ironic contrast - between the new South Africa, carrying the baggage of its past by stifling debate and the attitude of its former rulers who tried to block Security Council criticisms on the treatment of anti-apartheid activists.

As I write this, the United Nations special envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari has begun his second visit to the embattled country. His first fact-finding mission uncovered disturbing reports of widespread abuses and the mass relocation of arrested monks. It's unlikely that the mandate he carried on behalf of the international community to urge for reform in Burma has been heeded and one might question what benefit there is in a return visit if the military government stubbornly refuses to end its violent crackdown, not least of all consider transferring power to the National League for Democracy (NLD), which won a landslide victory in the elections of May 1990, but was prevented from governing the country by the State Peace and Development Council, a misnomer if ever there was one, of the military junta.

One hopes there won't be killings on the scale of Sharpeville for decisive international action against Burma, or Myanmar as the regime prefers to be known. The blood spilt by peaceful activists was a tragic sacrifice for liberation in South Africa. The monks show an equal determination to defeat the policies of their government, but the catalyst for transformation should never be another Sharpeville.