Navigating the Land of the Lost

Myanmar – There seems to be a lot in the news lately concerning the “hermit kingdom” of the south.  On Monday, the Burmese PM met with U.S. Senator Jim Webb, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific.  Webb, in a continuation of the new pragmatic Obama foreign policy for SE Asia, stated:

“The (U.S.) administration’s new policy and the commitment of the Myanmar government to holding elections next year are both signals that we have the potential to change the dynamic of this important relationship.”

The U.S. wishes to use next years election in Myanmar as an excuse to reestablish relations with the regime in Naypyidaw.  However, many believe that the election, the first in 20 years, will be a sham as the Burmese junta has already began locking up opposition.   In light of this , U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell did qualify the conditions by which the Obama Administrations is amiable to a policy change.  This is the classic with carrot and stick approach – basically threatening not to drop sanctions if the Burmese domestic situation does not change, and to renew targeted sanctions if the situation deteriorates in the future.  The position of this blog on the issue has been stated before, here.

American interests in the state are complex.  Depending on how cynical you are,  human rights, may or may not be important.  No one can judge how much the Obama Admin. “cares” but it is known they get plenty of pressure from various groups to take a hard-line on human rights violations in Myanmar.  That being said, human rights is also a club that the U.S. can hit Myanmar over the head with when convenient.    Most Western focus is on the media darling, Aung San Suu Kyi, but she is not THE MOVEMENT and her domestic influence is waning due to decades of effective political isolation by the junta, it makes little sense to link her treatment to the overall Burmese democracy movement.  A cult of personality around a persona non grata  will not benefit the people of Myanmar, even Suu Kyi is coming to that realization.  From a strategic perspective,  the Chinese relationship with Myanmar is a far more important consideration than the “democracy project”.  Myanmar uses China as leverage to gain concessions out of it’s other neighbors who also want in on “the action“.  They also use China to circumvent Western sanctions.  Access to Myanmar’s natural resources and its stability are far more important to these states than human rights concerns.  Still, it is likely that  Myanmar’s government would like strong relations with other powerful nations, so to avoid being solely a  Chinese “vassal state”.  Obviously, any nation would like to have room to maneuver politically.  The Obama Administration sees an opportunity here, to increase its soft power in Southeast Asia.  Political rapprochement with Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, and Myanmar is key to a not so covert Chinese containment strategy.

America is trying to walk the middle path,  realizing that China’s increasing penetration into Southeast Asia is not a zero-sum game, the U.S. wants a constructive working relationship.   However, Southeast Asia is flush with agricultural and natural resources, and is home to more than half of the world’s annual merchant shipping traffic. Over 80% of Japanese and Chinese oil imports travel through these sea-lanes. The geopolitical reality is that due to proximity and economic clout, China’s access to this region will increase.  If the U.S. does not play it cannot win.  It is painfully obvious, after 20 years of sanctions,  that the U.S. has limited ability to influence  what happens internally in Myanmar, but China being its benefactor, does.  When China speaks, the junta listens, as demonstrated in the recent Kokang border conflict, earlier in the month.  China expressed displeasure with the situation, the junta was immediately apologetic.  When has the junta ever apologized to the West for its actions?  Like China, when Myanmar is tied into the global system it will be more sensitive to global opinion, as it will have something to lose.

All that being said, the junta continues the crackdowns.  A Burmese-American, Kyaw Zaw Lwin, was arrested Sept. 3rd on arrival at Yangon airport.  There are claims that his human rights have been repeatedly violated and he has been intermittently denied diplomatic counsel.  Burmese authorities claim he came to “incite political unrest” among Buddhist monks. Lwin’s mother is already serving a five-year jail stint for political activities; his sister was sentenced to 65 years in prison for her role in the 2007 pro-democracy protests,  known as the aborted Saffron Revolution, which was brutally put down by the regime.   The government also claims that Mr. Lwin belongs to an anti-junta group known as, the All Burma Students’ Democratic Front.  The U.S. Embassy has filed an official complaint concerning Mr. Lwin’s treatment, but did not publicly provide details.  Amnesty International  has alleged  that the regime has used various torture techniques, including starvation, beatings, and sleep deprivation.

In an odd twist, the UN is actually urging ASEAN to crack down on the the Myanmar government in hopes that the political pressure will push the junta toward the release of all political prisoners and fair elections.  Well, they might as well as them to vaccinate all their citizens and provide universal education while they are at it.  Seriously, in a token jester, the junta did release 25 political prisoners last week; however, this is only considered to be about 1 percent of the total.  Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took a bit of a hard-line, stating, “a step in the right direction (that) falls short of expectations”.

Historically, the majority of ASEAN member-states have refrained from criticizing the regime.  Never intended to be a political or economic union, ASEAN has been a collaborative body used to facilitate dialogue and consultation between newly sovereign nation-states afraid of regional instability.  Rather than comparing it to the present day European Union, it is more instructive to compare it to fiercely nationalistic 18th and early 19th century Europe, while remaining cognoscente that Southeast Asia is vastly more diverse culturally, religiously, politically, and economically.  Criticism in the past, might have led to military conflict.  There is no indication that ASEAN will take a collectively different stance this time.  The organization has already scraped plans to appeal for the release Burmese of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.  The reason is no surprise:

Thailand’s idea to send the letter failed to win the support of Laos, Cambodia, Brunei, Burma and Vietnam because they did not want to interfere in Burma’s internal affairs, a Foreign Ministry source said.

Strangely, there has also been limited to no criticism in the West or Southeast Asia over the junta’s recent military adventures on the Chinese in the Chinese border area of Kokang, but from Beijing, scared of instability in its backyard.