What is the US Policy on Burma?

By Kanbawza Win - Asian Tribune -

Former President Bill Clinton coming home with two released journalist from Pyongyang indicate a sign of thaw with North Korea, on the other had but Burma not only refused to have any rapprochement but did not respect the wishes of the Burmese people and international community particularly the UN by sentencing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi again to one and half years to confinement. Nobody would fancy that Jim Webb would come back with John Yettaw and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would be released. But the first visit by the chairman of the Senate foreign Relations Committee seems to indicate that the Obama administration is attempting steer the regime towards a new era of engagement and reward the dictators. One wonders what is the long term policy of the US towards Burma?

The world knows the obstinacy or the cruelty of the thuggish power maniacs Burmese generals, who have subjugated the 50 million plus people and fully supportive at the UN by China, did not care the UN nor the civilized international community. One could recollect that the International Labour Organization said that it would seek to “prosecute members of the ruling Burmese Junta for crimes against humanity.“ And in 2007, anti-government protests by Burmese monks and people were brutally suppressed. As if all this isn’t bad enough, in May 2008, the ruling thugs prevented international assistance to survivors of Cyclone Nargis, greatly exacerbating a situation which resulted in 400,000 people dead and 1 million homeless.

Obviously the Burmese people were quite bewildered when the Secretary of State outlined the 3 Ds policy (Defence, Diplomacy and Development) and the crucial aspect of the 4th D (Democracy) was conspicuously left out. The US had made it clear that neither sanctions nor engagement has worked in Burma. Moreover at the Asian Regional Forum the Secretary of State seems to send the wrong signal for after chastising Burma for its nuclear connection with North Korea eulogise the Junta for enforcing the UN resolution 1874 designed to prevent the spread of nuclear arms. American non-proliferation experts have called on the international nuclear watchdog to seek clarification from the Burmese Regime over its nuclear program after a report that quoted defectors claiming there was a secret military nuclear program not subjected to IAEA inspection.

China and other Asian nations had recently helped persuade Rangoon to turn back a North Korean freighter, the Nam Kam 1, that was being shadowed by US warships on its way to Burma with a suspicious cargo while a month ago, Japanese police arrested a North Korean and two Japanese for allegedly trying to export illegally to Burma a magnetic measuring device that could be used to develop missiles.

The reclusive Burmese Junta knew that with the world full-blown economic crisis, international community will not pay much attention to Burma. The policies and measures adopted by the West, ASEAN and other major countries will inevitably benefit them since these players do not have unified positions and coordinated approaches. Each thinks its policy is better and result-oriented than others. Sad but true, that policy-makers on Burma have spent more time discussing their differences than trying to bridge perception gaps or consolidating tangible engagements that could immediately impact on the Burmese Generals. Even in some quarters of the international community have come round to accept that the Burmese generals will not change any time soon and it is better for them to show flexibility and understanding of the Burmese quagmire and help the Burmese people even though the regime will benefit from such generosity. In such a backdrop, General Than Shwe had made a well calculated risk of the domestic and global response with a sugar coat of leniency of 18-month sentence, long enough to keep Suu Kyi in custody in the next year election which will formalize the military’s grip on power

As long as there is no concerted approach and policy coordination, the regime is safe because, after all more than two decades China and India, the two most powerful Asian players, are still in two minds about their own roles regarding Burma. They have their own interests to protect in supporting the regime as can be clearly seen at the UN Security Council

People`s Republic of China regards the situation in Burma as an internal matter and this is also her position on the situation in Darfur and Sudan. Obviously the government of China does not want the international community speaking out on the country’s treatment of the Tibetans and the Uighurs, nor does it want interference in its dealing with Taiwan, It will continue to have the exclusive business with Burma and is ready to veto it if it comes up to the voting. “Respect for Burma’s sovereignty cannot be transformed into respect for Tibet’s sovereignty” is any one’s guess. Russia has other thoughts regarding Burma’s nuclear ambition.

Amid the shifting caprices of a regime that lacks any legitimacy, a lone object of trust among Burmese, repeatedly credited as the sole figure capable of bridging deep divides fomented since a 1962 coup, amplifying her status as a beacon of resistance is a reminder to the people of Burma and the international community of the military Junta’s penchant for Kafkaesque distortions of justice and its intransigence in the face of widespread international condemnation. Yet Jim Webb will be warmly shaking the hands of Than Shwe whose hands are soak with blood

The problem of Burma is a constitutional and not an ethnic problem like a horizontal one in the Balkans but a vertical one with the ethnic nationalities together with the pro democracy movement struggling against the Burmese army. The crux of the problem is the broken concordat of the 1947 (the Panglong Conference). Until and unless one can solve the very root of the problem, no lasting peace can be found in this a geo strategically important area of the Southeast peninsular.

The current Junta will not let go of its power or negotiate until and unless it is forced to. With the US concentrating on Afghanistan there is every possibility that it will soon become the highest producing narco country whose windfall will shore up the coffers of the Junta who is a nuclear aspirant and as such the problems should be nib in the bud before it become like North Korea. It is high time for the US to have a sustained concentrated Burma policy.

“Smart Targeted Sanctions” that aim at crippling the financial dealings of the Junta and its associates, particularly in S’pore while at the same time send the right message to the people of Burma e.g. blocking certain bank transactions and visa permits. Embargoes on trade and investment that are hurting the Burmese Generals and not the people should be reinforced. More humanitarian aid (including higher education) via the NGOs directly to the local and international NGOs working inside and the peripherals with a check and balance system is recommended.

Most importantly the rag tag ethnic armies (both ceasefire and un-ceasefire groups) have to be coax to have more cooperation and correlation among them and give a clandestine support them via Thailand and India. This will be a big stick policy and the very least will bring the Junta to the negotiating table in face of a civil war. Democracy will add a feather to the existing policy vis a vis China and counter the accusation that in global economic woes American business overrules the conscious will maintain the US prestige to continue as the world leader.

While explaining Burma’s motive behind its nuclear ambition it reveals that it was basically the inability of the Junta to compete with neighbouring Thailand on conventional weapons as the border clash of 2002 demonstrates compelled the Generals to acquire nuclear capability to ‘play power like North Korea. The Junta aspires to become nuclear for the dual purpose of international prestige and strategic deterrence. It has also become clear that under growing pressure to democratize, may seek a nuclear deterrent to any foreign moves to force regime change. It remains undoubtedly true that just like Pyongyang; Rangoon too would like to have a nuclear bomb so that they can challenge the Americans and the rest of the world. Will America stands up to its ideal.

- Asian Tribune -

Print this post