Asia Sentinel

Home

Politics

Burma

The Obama Administration on Burma

Written by Reid Lidow

Monday, 13 August 2012

•

Obama tilts

Constructive Engagement 2.0

The argument put forth in the United States that the US is moving too fast on Burma. It seems out of touch. At the present time, the US is not in Burma but it should and will be shortly thanks to efforts by the Obama administration.

Representing the views of many in Washington these days, Asia Specialists Michael Green and Daniel Twining have lashed out against the administration for moving too swiftly in rewarding the Burmese government for recent reform efforts. In a July 15 Washington Post Op-Ed piece, the two, leftovers from the administration of George W. Bush, accused Obama of “moving too fast on Burma." Their core argument is that despite recent democratization efforts, the "military retains firm control over parliament, stands ready to repress organized dissent and continues military campaigns against ethnic minorities."

However, during a recent research trip to the potholes -- and not the trenches -- of Rangoon, the average Burmese contacted believed these concerns are increasingly unfounded. Access to parliamentary session transcripts is becoming available, the military is largely overlooking organized dissent, and ceasefire agreements are being brokered with ethnic minorities.

The progress that the world has seen so far may plateau, but Burmese who were interviewed believe it will not be reversed, as Green, Twining and most conservatives fear. It appears that gained democratic ground will not be lost. In an interview with a successful Burmese businessman and longtime supporter of Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) the source argued, "The country is moving in the right direction. There is no doubt. There will be no turn-around; we don't have to worry about that."

When asked if the US is acting prematurely by easing sanctions, he remarked, “No, the US is actually late. The Chinese are here and the European Union already suspended their sanctions.”

When queried about the recent reforms, a formerly risky line of questioning, there was a general aversion by those interviewed to speak to the topic. From the NLD headquarters to officers at NGOs to citizens on the street, the legitimacy of the reforms -- a recurring theme of the Green and Twining article -- is seen as moot. As a senior advisor at the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s office in Rangoon put it: “Look, that debate is not productive. The change has happened; it has taken place. The onus is on us (the people of Burma) to make sure the reforms are accelerated.”

Critics of Washington’s easing of sanctions correctly acknowledge that major tectonic shifts in Asia, namely the rise of China, have resulted in Burma hedging its bets by forging more partnerships like those with the US and EU. This, of course, has been done in part through democratic reforms. The most current issue that Green and Twining cannot be blamed for missing, but must acknowledge now, are the implications of the July 2012 Asean Summit in Cambodia.

For the first time in Asean’s history, as has been widely reported, the 10 Southeast Asian member states, Burma included, failed to issue a joint communique. The cause of the breakdown was due to a small minority of states, led by Cambodia, taking issue with the inclusion of the South China Sea disputes linked to China in the document.

What appears to have happened is that the strings that did not come with the $10 billion in foreign aid from China to Cambodia over the last two decades were suddenly pulled. China’s increasing influence has changed the atmosphere of Asean.

At a time when China is putting pressure on client states in Asia, the US needs to be doing the same. The Obama administration appears to understand this as reflected by the recent round of sanctions easing. It is a step in the right direction for the developing US-Burma bilateral relationship. The statements coming from President Obama on the US’s pivot back into Asia, and Burma specifically, sound a great deal like President Clinton’s “constructive engagement” of China nearly 20 years ago. After billing the US’s attempts to isolate China as “unworkable, counterproductive and potentially dangerous,” Clinton engaged China through a deepened economic relationship in an effort to avoid the reality that “If we treat China like an enemy, it surely will become one.”

The same can be said for Burma today. By once again pursuing constructive engagement, the Obama Administration will succeed in not only forming a lasting political and economic ally in Southeast Asia, but also arresting what appears to be the free rein of Chinese influence throughout the region.

Reid Lidow is an undergraduate researcher at the University of Southern California in international relations and political science. He recently returned from two weeks in Burma on an independent research trip evaluating the quality of reforms in the state.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (5) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Campaign Coordinarot
written by Myra Dahgaypaw, August 13, 2012

Let's not forget that change is still in the air, and changes happen only for central Burma, and particularly for the privileged and/or the high profile people. The people of Burma, particularly the ethnic civilians haven't experienced such change yet. Let's not ignore human rights abuses and mass atrocities that are occurred in the ethnic areas on daily basis if one wants to contribute to real change in Burma. While one did research, talk the people in Rangoon and Naypyidaw, it'll be great if one can also bring in the voices of the ethnic minorities.

...
written by Allyson, August 13, 2012

Reid, your analysis is critically flawed in that it focuses solely on interviews conducted in Rangoon. Yes, things are changing in central Burma. (Although, it's important to note that none of the new developments are permanent.) However, when it comes to human rights violations and the suppression of ethnic minorities, problems continue to loom large. As someone who recently visited Burma's war-torn Kachin State, I urge you to move beyond Rangoon before putting forward further analysis. Otherwise, you're missing the true picture.

...
written by Ohn, August 14, 2012

It surely is unprecedented boom time for a lot of crowd in Rangoon with or without NLD connection. The concept of connected to the NLD certifies a good guy has gone out of the windows as well. On the street people could not be bothered although there sure is a immense cult for Aung San Suu Kyi. . As far as ordinary Burmese goes, no politician matters. They are all regarded with suspicion.

Thein Sein and Co. sure knows how to play the game of this formular and tick the check box world.

The genuine question of plight of the majority Burmese is a totally different matter. They do want to feel they belong to the world with McDonald and Coke, but they currently do not realise how much they have to relinquish for that yet. When the bulldozers, the most numerous arrivees at the Burmese ports currently, turn up their doorstap one morning with the back up of the People's Tatmadaw, things may start to change.

Current so-called organised political movements are all in support of Thein Sein so much so that he even paid the former students group for their services in supporting him for the Rohingya affair.

Burma is free only when the military is a quarter of what it is now and stays in the barracks. Until then, happy exploitation!

Show the money
written by Mamakthir, August 14, 2012

Seems the same message "Either give me the resources or I will **** you."

...
written by Frankie Fook-lun Leung, August 18, 2012

You have to be very careful in not jumping to conclusions. When a country like Burma which has been left behind for so long, its institutions have become dysfunctional. Moreover, the ethnic conflicts have been suppressed. When democratic representation is emerging, it is inevitable that bloody conflicts will ensue as it has already taken place. Burma under military rule means that all the channels of expression or ventilation of grievances have been blocked for so long. The U S is right in being cautious. The situation needs to be monitored.