SUBSCRIBE|ADVERTISE | DONATION
Irrawaddy CONTACT US|FAQ
BURMESE VERSION




COMMENTARY
No Turning Back
By AUNG ZAW Thursday, August 27, 2009

COMMENTS (10)
RECOMMEND (107)
E-MAIL
PRINT

It’s no secret that the regime in Burma wants to repair its frosty relationship with America. It would especially like to see the lifting of US sanctions, which have an impact not only on the general population, but are also hampering the junta leaders’ ambition to build a modern armed forces.

Historically, there is little reason for the two countries to regard each other as enemies. Despite the US-backed occupation of northern Shan State by the Chinese Kuomintang in the 1950s, Burmese military commanders have never felt the same hostility toward the US that they reserve for Burma’s former colonial masters, the British.

Burma’s current rulers have not forgotten that their predecessor, Gen Ne Win, was a guest in the White House just a few years after seizing power. At the time, the US was keen to get a foothold in a country on China’s doorstep. Ironically, when Ne Win killed unarmed students in 1970s, it was Beijing, not Washington, that expressed outrage.

Fearing Communist China’s growing influence in the region, the US had no qualms about forming close military ties with Burma. For decades, top officers in the Burmese armed forces attended West Point and the Command and General Staff College, while key members of Burma’s most feared spy agency were trained by the CIA.

Washington was also generous with its military hardware. Until the late 1980s, Burma’s army and air force employed US jet fighters, helicopters and M-16 assault rifles. Bell helicopters supplied by the US to help Burma wage a war on drugs were also used in operations against ethnic insurgents. And when Burmese riot police fired on students in 1988, they were armed with American-made M-16s.

But it was at this point that US-Burma relations rapidly deteriorated. After decades of ignoring Burma’s poor human rights record and political repression, Washington suddenly became a staunch champion of the country’s brutally suppressed pro-democracy movement and an outspoken critic of the junta that seized power in 1988.

Now, after two decades of treating Burma’s rulers like pariahs, Washington is reviewing its policy toward the country as part of President Barack Obama’s new, less confrontational approach to dealing with the world’s dictators. Even as he tells “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent” that they are “on the wrong side of history,” Obama says that he is ready to offer his hand to those who are “willing to unclench their fist.”

The Burmese generals were quick to read this as a sign that the US was likely to soften its stance toward them, and were only too happy to share Obama’s conciliatory message with the people of Burma in state-run media—except for the part about the need for dictators to “unclench their fist” if they want to enjoy better relations with the US, which was deemed too “sensitive” by the junta’s censors.

In August, the generals finally got their chance to show the world that they, too, were ready to extend their hand in friendship. The highly publicized visit of US Sen Jim Webb was lauded in the state-run press as “a success for both sides as well as the first step to promotion of the relations between the two countries.”

A commentary in The New Light of Myanmar, a regime mouthpiece, noted that Webb did not act like a typical “neocolonialist” or “loud-mouthed bully.” However, it cautiously added that Webb’s visit was just “the first step toward marching to a 1,000-mile destination.”

What was most remarkable about this encounter was how starkly Webb’s reception contrasted with that of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who traveled to Naypyidaw in June but was denied a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. The difference signaled the junta’s eagerness to cut a deal with Washington.

The immediate outcome of Webb’s visit was the release of John Yettaw, the American who had been sentenced to seven years in prison for illegally entering Suu Kyi’s residential compound in May. Meanwhile, Suu Kyi and her two live-in aides are now serving a further 18 months under house arrest because of Yettaw’s actions.

To the junta’s way of thinking, all of this makes perfectly good sense. Just as Suu Kyi’s trial and conviction were obviously politically motivated, Yettaw’s release was clearly a political gambit intended to improve the regime’s chances of repairing ties with the US.

But the regime is going to have to go a lot further if it expects the Obama administration to meet it halfway. Following Webb’s visit, the White House issued a statement welcoming the junta’s gesture, but also urging “the Burmese leadership in this spirit to release all the political prisoners it is holding in detention or in house arrest, including Aung San Suu Kyi.”

Clearly, then, Webb’s visit was not the breakthrough that he and other champions of engagement with the regime hoped it would be.



1  |  2 



COMMENTS (10)
 
Please read our policy before you post comments. Click here
Name:
E-mail:   (Your e-mail will not be published.)
Comment:
You have characters left.
Word Verification: captcha Type the characters you see in the picture.
 

Moe Aung Wrote:
10/09/2009
Plan B,

"In promoting SPDC intransigence we are all guilty by association."

Speak for yourself. It's excessive greed, hatred and ignorance at the root of their intransigence, all take and no give, one misdemeanor after another, even when the US has been explicit about a review in policy, certainly more than a nudge and a wink. It's power above all else, and "focusing on the people" the last thing on the generals' minds.

"focusing on the people all the time might make the difference."

In reality, all parties pay lip-service to the people. Those who put their money where their mouth is are alas all too few. If the great religions were really successful in overcoming human weakness, we should all be in heaven/nivirna/whatever by now - a couple of millennia is certainly long enough.

Then there are some elites at least willing to share the national pie, and others who want far more than the lion's share. All for one and one for one.

Plan B Wrote:
08/09/2009
In promoting SPDC intransigence we are all guilty by association. I am you are so are the west. The degree of which is up for debates.

Here you describe the SPDC as a ruling government that does not deserve another 2nd chance, yet you will not acknowledge their "their staying power".

In diplomacy, "trust but verify" is the motto.Plenty of mistrust already existed.

After this round of conflicts and related barbarity the west will remember from which point will they base their engagement from.

More than enough will have happened by then to supply fodder for all sides to justify any policy they choose to espouse. However focusing on the people all the time might make the difference.

Moe Aung Wrote:
06/09/2009
plan B,

Surely you've heard of tit-for-tat diplomacy, and carrots and stick diplomacy, too. Chance would be a fine thing for the people, to free themselves from the military yoke, unless your generals are the only ones who deserve all the breaks and yet another lease of life.

Unrealistic expectations - wishing for normalization of relations with business opportunities in a very abnormal situation that shows no sign of improving - will only lead to disappointment and frustration.

Blaming it on someone who's not responsible for serial and habitual abuse of power is very unlikely to change things either.

Trust is something you must earn, and not something you have a right to break at will with no consequences.

plan B Wrote:
05/09/2009
In diplomacy every chance is a second chance. As for the British they got off without getting off!

Ne Win was the most coddled dictator at the court of Saint James. His antics at the race courses are well recorded.

Can't really say with they got off with these continuation of absolutely useless:
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16565
Antics.

Moe Aung Wrote:
02/09/2009
I don't buy this paranoia business; a degree of mistrust and xenophobia, yes, like most nation states. Attempts at getting the regime off the hook by saying it's the others that make it what it is, however, amount to blaming everybody except itself for running the country into the ground and for domestic strife, not to mention the ongoing human rights abuses in both ethnic and Burman areas today.

And how many breaks, how many more second chances do they deserve in 21 years, 47 since 1962? At least the British knew when to get off, though even they needed a good push.

plan B Wrote:
31/08/2009
Ko Moe Aung
I empathize well with your take on SPDC performance as a responsible government.
Politely put "Dismally wanting" given the past.
If you will care to again read this article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6479/is_3_30/ai_n31178685/?tag=content;col1
Last paragraph of page 13 on you must then be convinced from the very good reasoning that the West and the oppositions have not only push SPDC towards what it is today but also denying that at every turn "they might be the main cause of SPDC paranoia that might have effected the subsequent acts of unspeakable atrcities towards the citizenry." An ugly truth about survival of Dictatorship.
Furthermore:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/eyes-of-the-storm/aaron-brown-interview-maureen-aung-thwin/5439/
My opinion is not that different.
Afford them proper assurance through engagement and opportunity for a new beginning.
Trust but verify.Take nothing for granted. See the changes. Let's move forward.

Salai Biak Wrote:
29/08/2009
(1)The US is clearly doing realpolitik, or hard economics and hard politics in this Burma's case as can be understood in his article.We must know that the US interest is not democracy and human rights,but its strategic interests,it's what we are facing in international politics today.

(2)the junta's 2010 elections must be welcome as opportunity for both political and economic reforms, instead of boycotting it and getting nothing anyway.

(3)the NLD should participate in elections to gain its party credibility, and ask the US to monitor in the electoral process.

(4)it's understandable why opposition groups and ordinary people do not like 2008 constitution mainly because it gives 25% for miliatary seats.But we must know the reason why it's reserved.it's because the NLD's U Kyi Maung and NLD youth members,threatened the generals to put them on trial. this is the main reason why 25% seats are reserved for their security (the regime's security). They are not wrong from their point of view.

Moe Aung Wrote:
29/08/2009
pLan B,

"Release of all political prisoners!"
Hear, hear!

'The West MUST begin to encourage SPDC to "TAKE CARE" of the people more in ways that only they can and know how.'

The people have been on the receiving end of how well the generals take care of them for so long, they shudder to think how much longer military misrule will continue to plague the country. Let's hope the West will not end up watering the proverbial poison plant.

pLan B Wrote:
28/08/2009
Kudos to Ko Aung Zaw
Finally, a chronologically accurate description of recent events with very reasonable interpretations that will make sense to even the most ardent anti Webb's elements.

The title that has described the open door that SPDC must now choose to enter with the very first appropriate gesture:

"Release of all political prisoners!"

Knowing that the next 1000 miles are an almost insurmountable journey, 2º to the sins and idiocy of everyone involved, and considering the possible faux pas ahead, please continue to be vigilant against elements that might derail this only avenue available that will benefit the people.
The past sins of the west being:
1)Sanctions,
2)Relentless vilification
3)Acquiescing to the profiteering elements under the guise of Democracy,not gauging the well intended sanction having (-) effect on people more than SPDC.
The West MUST begin to encourage SPDC to "TAKE CARE" of the people more in ways that only they can and know how.

Pe Myint Wrote:
27/08/2009
It is not difficult to read Than Shwe's mind in relation to US. He wants to solve the problem of ceasefire groups before the coming election in 2010 but his hands are tied due to China's cosy relationship with those groups. He is now playing US card against China and once the problem is solved he will go back to business as usual. Those engagers must see this before they offer any appeasement to the regime. Give Than Shwe carrots he will just eat them all!



More Articles in This Section

bullet How to Select a UN Special Envoy?

bullet Why the 2008 Constitution is the Junta's Holy Grail

bullet Than Shwe and the Waiting Game

bullet A Tip for Asean: Ethnic Reality beyond the Election

bullet Dark Signs of Things to Come

bullet A Mouse Tries to Catch A Big Cat’s Tail

bullet You've Got Mail, Than Shwe!

bullet No Turning Back

bullet Letter from Kathmandu

bullet Change Must Come From Within


 

Home |News |Regional |Business |Opinion |Multimedia |Special Feature |Interview |Magazine |Archives |Research
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.