(Courtesy: The Irrawaddy Magazine, First Published on Monday, December 15, 2008)
Since Gen Ne Win seized power in 1962, Burma has proudly proclaimed its neutrality in international affairs. Under Snr-Gen Than Shwe, the country’s “active and neutral” foreign policy remains in place, although many question whether this accurately describes the way Burma now relates to the rest of the world. Than Shwe’s regime has long been a target of Western sanctions, which include a visa ban that prohibits the paramount leader himself from traveling to the West. Relations with neighboring countries are, however, more cordial. This has produced a foreign policy that is more selective than neutral.
Last week, the general who routinely snubs visiting UN envoys welcomed Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who received Than Shwe’s special envoy, Foreign Minister Nyan Win, in September 2007 amid the brutal crackdown on monk-led protests. State-run papers reported that Than Shwe briefed the Chinese minister on Burma’s domestic situation, including the progress of reconstruction work in the cyclone-hit Irrawaddy delta. More importantly, the general reported on the country’s “democratic process and economic development, based on the principles of independence and self-determination,” according to China’s Xinhua news agency.
The junta chief also reassured his visitor that Burma continued to value its paukphaw (fraternal) friendship with China. Burmese leaders have traditionally used the term “paukphaw” to refer to relations with China. This special relationship has, however, been subject to numerous strains over the years. This was especially true in the 1960s and 70s, when China aided the Communist Party of Burma (CPB).
Although the “big brothers” in Beijing dubbed Ne Win a “fascist,” the Burmese strongman was pragmatic and visited China several times to repair ties. He held high-level talks with Chinese leaders and maintained a good relationship. In return, leaders from China also paid several state-level visits to Burma. But as Ne Win dined with leaders in Beijing, Than Shwe and other mid-ranking officers posted in the northern frontier region in the 1970s and 80s continued the fight against Chinese-backed communists. They would never forget China’s efforts to overthrow the government in Rangoon.
Today the CPB is gone, and its troops never did march down to Rangoon. China has been the regime’s major ally since the military coup of September 1988, supplying the regime with military and economic aid. Border trade between the two countries has also expanded, to an estimated annual level of US $1.5 billion. Now China is planning to build a gas pipeline in 2009, linking Sittwe on the Arakanese coast with China’s landlocked province of Yunnan. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) will head the $2.5 billion pipeline project with a 50.9 percent stake, while Burma’s state-run Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) will hold the rest. Besides the MOGE’s stake in the project, Beijing will also be counting on the regime to keep armed groups along the China-Burma border under control.
Although military leaders in Burma have expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of some of the military hardware and jet fighters they have purchased from China, they still appreciate Beijing’s unwavering support, including exercising its veto at the UN Security Council. However, it is important not to overestimate China’s influence over Burma. China could also be looking for an alternative to Than Shwe, and like everyone else, Chinese officials are looking at the post-Than Shwe era and beyond the planned 2010 election. Chinese know that the aid policy and economic cooperation over the past 20 years has not paid off much.
Chinese remain skeptical that the aid, economic cooperation and investment in Burma will translate into meaningful economic development. It is obvious that Burma is descending into a failed state. China is only helping to preserve the regime.
It is unfortunate that China, which once sought to overthrow the Ne Win regime, is now backing one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Than Shwe often tells his generals that as long as he can count on three countries—China, India and Russia—for backing, his regime will survive. Of these three, China is obviously the most crucial. Increasingly, however, the junta has been looking beyond China for new friends, new markets and economic cooperation.
This month, Burma confirmed that it will open an embassy in Kuwait. Tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Burma and Kuwait. Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammed al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah visited Burma in August and signed an agreement on economic and technical cooperation between the two countries.
During a meeting with the visiting prime minister, Than Shwe informed him of his “road map” to “disciplined democracy” and explained the need for the army to safeguard Burma’s unity and stability. Deputy Foreign Minister Maung Myint visited Kuwait recently looking to expand Burma’s trade and business activities there. This is not the first time the regime has looked to the Middle East to expand its diplomatic relationships. In 2006, Iran’s deputy minister for oil paid a visit to Burma to express his country’s interest in cooperating with the junta.
In April of last year, we also saw Burma formally restore its ties with North Korea. Relations between the two countries had been severed for more than two decades after North Korean state-sponsored terrorists launched a deadly bomb attack on a high-ranking South Korean delegation of politicians who were visiting Rangoon. However, a clandestine diplomatic relationship had been restored as early as the 1990s. In recent years, North Korean technicians have been seen in Rangoon and in the newly built capital. Well-informed sources reported that North Korean agents usually stay at state-owned guesthouses on the outskirts of Rangoon. The lack of transparency surrounding the North Korean agents’ frequent visits to Burma has fueled rumors about the nature of the cooperation between these two “outposts of tyranny.”
But even as Than Shwe looks to broaden Burma’s diplomatic horizons, it is clear that he remains very selective when choosing potential allies. In May, Cyclone Nargis offered an opportunity to forge friendlier ties with the US and the West, but Than Shwe opted to spurn their offers of assistance because they came in warships. The paramount leader doesn’t really count the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) as an ally, but maintains a normal relationship with the regional grouping. His regime’s recent decision to send prominent dissidents to jail demonstrated his disregard for the principles laid out in the Asean charter.
With regard to Burma’s closest neighbor, Thailand, we have seen many ups and downs in the relationship over the past two decades. Thaksin Shinawatra, the billionaire Thai prime minister who was ousted in 2006, cultivated close business ties to the Burmese junta. But even during the relatively amicable period of Thaksin’s rule, Burma felt compelled to buy state-of-the-art MiG 29 jet fighters from Russia to counter the Thailand’s F16 jet fighters. When looking for new friends, Than Shwe steers clear of countries that take are likely to take issue with his regime’s human rights record. His treatment of the democratic opposition and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and 2,000 other political prisoners are also taboo topics.
To return to Ne Win—the charismatic leader frequently visited Western countries for medical treatment or annual vacations. Ne Win and the ministers and generals who served under him acquired a taste for the finer things the West had to offer, even if they had no appetite for Western democratic values. Ne Win had bank accounts in Switzerland and liked to stay in London. He and top leaders had TVs and video players long before Burma officially introduced these marvels of technology in the late 1980s. Top leaders and their wives were encouraged to go to hospitals in Europe when they needed to have check-ups—not to Singapore, where Than Shwe regularly visits for medical examinations.
Ne Win and his senior ministers often visited Europe to get aid and loans. The former Federal Republic Germany, or West Germany, was a favorite destination. Germany’s Fritz Werner Company helped Burma to build an arms industry as early as the 1950s to suppress ethnic insurgency. Thanks to his “engagement” with the West, Ne Win even received military assistance from the US to suppress narcotics in the 1970s. US-made helicopters were also used to attack ethnic civilians and insurgents, but there was no protest from Washington.
Under Ne Win, Burmese army officers were not only sent to Asian nations but also to the US and UK for military education. Under former spy chief Gen Khin Nyunt, dozens of army officers were CIA or UK-trained. Ne Win and Than Shwe all benefited from this sort of engagement and cooperation from the West. Until 2004, Burma’s feared secret police agency ran a ruthless and efficient spy network inside and outside of the country. Ironically, this would not have been possible without the contributions of countries that now regard Burma’s current rulers as international pariahs.
Every time Than Shwe shakes hands with a visiting state leader or foreign diplomat, critics of his regime shake their heads in dismay at the willingness of many in the world to ignore his egregious crimes against the people of Burma. Than Shwe’s occasional forays into international diplomacy may help him to stay in power, but they will do nothing to improve the plight of Burma’s oppressed people.
(UN Secretary General - Ban Ki-moon, Photo Courtesy: UN)
According to the press briefings of spokesperson of the UN Secretary General – Michele Montas released on 3rd December 2008 at UN Headquarters in New York, the UN Secretary General has refused to visit Burma ‘without any substantive progress and meaningful outcome’ of assurance given by the Junta towards democratic reforms and freedom of Nobel peace laureate- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Spokesperson also informed that, the UN Secretary General – Ban Ki-moon ‘reiterated his pledge to remain fully engaged, both personally and through his Special Adviser, Ibrahim Gambari’ for concrete reform and would like to visit Burma, if any substantive progress achieved by the government.
It is noteworthy that earlier more than one hundred Head of State urged the government in Burma to immediately release the Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi incarcerated in house arrest and the concerned letter had been also sent to the UN Secretary General. The Spokeswoman also confirmed that the Secretary-General received that letter as well as also received a phone call on 3rd of December morning from former Prime Minister - Kjell Magne Bondevik of Norway, the coordinator of that initiative, Montas added. They discussed the letter, which asks the Secretary-General to visit Burma and to urge the release of all political prisoners by the end of this year. And, the Secretary General has consistently said that the primary responsibility lies with the Government in Burma to deliver substantive results, including freeing political prisoners and holding a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, Ms. Michele Montas added. Even when asked about Mr. Gambari’s travels, the Spokeswoman noted that, “he would not travel to Burma unless there was a real possibility of moving forward there.”
One of my Muslim scholar friend suggested not to use the word ‘Islamic Terrorism’ while analyzing ‘terrorism’, which can be only defined as an act of violence against humanity and it can’t be related with any religion. And by coining it with any religion gives it more powerful legitimacy against the ethos of holy text. I agree to his views and apologies for my silly mistake and it should be read only as ‘terrorism’. Moreover, ‘terrorism’ in any form or ideological framework is a heinous crime against humanity, which Indian plural and composite culture doesn’t support.
Before and after the signing of India-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation on 10th of October 2008, there had been articles by leading Indian strategic experts in Indian press negatively visualizing the growing ‘US-India relations (Please see the article of Mr. MK Bhadrakumar entitled, “India and the World of Tomorrow” (a distinguished Senior Indian diplomat served in Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Turkey, Uzbekistan) published in The Hindu English daily, later re-published in the ‘Mainstream’ weekly, published from New Delhi on October 11, 2008, however later he modified the approach towards US by writing article entitled, “Coming to terms with Barack Obama” in 22nd of November 2008 issue of ‘Mainstream’ weekly), and the article by – Mr. Brahma Chellaney (he had been close with Atal Bihari Bajpayee Administration during his Prime Ministership) in Hindi daily – ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 13th November 2008 entitled, “America ki Nigah Main Bharat’ (India in the visions of America) and many other’s by left thinker’s which is quite natural. As I wrote earlier, that, I can understand left political party’s criticism, which could be assessed by frequent trips to Beijing by senior CPI and CPM leaders.
Mumbai Terror Attack, US, UK, China, Pakistan, Burma and the ‘Common Faith’:
However before dwelling upon the points of two leading strategic experts from India; which could influence Indian Foreign Policy. It is noteworthy to see after the tragic cowardice terrorist attack on Mumbai on 26th of November 2008, that the first world reaction of cooperation to fight against terrorism and strong condemnation of attack came from US and British administration including the strong statements from new elected President – Mr. Barack Obama that, ‘terror can’t defeat democracy in India’, fulfilling the ethos of ‘common faith’ reflected in the earlier statement by President – Mr. George W. Bush that, ‘US and India are natural partners’. Moreover, the statement from Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama came, when US administration was totally unaware that whether any American’s had been trapped, killed or not? And, it can’t be proposed that it was taking into the view of impending deaths of American or British national as the statement came long before media started reporting that, so called terrorists are searching for American, British and Israel’s national’s? Moreover, the press statement of US Secretary of State on 3rd of December evening in New Delhi, that, “non-state actors act of terrorism is responsibility of state” reflects the ethos of common faith against menace of terrorism, which India, Pakistan and USA should share together. Later on statements of condemnation came from Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Iran, Sri Lanka and other countries. Most importantly, the statement of condemnation of standing with India in her hours of need also came strongly from Burma’s Government in exile, which is engaged in fighting for the restoration of democracy and freedom of Nobel peace laureate and leading light of non-violence in Asia - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s journey of common faith.
UK’s reaction with India had been the mirror of long existing strong bondage of ‘common faith’ despite UK being part of US strategic alliance from the time of India’s first Prime Minister - Jawaharlal Nehru and Non-Aligned Movement. Which even her daughter - Mrs. Indira Gandhi didn’t disturb while riding twenty years of friendship with Soviet Union. That was also reflection of the training of building ‘human personal linkages’ of balancing act in international relations, which Mrs Indira Gandhi learned from her father Nehru ji by accompanying him in various foreign trips, which Nehru learned at the feet of Mahatma Gandhi.
Chinese late reaction of condemnation of Mumbai terror attack was unnoticed in electronic news channel of India, which was published in ‘Hindustan Times’ daily. However, interestingly Chinese mainstream official media agency like - Xinhuanet etc. didn’t give suitable place to official condemnation voice of China against Indian terror attack. Moreover, as reported by different Indian electronic news channel of evidence of using Chinese ordinance factory made ‘grenades’ by terrorists is a cause of serious concern, which Indian enforcement agency must be working to decipher besides Pakistan’s linkages. Because it may be possible of proliferation of arms from a democratic society/nations but it is difficult to believe that how it could be possible from the ordinance factory of regimented society like – China or whether China made grenades were in the list of arms purchase of Pakistan or not? And if it has been purchased by Pakistan (which has least possibility because Pakistan has capability to manufacture grenades and the cooperation is more focused in missile technology) then China should refrain from providing arms & ammunition to unstable nations of world community, which could ultimately reach to terrorists hands.
Moreover, the timing of Mumbai terrorist attack happened, when Burma’s ruling military junta had been intensely engaged in awarding lengthy prison sentences to peaceful non-violent protestors despite call given against it by the UN Secretary General and world community. In turn resulting into the world wide condemnation against the long term prison sentences, as well as by the UN General Assembly third committee voting on 21st of November, and the latest by Netherland’s Foreign Minister’s strong condemnation on the sentences of leading comedian of Burma. The issue of long term prison sentences in Burma had soon attracted worldwide focus on the suppression of non-violent peaceful protestors. However, the gruesome terrorist attacks on Mumbai shifted the attention of world community from Burma to the problem of world-wide menace of international terrorism. The diversion from the issue of Burma’s long term prison sentences to non-violent protestors may have resulted into the sigh of relief for one of the key Asian major power? How much the issue of Burma’s democratic agenda had been uncomfortable to one of the major key powers of Asia could be ascertained from her reaction during August-September Saffron 2007 revolution in Burma? I had already indicated in my earlier post that, US by mistake considering Pakistan as her strategic arm in South Asia but foolishness of defence establishment in Pakistan made her strategic arm of China in pursuing politics of rivalry with India without any control of Pakistan’s political leadership.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister was prompt in responding of standing with India and was a welcome step but later terrorist’s left documentary evidences and linkages with Pakistan based organization took away gestures of Pakistan government. Indian External Affairs Minister – Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh had been rightly harsh on Pakistan as the evidence suggested but they should also know that Pakistan’s defence forces and intelligence agency are not in full control of Pakistan’s political leadership, which gets reflected in frequent military coup in Pakistan. Moreover many senior officers of Pakistan’s army and intelligence may have linkages with Chinese defence establishment (might be without any knowledge of Pakistani leadership) and lacks political vision and commitment of the maker of Pakistan – Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted to make a strong democratic Pakistan. Jinnah’s dream of strong democratic Pakistan guarantee’s individual freedom of expression, and not the regimented ideology of governance of religious fanaticism and the examples of the brutal suppression of student’s democratic protest, which happened in China in 1989 at Tianmann Square. Jinnah - the maker of Pakistan carved a nation from British Empire on religious ground but Jinnah by nature and his political vision was one of the greatest personalities of modern scientific outlook and strongly hated religious dogmatism.
The writings and ethos of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political vision also supported strong mutual friendship with India, which was unfortunately missed by the later political leadership of Pakistan. The democratic Pakistan and India shares many things in common and both nations can’t afford to remain aloof. It is for Pakistan’s benefit that, it should cooperate with India related with the Mumbai terrorist attack, Prisoners of War issues and on other social, economic and cultural issues as two brothers can’t remain distanced for long time on traditional pity issues. Pakistan’s political leadership should also understand that the certain forces inside Pakistan doesn’t want better relations with India against the political visions of ‘common faith’ of makers of India and Pakistan viz.- Mahatma Gandhi and Jinnah.
Moreover, these so called forces of ‘cult of violence’ couldn’t take any lessons of history and poorly trained in the ‘art of political complaining’ foolishly resorts to the act of ‘violence’ as an easy way to disseminate their views on religious and political ideological plank harming their own society and their target nation’s innocent people against the political visions & higher intellect of Gandhi and Jinnah. They can’t understand the structures & powers of modern nation state and its redressal & suppression mechanism and change from a situation of conventional warfare system of second-world war to high technology warfare of 21st century. Does anyone could think or imagine rationally of successfully completing a long march like - Mao Tse-tung in 2008, which was accomplished in 1934-35 against Chiang Kai-shek regime on the ideology of violence to change the state structure?
Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah had been not a common politician like – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma and were well trained in the ‘art of political complaining’. Although unfortunately Burmese military junta couldn’t comprehend Daw Suu Kyi’s political vision of united Burma and want to play only a subservient secondary role of China and Russia. If Burma’s military Junta thinks that, Daw Suu after freedom would play a secondary role of USA and western powers like they are playing with China then they have not understood her political vision well.
The topic of ‘cult of violence’ needs special serious attention, which will be tackled in later post. In brief as I earlier wrote that Gandhi ji was right in his observation that, “Asian’s are very poor in the ‘art of political complaining’ which also applies to the contemporary emerging problem of violence in Southeast Asia, Africa and West Asia. Regarding the specific question of Iraq and violence associated with Islamic terrorism, it would be not wise to comment on it as the present post doesn’t focuses on the concerned issue. However, besides many other factors it is also a problem and crisis of vacuums of intellectual Islamic political leadership in international stage and lack of personality like – Mustafa Kamal Pasha of Turkey and Jinnah of Pakistan in Islamic society. It is unfortunate that due to the spirit of vengeance and lack of modern political intellectual leadership in Islamic society the leadership of Islam had been taken by destructive forces against the basic ethos of holy Quran. It also happened because the earlier famous universities or higher educational institution of Islamic world like- CairoUniversity, AligarhMuslimUniversity lost its world-wide reputation and many who went to the western world’s reputed educational institutions didn’t return to take the political leadership of their respective nation.
The Strength of Democratic India in Common Faith:
The strength of vibrant Indian democratic traditions found extempore unified outburst of Indian people against the Mumbai terrorist attack including voices from eminent persons, business class and film stars in many cities of India. One of the important points of rich democratic ethos could be seen in the fifty-nine hours ordeal 'of fierce gun battle between NSG commandos and terrorists, where more than two thousand people remained standing day and night to cheer commandos with the vocal voice – ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ (Hail Mother India) despite repeated request by Mumbai police to leave the place for safety. It was the same tragic situation, which happened on 11 September 2001 in USA and US enforcement agencies found tremendous support of local American people without fear in rescue operations in their journey of ‘common faith’.
(Continued….)
(This article is second part of the posts first published on 14th of October 2008, earlier I couldn’t focus on the concerned topic because of my intense engagement with the present job giving little time to react on developments in world politics, infrastructural bottlenecks, so many of my earlier promised post hasn’t appeared till date, the next post will be the concluding one answering the questions raised by India’s two leading strategic experts. Rajshekhar, Burma Review)
Burma Review welcomes original research paper, articles, news reviews, photographs from Burma scholars and observers on any of the themes related with Burma’s Politics, Economy and History as well as on the important issues of contemporary world politics. However, we prefer articles on the contemporary situation of Burma. Send your submissions to Burma Review's editorial department, at the email address:
Posts
