Is engagement playing into the hands of Burma’s generals?

by Mizzima News
Saturday, 07 November 2009 09:45

The administration of US President Barack Obama has followed up its announced policy of engagement with Burma’s military regime by sending a high level delegation into Naypyidaw, the first in 14 years. Concerned over geopolitical competition and frustrated over the fact that the previous US policy of isolation and punishment did not bring democratic reform to Burma, American policy makers had no option but to choose a carrot and stick approach. However, there appears, at least in the near future, little option for sticks against Burma’s generals, the winner at the moment clearly being the men-in-green in Naypyidaw.

US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Scot Marciel recently concluded a two-day fact-finding mission to Burma, meeting Burmese officials including Prime Minister Thein Sein and General U Thaung, a known hardliner and close associate of the junta’s Senior General, Than Shwe. Additionally met over the course of the visit were detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, senior members of her National League for Democracy party, ethnic opposition leaders as well as representatives of the pro-regime Union Solidarity and Development Association, long known for their acts of violent crackdown on opposition activists.

However, chances to see significant change are still slim for the near future. There are huge differences between the competing sides. For the junta, they want the US and its allies to withdraw sanctions against them and the country and to endorse their election plan without raising questions over the controversial constitution approved in a highly compromised referendum in May 2008. For the main opposition party, NLD, and its allies, including ethnic political parties, the constitution is merely a tool intended to legitimize military dominance and any election based on such a document will be a sham.

The State Peace and Development Council, Burma’s ruling military regime, ignoring the impact on their own country, seems to be intent on playing a game of international diplomacy – in this case wooing the US with the China card. Nonetheless, the junta knows very well the support it can expect from neighboring countries, particularly one with veto power in the UN Security Council such as China. If forced to choose between patrons, Burma’s general would likely abandon the US and their democratic allies and return to a state of selective isolationism.

As self appointed referee, the US clearly does not expect much from their policy review in the short term, adamant that it is a step-by-step process. This, however, should not be confused with the noble goal of the approach, to assist Burma in becoming a democratic country through genuine dialogue between the ruling generals, Nobel Laureate Suu Kyi and ethnic nationalities.

Additionally, there are signs predicting that the US will increase its policy of engagement in Burma, and the European Union may very well follow in the steps of the world’s hyperpower.

The question is whether the US will be able to change the mindset of Than Shwe, the xenophobic, selfish and absolute ruler of the country? Can they stop the junta from conducting an election in a similar fashion to the compromised constitutional referendum? Can they stop the junta’s risky relationship with North Korea in military affairs? Moreover, what will the opposition do, particularly regarding the1990 electoral landslide win of the NLD, if the junta refuses to negotiate over constitutional issues?

Despite the best intentions of the Obama administration for Burma and the Burmese democratic opposition, thus far at least, the men in Naypyidaw appear to have drawn the upper hand.