A Trusted Friend Or Just A Strategic Piece of Land

By Saneitha Nagani I have read somewhere that Senator Mitch McConnell has a long-time passion of bringing democracy to Burma. He has also been someone steering through the Senate a number (no fewer than four) consecutive bills imposing economic sanctions on the military regime in Burma. Half a world away, Mitch McConnell, a junior Republican Senator just being re-elected to a second term said to have read about Daw Suu and he was drawn to her and her struggle for democratic change in Burma. Senator McConnell was so committed that he finds a way to influence events in Burma that for more than a decade he used the US Congress and international fora to shed a spotlight on the human rights violations committed by the then military regime. He even made his appearance with the former Genesis singer Peter Gabriel at the release of a secretly made film about people in eastern Burma who had to hide form the troops of the military government. Even though it was a fairly lonely crusade at first in the early 1990s, he later managed to draw attention on abuses in Burma to the point that he can get almost unanimous congressional support for economic sanctions on Burma. Legislation like Burma Freedom and Democratic Act of 2003 would not have been possible without Senators like Mitch McConnell. Now that sanctions are going to be lifted one like to know how such a figure like Senator McConnell might feel about it. Has he felt that Daw Suu and her colleagues in the National League for Democracy (NLD) has done enough of the lifting? As it was mentioned by him in one of the stories he told in his keynote address at the Free Burma Conference held at the Paul Nitze School for Advanced International Studies in early May 1996, to him the US role in Burma is a little like the farmers friend we may get the credit, but others do the heavy lifting. At the end of the day, it will be the Burmese people, led by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) who will have laboured long under intolerable conditions bearing up to every hardship, breaking down walls of adversity to bring democracy, justice, peace and prosperity to Burma. At the same time they should not struggle without the support of the United States. It is my view that Burmas liberty must be served by Americas leadership. People like us would wonder why all of a sudden this change of heart by the military regime in Burma and why such changes taking place now. With those changes some policy makers in the West have argued that after two decades of sanctions on the US and European investments, the regime in Burma should be readmitted into the international community as a normal state and gain access to Western investment and aid to shore up the countrys battered economy. However, in fact it is not as simple as it might suggest. Western sanctions did not deter foreign investment in Burma; they just prevent the businesses in the West to invest. Meanwhile countries with little or no moral conscience or compassion like China, South Korea, Thai and companies from India invested heavily. According to some reports investment in Burmas oil and gas sector alone provide the military regime with $20 billion in 2010 and 2011 alone. These investments enriched the most senior generals but the people in Burma are yet to enjoy the benefits of those investments. If and when sanctions are to be lifted the $20 billion might be the price the people in Burma has to pay for their democratic reforms.

Daw Suu herself hails the effects of sanctions. She said that economic sanctions have pushed the government on the path to reform. She thanked Canada and other countries for maintaining sanctions on Burma saying that they aided in transitions to democracy. However, she urged the supporters to remain vigilant as the country negotiates a dramatic transition following the end of nearly half a century of peaceful democratic protest following years of house arrest. Daw Suu also cautioned for sceptics like us not to be too optimistic nor be too pessimistic but rather try and see things as they are and try to keep contact with the ordinary people. Daw Suu seems to have put her trust on President Thein Sein. In her victory speech at her party headquarters in Rangoon after her party claimed victory in the by-elections she was reported to have said that, We hope this will be the beginning of a new era. We hope that all parties that took part in the elections will be in a position to cooperate with us in order to create a genuinely democratic atmosphere in our nation. One distinguished Professor of Asian Studies writing in Asia Times Online mentioned that, Now, however, if Myanmar is to evolve into a state that begins to approach its political, social and economic potential, the delicate process begins the building of multiple levels and layers of trust between and among the various forces in the complex maze of societies that comprise Myanmar. We must not forget though that according to Robert D. Kaplan in his book Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power, he identifies Burma and the waters of the Indian Ocean and the surrounding states as a key arena for the decisive geopolitical game of the early 21st century. According to Joseph Ball reviewing Kaplans book also mentioned that, Unfortunately, while the broader argument of Burmas place in regional politics and power is well articulated and intriguing, whether the reader agrees with the hypothesis or not, Burma is the only geographic area that Kaplan was unable to significantly explore on the ground. The authors firsthand exposure is instead limited to the now standard cross border forays into Burma from Thailand, an approach which dovetails well with Kaplans predilection to seek the voices of predominantly American, Christian ex-military personnel based in the vicinity of the Burma border and often espousing violent prescriptions for a resolution to Burmas political crisis. In his interview with Evan Walczak when asked his opinion on China planning to use Myanmars port in the Bay of Bengal to import Middle Eastern oil and gas to the Yunnan province, what can India do and how will China be able to maintain its leverage with both Myanmar and Bangladesh both of which mobilised their armed forces to confront one another over maritime boundary issues without losing the goodwill of both? His answer was that, China is the hub in a wheel of countries with which it maintains strong economic relations. Myanmar and Bangladesh may be at odds, but they both need China. All roads lead to Beijing. India has no choice but to engage Myanmar, a state on Indias eastern frontier where the Chinese will be the overwhelming force if the Burmese generals are not engaged by India. India requires its own pipeline strategies to compete with Chinas. Indias competition with China is a good in and of itself since it serves to put a brake on Chinese expansion, this helping to stabilise the global system. As for F. William Engdahl, author of the book A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, the reason why the US government has such a keen interest in fostering regime change in Myanmar at this juncture is not because it has a genuine concern for democracy, justice, human rights for the oppressed population in Myanmar but rather because of the need for

geographical control. Ultimately the control of the strategic sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea becomes the goal of the US Administration. The coastline of Myanmar provides naval access in the proximity of one of the worlds most strategic water passages, the Straits of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia. It will be interesting to see how the quasi-civilian government of President U Thein Sein and the deliberately stacked Parliament would respond - when it was written into the Constitution not to permit the deployment of foreign troops on its territory when either China or the United States request to lease islands along the Tanintharyi coastline. It may be speculation at this stage but in politics and geopolitics the many questions of why may not have a satisfactory answer. END