After dubious performances in post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, the United
States now has the opportunity to demonstrate in Myanmar what has been learned
at a great price in both these countries.
All three countries share one
distinct feature: they are highly diverse ethnic societies that demand their
ethnicity be both valued and balanced.
The question now is whether the
US government truly understands the game to be played in Myanmar in a context
rich in human factors and abundant in strategic implications.
Myanmar's critical position for
giving China access to the Indian Ocean is also of strategic importance to the
US. The US has shown a strong willingness to engage President Thein Sein's reformist
government, though there are nagging issues that have compelled the US Congress
to leave certain sanctions in place.
Still the Barack Obama
administration has been positive and solution-oriented in response to the
various reform gestures, including the release of hundreds of political
prisoners, a loosening of media censorship and allowing for opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League Democracy to take seats in parliament.
The question now is whether the US is on the right path for enduring progress,
particularly considering America's past history of getting it wrong when it
comes to dealing with ethnic matters in diverse societies.
The United States famously read
the people wrong in Vietnam and Somalia, both countries where it intervened
through military means. Carrying over its Cold War diplomacy, the US has found
it expeditious to engage at nation state-to-nation state level, while often
ignoring the unpleasant human conditions on the ground. In this regard, both
Iraq and Afghanistan have been wake-up calls, providing evidence that an
approach focused on empowering central governments and strong armies alone is
poor policy.
The present danger in Myanmar is
that the US and other Western nations have focused solely on the figures of
Thein Sein and Suu Kyi, both of whom dominated the limelight during recent
trips to the US. By contrast, ethnic minority groups, including the Chin,
Kachin, Karen, Mon, and Shan, have received comparatively scarce attention and
have generally been relegated to the margins of US and European engagement
initiatives.
Minority ethnic groups, most of
which have been disempowered, oppressed and impoverished by a succession of
repressive military regimes for the past six decades, now find themselves at a
significant disadvantage in bringing critical facts to the fore.
Part of their challenge is fear
of being perceived as obstructionist in the eyes of the international community
in light of recent conciliatory gestures offered by Thein Sein. The groups also
lack single charismatic or compelling leaders, such as Thein Sein and Suu Kyi,
to capture the imagination of global audiences.
But as US and other Western governments
lock in policies, programs and commercial relations in Myanmar, they risk
overlooking crucial ethnic issues that will ultimately make or break their
engagement initiatives.
Plight and power
First, Burman ethnics in power
have convinced the world that non-Burman ethnics are a minority in Myanmar. In
fact, non-Burman ethnics may well make up over 50% of the population, their
ancestral lands cover most of the country's borders and international trade
routes, and contain much if not most of Myanmar's natural resource wealth. This
wealth has been the basis of Burman-dominated governments power past and
present.
A succession of repressive
regimes counted anyone who was Buddhist as Burman - a practice that has allowed
ethnics to become characterized as a minority factor in Myanmar. Ethnic plights
are now often portrayed as if they are lingering peripheral issues pertaining
only to a few hold-out recalcitrants. The reality is that ethnics constitute
the single most important power block to be engaged for future durable peace
and stability in Myanmar.
It should be appreciated that
ethnic resistance forces have by some estimates an impressive record of killing
Burman soldiers at up to 100:1 ratios in the field. This is testament to
freedom fighters defending families, ancestral lands and cultures. This grassroots
resilience is something the US and its allies have experienced at a bloody cost
in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. In the end, it may well be that human
resolve will outlast the dominant military and logistical capacities of the
nation state in Myanmar.
Second, the ethnic Burman-led
army of Myanmar has been the enduring tool of repression for decades, stealing
ethnic ancestral lands rich in natural resources. This practice is still going
on, as up to 120 government army battalions attack Kachin villages in northern
Myanmar at a horrific human toll. In spite of this, the US government has
apparently been dealing with Myanmar defense officials discussing the prospect
of future military-to-military relations.
Long-standing crimes against
humanity and current attacks by the Myanmar government's army are disturbing
facts that remain unaddressed by Western governments keen to engage Thein
Sein's supposed new democratic order. The fact that the Kachin were the most
devoted ally to America during World War II makes this silence all the more
dishonorable. The fact that Thein Sein is seemingly unable to control his
generals in the field should be of great concern to US and European
governments.
Third, the Burmans have used
ceasefires with ethnic groups as a badge of honor and indication of their
supposedly progressive intentions. The international community logically
equates ceasefires with good news. The reality is that while appearing
positive, ceasefires are often used to (1) divide ethnic unity one ethnic group
at a time, (2) enable the Burman-led army to strengthen all its forward bases
and outposts on stolen ethnic lands, (3) allow the army to concentrate forces
to attack remaining ethnic resistance forces and villagers and (4) enable the
Burmans to use ceasefires to threaten ethnics they will be perceived as
impediments to internationally backed peace processes.
The Burmans have avoided dealing
with the major pan-ethnic political-military alliance, the United Nationalities
Federal Council, as they prefer to cut deals with ethnic groups on an
individual basis to prevent ethnic unity and power in negotiations. This
divisive process is now ongoing with ethnic Karens, a tactic that has caused a
deep rift among Karen leaders while Burman-led armed forces reinforce their
forward basing in Karen State. All this has been deftly masked from
international sight.
Fourth, the West has become
fixated on and somewhat entangled in the human-rights and political
complexities of Myanmar. In this context, Thein Sein has convinced the US and
Europe that reform is complex and will take time and that by lifting their
economic and financial sanctions they can help to accelerate the process. His
big hand-wave gestures of releasing political prisoners have resonated well
with the West, and Suu Kyi now effectively functions as a poster child for
Burman-led democracy. Yet neither politician has taken a clear and consistent
stand on how to empower oppressed ethnics.
This all masks arguably the most
important issue in Myanmar today: equitable land reform. Ethnic lands stolen by
Burmans are now the basis of Myanmar's economy. Not addressing this issue,
while incrementally lifting sanctions and granting legitimacy to the ethnic
Burman-dominated government, will provide power and momentum to Burman
reformists and old guard oppressors alike. This is double jeopardy for ethnic
peoples, who remain ever on the outside of the equality equation in Myanmar.
The unfortunate reality in
Myanmar today, as in the past, is that ethnic peoples as a political, economic
and military power force are still a source of fear to Burman elites, whether
they are reform-minded or staunchly old guard. It is now regarded as bad form
to mention this fact in the face of the honorable reform efforts of Thein Sein
and his quasi-civilian, Suu Kyi-endorsed regime.
Yet this uncomfortable fact
remains and must be addressed if there is ever to be lasting peace and
stability in Myanmar. As the US continues to experience in Southwest Asia, the
game to be understood, played and sustained is one of fostering a dynamic
balance among all stakeholders in any given society.
We now live in a time in which
the nation state cannot afford to create losers, as so-called "little-men
losers" across Northern Africa and the Middle East have toppled
governments in rapid succession.
This is no less the case in
Myanmar, where ethnic groups have unambiguous permanence, posture and power.
Washington would be well advised to take a more balanced approach to engagement
and development in Myanmar and one more inclusive of ethnics, or risk a repeat
of the interventions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tim Heinemann
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. Since we are currently changing the platform of www.yourvietnamexpert.com, you may contact us at: sbc.pte@gmail.com, provisionally. Many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment