Washington’s Flawed Myanmar Policy

[Raphael]

Washington’s Flawed Myanmar Policy | The Diplomat

“The water stays cool inside even if the bottle sits in the sun for the whole day.” Tu Ja proudly explains the virtue of storing water in his 1943 U.S. Army stainless steel flask, one of the few belongings he could save when fleeing his village from the advancing Myanmar army in 2011. The internally displaced person (IDP) holds the bottle against a sun beam entering the dim communal cooking space in one of the countless makeshift camps in Kachin State. The smoke from open fires in the cramped space makes it hard to breath. Yet, Tu Ja goes on telling the story of a water bottle which seems to be as displaced as himself in this remote corner of northern Myanmar. It was given to him by his grandfather who fought with the Kachin Rangers for Detachment 101 of the American Office of Strategic Services against the Japanese on one of the Second World War’s most vicious battlefields. The Kachin, an ethnic minority group, have earned a reputation for being skilled mountaineers without whose courageous and fierce fighting abilities the Allied forces could not have driven the Japanese out of Burma. U.S. soldiers have long left these rugged borderlands in between Myanmar and China. Sadly, war has stayed.

For many decades this area has witnessed various ethnic armed groups struggling for minority rights and political autonomy against central government control. After the breakdown of a 17-year long ceasefire in 2011, conflict escalated again between Naypyidaw and the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO). Since then, large-scale army offensives against rebel-held positions have displaced more than 100,000 civilians. While this conflict is largely ignored by the international media, international affairs are closely followed in the tea houses of Laiza, a small town nestled on the border of China’s Yunnan province and headquarter of the KIO. “One of our long-term mistakes was to think that we can be allies of the U.S.,” an officer of the 10,000 man-strong Kachin Independence Army (KIA) – the armed wing of the KIO – explains over dinner. “You know, we helped the Americans in the past and we identify with them. After all they brought us Enlightenment: our script and the Bible,”he continues by referringto the Swedish-American missionary Ola Hanson, who spread the gospel in Myanmar’s borderlands and developed an orthography for the Kachin language in the late 19th century.

After some more sticky rice wine, the officer points into the direction of China: “Today we understand that only our big neighbor can save us. We should not have focused on the U.S. so much.” The KIO has indeed long tried to build good relations with the United States. At a time when most other ethnic armed groups in Myanmar’s northern borderlands fought under the umbrella of the Chinese-backed Communist Party Of Burma (CPB), the KIO chose a different path. Despite its geographical proximity to China, it aligned with the National Democratic Front (NDF), Myanmar’s other important ethnic armed resistance coalition that emerged during the Cold War. This pro-Western alliance comprised mainly ethnic rebel movements along the Thai border, most prominently the Karen National Union (KNU), the principal beneficiary of weapons and money from anti-communist Thailand at the time. This choice has placed the KIO in a difficult position. It alienated the Chinese next door, while U.S. support never materialized.

After the KIO signed a ceasefire with the Myanmar government in 1994, its relations with China significantly improved. This has particularly owed to the ever increasing importance of border trade, which is instrumental for the development of China’s land-locked Yunnan province. Trade with Myanmar – including with and by way of KIO controlled territories – accounts for more than three quarters of Yunnan’s total border trade. Recent Chinese investments in strategic infrastructure affecting rebel-controlled areas – such as large hydropower dams as well as gas and oil pipelines – have further increased the need to come to terms with each other. Yunnan’s provincial authorities have hence developed a good working relationship with various ethnic armed groups along their border with Myanmar. Beijing has, however, remained more careful. China’s central policymakers are particularly cautious about alienating Naypyidaw, with which they have developed an intimate relationship ever since the West isolated Myanmar’s military rulers with strict sanctions after their brutal crackdown on Yangon’s pro-democracy movement in 1988.

Since the escalation of the conflict in Kachin State, Beijing has pressured the KIO to accede to Naypyidaw’s demands for another ceasefire on worse terms than before. With rapidly improving relations between the West and Myanmar, however, the Chinese posture has begun to change. “The Chinese have started to make our lives easier. Since the end of last year we can travel more freely on the Chinese side, and the Chinese Red Cross finally began to support some of the IDP camps in our area,” the KIA officer explains, while dissecting some barbecued fish with his chopsticks. He leaves no doubt about the rationale behind this: “You know, the U.S. wants to encircle China by improving their relations with the Tatmadaw [the Myanmar army]. So China uses us as a stick to punish Myanmar because it is getting too close to America. The friendlier Washington and Naypyidaw become, the nicer China treats us. This is a big power game.” Given the recent honeymoon between Myanmar and the United States, the analysis seems hard to fault.

Relations between Myanmar and the U.S. have seen remarkable rapprochement since the start of the former’s reform process. Despite the doubts of many observers about the sincerity of reforms – particularly whether the former junta handed over actual power to the civilian government – the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has lifted most sanctions with exceptional alacrity. Still, U.S. firms remain cautious about investing in Southeast Asia’s “last frontier economy.” They complain about the lack of infrastructure, inadequate investment laws, an unskilled labor force, and government restrictions. This lack of enthusiasm is in stark contrast with the situation in, say, Iran, where business interests lobby for the lifting of sanctions. The geostrategic stand-off with China is, in fact, the best explanation for Washington’s foreign policy shift towards Myanmar. While Obama’s recent attempt to reestablish military ties with the Tatmadaw could not overcome congressional resistance, the Kachin understood the wink. After taking a deep drag of his Yunnanese cigarette the KIA officer concludes: “We are really careful to invite U.S. observers to peace talks because the Chinese are not happy about Americans meddling in their backyard. As the U.S. is only interested in Naypyidaw, we should invest in good relations with China now.”

His analysis demonstrates why Washington’s current Myanmar policy will actually not work to curtail China in the long-run. It may even play into Chinese hands. In view of Naypyidaw’s close ties with and dependence on China, Washington cannot hope for any significant U.S.-Myanmar alliance against China in the near future. Moreover, observers agree that any sustainable political settlement and the future of reforms in Myanmar will be contingent on some form of power sharing with the country’s ethnic minority groups. Taken together they actually represent up to 40 percent of the country’s overall population of 60 million. Obama’s hasty appraisal of Naypyidaw’s reforms and simultaneous ignorance of political grievances and humanitarian suffering in the country’s borderlands threatens to drive this significant part of Myanmar’s populace closer to China. If Washington does not reconsider this approach – and a visit to the U.S. by General Gun Maw of the Kachin Independence Army has urged it to become more involved in peace efforts – then theproud feelings of affiliation with America among ethnic minorities in Myanmar will quickly fade together with U.S. Army steel flasks in the country’s IDP camps. In the end, Beijing will laugh twice.

I think the US' attempt to contain China through Myanmar is its most laughable attempt yet. China holds all the cards here - Myanmar's economy is a virtual extension of ours. If the national Myanmar military is looking to cozy up to the US military, we can easily respond by lavishing funds on rebel groups. If they don't, we can continue our close relationship with them. Either way, it won't matter what play they make.

 

[Mockingjay]

Oh, Chinese dirty dream? just leave us alone and mind your own business whether we choose U.S or Chinese. and never forget 90% rebel groups are also Burmese.

 

[Arya Desa]

Burma- India friendship.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Cracks Appear in US Myanmar Rapprochement
New legislation signals growing concern over the Obama administration’s Myanmar policy.

By Steve Hirsch
April 30, 2014

Image Credit: REUTERS/Larry Downing


Recent legislation introduced to U.S. Congress to put conditions on U.S. cooperation with Myanmar’s military may be one of the first signs of emerging dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama’s rapprochement policy with the post-junta government.

The bill was sponsored in the House of Representatives April 2 by Republican Steve Chabot, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and Democrat Joseph Crowley. It grows out of concerns that the Obama administration, having begun limited cooperation with Myanmar’s military, is moving too quickly without demanding reforms from Myanmar first. The bill is a modification of similar, earlier bipartisan House and Senate legislation and follows enactment of language in a funding law limiting spending for assistance to Myanmar.

Myanmar’s military is notorious for atrocities including destroying villages, using villagers as forced labor, and rape. Other concerns include Myanmar’s military ties with North Korea and continuing government fighting with ethnic minorities.

So far, U.S. cooperation with Myanmar’s military has been modest. Efforts have included allowing observers during the last two Cobra Gold regional military exercises, human rights talks, and exchanges and workshops on such goals as promoting civilian control of the military. They have also included exchanges with Myanmar military leaders, judge advocate officers, and others on human rights law and law of armed conflict.

In addition, Myanmar was among 10 countries Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel invited to participate in this month’s meeting of Association of Southeast Asian Nations defense ministers in Hawaii, the first such meeting to be held in the United States.

Administration officials have publicly cited the importance of working with Myanmar’s military in efforts to foster reform there. “Strengthening the rule of law and promoting security sector reform are essential elements of the reform effort,” State Department Senior Advisor for Burma Judith Cefkin told Chabot’s subcommittee in December.

“Voices from across Burmese society – including civil society, ethnic minority representatives, and members of the government and political opposition – are urging us to engage with the Burmese military and civilian police force to teach new models of conduct that help make the security services a stakeholder in the success of democratic reform,” she said.

“We believe that carefully calibrated military-to-military engagement to share lessons on how militaries operate in a democratic framework will strengthen the hand of reformers,” she told the panel.

However, Chabot, in an interview, called it “naïve” to think Myanmar’s leaders will be convinced to follow the appropriate path simply by asking them to do so and continuing to “giving them all the goodies without actually requiring them to follow through.”

The Chabot-Crowley bill would tie funding for certain types of security assistance to military and other reforms in Myanmar. It would bar such funding unless the secretary of State certifies that Myanmar has met conditions related to reforming its military, ending military ties to North Korea, opening the process of amending the constitution and opening elections, getting the military out of commercial businesses, and working to end ethnic conflicts.

In addition, the certification would have to show that Myanmar’s army is improving its human rights performance, ceasing attacks on ethnic minority groups, moving to withdraw forces from conflict zones, following cease-fire agreements and signing and implementing a code of conduct.

Chabot dismissed the defense that U.S. cooperation with Myanmar’s military is limited.

The military, he said, is such a significant element in Myanmar and its government, and its abuses have been so substantial “that having them reform is such a critical element that without that happening, the rest of it really doesn’t matter all that much, when you’re talking about the lives that are actually being affected in Burma.”

“So it’s critical that we insist on the reform of the military and it essentially cleaning up its act and stopping all the human rights abuses, we need to insist on that at every level and that should be a key aspect of our interaction with the government,” he said.

Backers of placing conditions on military cooperation are not asking the administration to ignore Myanmar’s military, which still wields substantial power and influence there.

Keith Luse, a well-regarded former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer who has also called for linking military engagement to specific reforms, expressing his personal opinion, has cited the need for the U.S. government to deal with the Myanmar military.

He told a Heritage Foundation session in October that U.S.-Myanmar military relations should be contingent on measurable reform benchmarks including a wide range of human rights issues and ending Myanmar’s military relationship with North Korea.

In addition, though, he said progress and reform in Myanmar “are more likely to accelerate with substantive mil to mil engagement and confrontation, due in part to the disdain often held toward professionals within Burma’s Foreign Ministry by those in uniform.”

“Over the long-term,” he said, “communication exclusively between the United States, others in the international community and Burma’s (so-called) civilian leadership will have incomplete results.”

He also said before proceeding on a long-term plan, Hagel must be fully informed on the Myanmar-North Korea military relationship and on the status of Myanmar’s nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs – “points where the international community has been dismal in expressing interest or concern.”

Luse laid out a list of 10 questions to be answered on this subject, such as which Myanmar military or other projects have involved North Korean technicians and officials, projects or facilities with North Koreans present that have played a role in the development of Myanmar’s missile or nuclear programs, countries that knowingly or not have helped Myanmar’s nuclear and missile programs, and the range of military equipment and weapons provided or in the works to be provided by North Korea to Myanmar.

Jennifer Quigley, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, called the Chabot bill “a message to the administration that they have not been clear, they’ve not laid out a roadmap — not just to Congress, but to the Burmese – as to what this engagement with the Burmese military is about, what they hope to accomplish with that engagement.”

Murray Hiebert, a senior Southeast Asia specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, raised concerns about the bill but acknowledged that it shows a drop in support for the administration policy.

He said the bill’s backers are “trying to constrain something that is so tiny, you can’t even measure it right now.”

He called administration efforts so far “really very minimal,” consisting of talks, mostly on human rights issues and rules of engagement, but no training or weapons sales.

“It’s engagement basically on human rights issues, now why would we find that a problem?” he asked. He also wondered how the United States could promote democracy, human rights and reform “if we can’t even talk to the most powerful institution in the country.”

The bill’s introduction comes as skepticism is growing about the reality of change in Myanmar, which has led to questions about whether the administration has moved too far too fast.

Although Myanmar has seen significant changes since the end of junta rule, anti-Muslim violence is widespread, fighting with ethnic groups continues, and doubts are rising about political reforms. For example, there is increasing expectation that opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi will be barred from running for president next year.

Chabot said he sees “considerable concerns” by himself and others about the administration’s Myanmar policy and said the strategy has “significant flaws.”

“I think that they have been too hasty and been too willing to overlook all the evidence on the ground that the military, in particular, is not living up to its end of the bargain and as a result, you know, the ethnic minorities and a lot of people on the ground are continuing to suffer, and so I do think that there’s not uniform support for the total Burma policy,” he said.

He acknowledged that progress has been made, and said he would commend the administration on that, “but I think they’ve been way too hasty to allow the military-to-military connections.”

He said there have misgivings from the start about the administration’s policy, that it was “going way too far too fast” without establishing benchmarks so outsiders would know what to measure to determine whether the strategy was successful.

“They kind of gave away the store,” he said, costing them the ability to influence the Myanmar military.

“The administration, rather than establishing standards or benchmarks, their idea has been to keep the strategy very flexible, and I just think that doesn’t work – not with a regime like Burma’s,” he said.

A congressional source who asked for anonymity was more pointed.

He said he thought the administration has declared victory and hoisted the “mission accomplished” banner too soon – and without a policy in place to actually get there.

“You’d think that after the past 12 years we’d learn that in foreign policy, wishing doesn’t make it so,” he said.

Hiebert suggested that there are now more questions about Myanmar policy, particularly in the House, than there would have been two years ago, partly because it is now becoming clear that reforms such as those underway in Myanmar are complicated.

“I think there is, probably, a diminution of support. I think earlier on they gave them … a sort of blank check – you know what you’re doing, carry on – and now people are asking more questions, and it goes beyond the military,” he said.

Steve Hirsch is a Washington D.C.-based journalist who has reported extensively on Western policies towards Myanmar.

Cracks Appear in US Myanmar Rapprochement | The Diplomat

 

[sincity]

US government act like they are the world policemen, US government go all over the world to keep law and order in every corner, every street of this world.