Simon Tisdall (Today,28Oct2009)
CAUTIOUS optimism expressed by Asian leaders at the weekend that the situation of isolated, benighted Myanmar is taking a turn for the better may prove to be more than the usual diplomatic doublespeak.
Recent, relatively positive signals from the ruling military government do not amount to a change of heart. But out of darkness, a glimmer of light shows.
One hopeful indication came when detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was temporarily released from house arrest to meet foreign diplomats and junta functionaries. The regime is also tentatively re-engaging with western governments, including the United States, which is due to send a
high-level delegation soon. Last month, Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein promised the United Nations that presidential and legislative elections due 2010 would be “free and fair”.
Despite Ms Suu Kyi’s sentencing in August to a further 18 months’ detention, Mr Thein Sein reportedly told leaders at last weekend’s 16-nation Asia-Pacific summit in Hua Hin that he was “confident she can contribute
to the process of national reconciliation”. Mr Manmohan Singh, India’s Prime Minister, said: “There was an atmosphere of hope that the leadership is moving towards normalising its relationship with the US (and) that next year’s election should see a reconciliation of the various segments of Myanmar society.”
There are several reasons for the regime’s shifting stance, western observers say. One is that the junta has begun to recognise it needs the legitimacy that only a relatively transparent poll process can bring. Domestically,
the creation of regional legislatures may defuse ongoing, historically violent tensions with the country’s 16
ethnic groups. Internationally, a respectable election could trigger an easing of sanctions and additional aid and investment.
Senior General Than Shwe,76, head of the junta, is said to be hoping to stand down next year, for reasons of age and possible infirmity. He was committed to the regime’s so called “road map” to democracy and felt he had done “a good job” in holding the country together, one analyst said. Now Gen Than Shwe wanted to secure his legacy and the future safety of himself and his family by regularising, within defined limits, Myanmar’s relations
with the West.
Another reason for taking advantage of US President Barack Obama’s willingness to reopen dialogue is said to be a desire to counter China’s growing influence. Harsh words from Beijing over the recent forced exodus of 30,000 mostly ethnic Chinese Burmese from Kokang into Yunnan province
came as a sharp reminder that China, historically, was Myanmar’s “No 1 enemy”, and its security and commercial interests do not necessarily coincide with Yangon’s.
US officials stress that Mr Obama is not offering the generals an easy option; sanctions would remain in place
until there was a quantifiable improvement in the regime’s behaviour, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month.
But even circumscribed interaction with the US, underpinned by joint demonstrations of mutual interest
over issues such as North Korea, would give the junta a strategic alternative to China and its other overbearing
neighbour, India.
Scepticism that this apparent shift will lead to anything more than a sham election, decked out with democratic
window-dressing to deflect western critics and hoodwink international opinion, is natural, given the junta’s record since it stole the 1990 polls. The evident risk for Mr Obama, the UN, and others is that they will be suckered into supporting the insupportable.
There’s no doubt the 2010 election project is highly problematic. Myanmar’s new constitution guarantees the continuing ascendancy of the military. New political candidates and parties will be vetted, Iranstyle. Lack of free media, the absence of independent scrutiny, and intolerance of open debate do not sit well with the holding of “free and fair” polls. And one deliberate side-effect may be the sidelining of Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD), the winners in 1990, whose ageing leadership now faces a cruel dilemma: either participate in the elections, thereby lending credibility to a possible political travesty, or hold back and risk irrelevance.
In other words, a careful balance must be struck. Any western policy aimed at bringing the generals in from
the cold should be carefully calibrated to strengthen, not undermine, the legitimate aspirations of Myanmar’s people. Getting the balance wrong will risk prolonged darkness in a land where, as British writer Rudyard Kipling might have put it, it was the light that failed.
CAUTIOUS optimism expressed by Asian leaders at the weekend that the situation of isolated, benighted Myanmar is taking a turn for the better may prove to be more than the usual diplomatic doublespeak.
Recent, relatively positive signals from the ruling military government do not amount to a change of heart. But out of darkness, a glimmer of light shows.
One hopeful indication came when detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was temporarily released from house arrest to meet foreign diplomats and junta functionaries. The regime is also tentatively re-engaging with western governments, including the United States, which is due to send a
high-level delegation soon. Last month, Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein promised the United Nations that presidential and legislative elections due 2010 would be “free and fair”.
Despite Ms Suu Kyi’s sentencing in August to a further 18 months’ detention, Mr Thein Sein reportedly told leaders at last weekend’s 16-nation Asia-Pacific summit in Hua Hin that he was “confident she can contribute
to the process of national reconciliation”. Mr Manmohan Singh, India’s Prime Minister, said: “There was an atmosphere of hope that the leadership is moving towards normalising its relationship with the US (and) that next year’s election should see a reconciliation of the various segments of Myanmar society.”
There are several reasons for the regime’s shifting stance, western observers say. One is that the junta has begun to recognise it needs the legitimacy that only a relatively transparent poll process can bring. Domestically,
the creation of regional legislatures may defuse ongoing, historically violent tensions with the country’s 16
ethnic groups. Internationally, a respectable election could trigger an easing of sanctions and additional aid and investment.
Senior General Than Shwe,76, head of the junta, is said to be hoping to stand down next year, for reasons of age and possible infirmity. He was committed to the regime’s so called “road map” to democracy and felt he had done “a good job” in holding the country together, one analyst said. Now Gen Than Shwe wanted to secure his legacy and the future safety of himself and his family by regularising, within defined limits, Myanmar’s relations
with the West.
Another reason for taking advantage of US President Barack Obama’s willingness to reopen dialogue is said to be a desire to counter China’s growing influence. Harsh words from Beijing over the recent forced exodus of 30,000 mostly ethnic Chinese Burmese from Kokang into Yunnan province
came as a sharp reminder that China, historically, was Myanmar’s “No 1 enemy”, and its security and commercial interests do not necessarily coincide with Yangon’s.
US officials stress that Mr Obama is not offering the generals an easy option; sanctions would remain in place
until there was a quantifiable improvement in the regime’s behaviour, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month.
But even circumscribed interaction with the US, underpinned by joint demonstrations of mutual interest
over issues such as North Korea, would give the junta a strategic alternative to China and its other overbearing
neighbour, India.
Scepticism that this apparent shift will lead to anything more than a sham election, decked out with democratic
window-dressing to deflect western critics and hoodwink international opinion, is natural, given the junta’s record since it stole the 1990 polls. The evident risk for Mr Obama, the UN, and others is that they will be suckered into supporting the insupportable.
There’s no doubt the 2010 election project is highly problematic. Myanmar’s new constitution guarantees the continuing ascendancy of the military. New political candidates and parties will be vetted, Iranstyle. Lack of free media, the absence of independent scrutiny, and intolerance of open debate do not sit well with the holding of “free and fair” polls. And one deliberate side-effect may be the sidelining of Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD), the winners in 1990, whose ageing leadership now faces a cruel dilemma: either participate in the elections, thereby lending credibility to a possible political travesty, or hold back and risk irrelevance.
In other words, a careful balance must be struck. Any western policy aimed at bringing the generals in from
the cold should be carefully calibrated to strengthen, not undermine, the legitimate aspirations of Myanmar’s people. Getting the balance wrong will risk prolonged darkness in a land where, as British writer Rudyard Kipling might have put it, it was the light that failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment