Why Burma's Junta Shrugs Off International Pressure
By K.Lange
Since Burma was accepted as a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1997, the organization has pursued a policy of constructive engagement towards the military leaders of the country. The term constructive engagement has never been clearly defined, but it is based on the principle that it is better to engage and create ties with Burma rather than to ignore and isolate it. While the official strategy of the ASEAN policy is to influence and push forward the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) towards reforms by entering into political, economic and security relations with Burma, it in fact offers ASEAN member states the possibility to pursue their own strategic interests the under the guise of constructive engagement.
Consequently, in dealing with Burma the priority is based on lucrative business deals. Burma, as one of the most resource-rich countries in the region, enjoys strong economic relations with other ASEAN countries as well as with China and India. These countries are looking to benefit from Burma’s enormous gas and oil resources to handle their future energy problems1.
One significant reason for ASEAN to follow the concept of constructive engagement is to provide Burma with an alternative to forming a closer relationship with China, known as the strongest ally of the military regime. ASEAN members fear China is gaining ascendancy in Asia. Consequently, underlying the idea of sharing markets is the plan of creating a regional counterbalance to China through promoting peace and stability in the region is another important driving force of ASEAN. This might be an explanation why ASEAN has been reluctant to criticize Burma too strongly by invoking the non-interference principle.
The principle of non-interference in each other’s affairs is one of the fundamental principles of ASEAN declared in 1976 during their first summit. One could say that this principle was made to avoid tackling problems that ASEAN would be confronted with. In the case of Burma the use of the non-interference principle is morally inappropriate in relation to ongoing human right violations, suppression and continuous deterioration of living conditions by the SPDC against the Burmese populace. Nevertheless, the principle has worked well as a shield to avoid any discussion about the grim situation in Burma.
Burma is placed, not just geographically but also politically, between China, India and the ASEAN member states. Consequently, it plays an important role in maintaining the balance of power in the region. The Burmese junta seems to be very conscious of this. If Burma would leave or be expelled from the ASEAN grouping, it would lead to a shift in the balance of power, quite likely for the benefit of China. But this scenario is not foreseeable as long as the international community is unable to put constant pressure on ASEAN to force them to speak out critically or take action against the SPDC, ASEAN will not feel compelled to do so. Instead of breaking down their relations with Burma ASEAN member states continue doing business with Burma. However, economic factors are nearly always involved in any relations with Burma and must be taken into consideration to understand the policy of Burma’s neighbouring countries as well as ASEAN towards the military regime.
At the end of 2005 the policy of ASEAN towards Burma seemed to shift. In the fore field of the 11th summit of ASEAN, which was held in Kuala Lumpur from December 12-13, one headline topped another and all chorused the same message: ASEAN will make a great stance by speaking out critically against the extension of Aung San Suu Kyui’s house-arrest and the unwillingness of the junta to put any effort toward their self-proclaimed Roadmap to Democracy. But there was only an informal briefing about the recent developments in Burma and its policies were not too much of a distraction during the summit. Pressing issues on the formal agenda, like developments on the Korean peninsula, terrorism, maritime security and the threat of bird flu were still discussed. Only at the sidelines of the summit and after the event critical voices against Burma were raised, but have not yet led to an official ASEAN statement.
The significant push factor behind the superficial shift of the ASEAN policy can be mostly ascribed to the effort of the United States of America (US), the world’s only superpower, to regain influence in Asia2. President Bush made a journey through Asia in November last year to strengthen the relationship with its allies, namely Japan, India and some ASEAN States. The reason why the US has tried to get a foot back in Asia’s door lies obviously in the role of China and its rise as a prospective superpower, but also in the nation’s primary mission to spread democracy all over the world.
In this context, the case of Burma seems to enjoy a high priority in the US; not for another military invasion, but for improving their image in the international community, which has become tarnished following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House Administration does not seem to tire of calling Burma one of six ‘outposts of tyranny’. Recently, at the annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Conference forum in Busan, South Korea, from November 18-19, President Bush urged seven of the ten ASEAN member states to move on Burma3. In his words, the ASEAN members should use their neighbourly influence to push Burma to democratic reforms.
But, the ASEAN states prefer profiting from the US sanctions against Burma instead of fulfilling American desires. The combination of sanctions and domestic political pressure prevent most western companies from doing business in Burma, which give Asian companies a competitive edge in this market. Statistics show that the biggest investors in Burma are companies from Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, as well as China and India4.
With his effort in Asia Bush could only win the support of the president of the Philippines. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo supported the move by the US to bring Burma on the UN Security Council, which resulted in the first-ever discussion by the body over the Asian country in December last year. Malaysia and Indonesia also spoke out critically against the Burmese junta and urged them to take concrete steps towards democracy outlined in the junta’s road map5. However, Burma has not been compelled to act. What does it matter, when for example while criticizing the junta at the same time the Malaysian state oil company Petronas secured revenues for the Burmese government by being recently granted three more contracts to explore for natural gas in Burma?8 Additionally, the recent visit of the Indonesian Prime Minister Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Burma aimed the to deepen bilateral ties between the two countries rather than addressing the issue of Burma’s progress towards democracy9. The question is how much weight do political announcements have, when the economy obviously pulls the strings?
During the 11th, summit ASEAN managed to secure an invitation from the junta to host an official ASEAN delegation in January 2006. The delegation, lead by Malaysia’s foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar, aimed to check the political situation and study the progress of its democratic reforms10. Syed Albar himself said his planned visit did not amount to interference in the internal affairs of Burma, “it is just to have a good feel of what they are doing”11. However, in early January 2006 the ASEAN delegation received a severe blow, when the SPDC postponed the visit without setting a new date12. The reason the junta gave was that they are too busy to host the delegation because the country is in the midst of moving government offices to their new capital Pyinmana. Recently, Syed Albar urged the junta again to let him visit the country before a ministerial meeting of the ASEAN States in Bali, Indonesia on April 17-1813. But the junta made no reply yet.
Over the last months there has been increasing international pressure on Burma, led by the US. There has been plenty of encouraging and positive news that could make some think that a change might be indicated. A lot of political activity took place around the world, prompted by the worsening situation in Burma, which might raise hopes the international community is finally becoming serious about tackling the problems of the Asian country. Whether any actual changes happened, the situation remains very much the same. There must be a genuine political will from the neighbouring countries of Burma about helping the suffering populace. However, as long as economic interests still dominate the regional and international relations with Burma, the SPDC will retain a tight grip on power.
Endnotes:
“Burma’s neighbours eye energy resources, despite political woes”, Agence France Press, January 15, 2006
“Bush visits Asia and challenges China’s growing profile”, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper no. 1645
“Bush urges ASEAN to move on Burma”, The Irrawaddy, November 18, 2005
www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/burm.pdf, January, 2006
“Indonesia urges Burma to take concrete steps towards democracy”, Agence France Press, January 6, 2006
“Going nowhere”, Time Asia, January 22, 2006, “Three more offshore blocks in Myanmar under gas exploration” Xinhua General News Service, February 26, 2006
“Democracy not the Issue as Indonesian leader visits Burma”, The Irrawaddy, March 1, 2006
“Delegation may visit Burma next month”, New Straits Times, December 15, 2005
“Malaysia foreign minister says visit to Burma not an interference”, Associated Press, December 16, 2005
“Too busy to host ASEAN envoy this month, says Burma junta”, Associated Press, January 6, 2006
“Malaysian FM pushes for Burma visit”, Associated Press, February 26, 2006
To go to the other articles published in the February 2006 BI Newsletter click on the links below:
