Foreign Policy In Focus

An Associated Press headline reads China vows closer military ties with North Korea.

China said Friday it would strengthen military ties with ally North Korea. … The vow follows a three-day visit to the North by the Chinese military's top political commissar, Li Jinai, during which he told North Korean leader Kim Jong Il that China's army wanted to enhance understanding and mutual trust and strengthen practical exchanges with the North Korean military.

Why now?

Although Li's trip was likely planned in advance, recent remarks by President Barack Obama asserting the U.S. military's continuing presence in Asia have riled Beijing. Chinese government-backed scholars and state media say they see the strengthening of America's alliance's with the Philippines, Australia and others as a new form of encirclement aimed at blocking China's rising predominance in the region.

Meanwhile, last August, in that junta in democracy's clothing known as Burma, reads a Guardian headline, Aung San Suu Kyi meets Burma's president Thein Sein. Then, on Monday, November 14, the AP ran a story headlined: Suu Kyi says Myanmar government has taken positive steps toward reform, more needs to be done.

Thein Sein was prime minister under the junta led by Than Shwe and was elected president in 2010, when AP reports, "As expected, the polls brought to power a proxy party for the military." Myanmar "democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi, as AP calls her, stated that she believed Thein Sein was committed to reforms.

“I personally believe that he is very genuine in his desire for the process of democratization,” Suu Kyi said.

Next, on Friday, November 18, a BBC headline read Suu Kyi's NLD democracy party to rejoin Burma politics

On Friday her National League for Democracy said it would register to run in the as yet unscheduled by-elections. The party boycotted the last polls in November 2010, the first in 20 years.

On the same day a Reuters headline read Obama opens door to new U.S. ties with Myanmar.

"We want to seize what could be a historic opportunity for progress and make it clear that if Burma continues to travel down the road of democratic reform, it can forge a new relationship with the United States of America," Obama said.

And the big news:

Clinton's two-day visit from December 1 would be the first by a U.S. Secretary of State since a 1962 military coup ushered in 50 years of unbroken military rule that ended in March when a nominally civilian parliament was established.

The cherry on top: UN Supports Burma's Selection to Chair ASEAN.

At the East Asia Summit Saturday, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed support for the decision by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, to choose Burma to chair its meetings in 2014. … “Now the United Nations welcomes, just as ASEAN did, the recent developments of the situation under the leadership of [Burmese] President Thein Sein, releasing political prisoners and taking proactive initiatives to reform their political systems,” he said.

What's the moral here -- or, in the case of juntas -- the im-moral? With NORK, simply that occasionally the tide of regional politics will turn in its favor. In Burma's case, token reforms can be just enough to provide an opening for a Western world eager to trade for resources monopolized by China and India to poke through. 

In the Ten-Year Review of Dictator Watch, his invaluable site dedicated to rolling back the repression of Burma's military regime, Roland Watson presents a tactful, nuanced appraisal of the Nobel laureate who is the leader of Burma's pro-democracy movement.

"Daw [Mrs.] Suu is the moral leader of Burma, and here through her sacrifice and courage she has set a shining example. … Daw Suu has said that Burma requires a Spiritual Revolution [and] that there should be no fighting -- she has never offered any positive reinforcement to the armed struggle of the ethnic nationalities, even though acknowledging specific and widely publicized Burma Army atrocities against them. [But] she should understand that her silence has the effect of de-legitimizing their struggle. … This puts the people of Burma in a difficult situation. Should the ethnic groups fight or not? Their people are being attacked, so they have to fight, but Daw Suu apparently does not agree.

… It is not good enough to tell the people to wait. There is a terrible cost to this. More ethnic villagers will be killed or lose their livelihoods; more ethnic resistance -- and Tatmadaw [Burma's army] -- soldiers will lose their lives. … Even with a position of non-violence, Daw Suu should confer with representatives of the ethnic nationalities. … By talking together now, not only can they unearth opportunities to push for freedom, they will be building a pattern of cooperation for when Burma is democratic.

The view of Watson and Dictator Watch is

… that strategy for the Burma pro-democracy movement is relatively simple, albeit complex to implement. The movement has two arms, non-violent  protestors and ethnic rebels. But, rather than opposing each other, they can instead complement and work together. 

Watson concludes:

If the people start protesting, and the ethnic groups launch offensive operations wherever and whenever possible, the regime will not be able to handle it.

The United States is selective about which states engaging in nuclear proliferation that it condemns. It's as if they're subject to an unwritten sanity or rationality index. Naturally, no U.S. allies that have developed nuclear weapons since the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty came into force, such as Israel or India, score low on that index, however imaginary. Pakistan's rating, however, as it fails to pursue Islamic militants and with concerns arising about the security of its nuclear weapons program, is falling at a steady rate. Of course, North Korea, Iran, and Syria occupy the bottom of the index.
 
Meanwhile the leaders of another state are less questionable because of their sanity and rationality than because of a lack of concern for their people that's comparable to that of Kim Jong-il. Indications are that Burma is in the early stages of a nuclear-weapons program. Roland Watson runs the invaluable website Dictator Watch, devoted, for the most part, to activism on behalf of the people of Burma. In August of last year, he wrote (no link available):

In June, we published lists of 660 Burma military officers who in 2009 began masters or doctoral programs in Russia at fourteen different technical universities. [Of that class] 111 were directly assigned to the SPDC's nuclear project. …  (Nuclear, Tunnel, Computer, etc.).  … this is conclusive evidence that the SPDC has a clandestine nuclear program, and that it lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency when it said that it did not.

We have now received additional hard documentation about the nuclear program: A construction status report, building plan, and maps, of … Thabeikkyin … which is believed to be the center of the overall program. [The documents] describe a facility for upwards of five hundred personnel, but which also envisioned a potential ten-fold expansion.  …  Our initial intel about Thabeikkyin (also from 2006) said that there was a uranium milling facility associated with the operation, and which Jane's Intelligence has now prospectively identified.  … We can also comment that the use of a secret mountain site for uranium enrichment parallels the actions of both Iran and North Korea.

Oddly enough, Watson sees benefits to not only discovering the nuclear program early -- well, five years on -- but to the actual existence of such a program. In fact, in his recent Ten-Year Review of Dictator Watch he explains why it might be good news that Burma has taken its first steps toward a nuclear weapons program. (Emphasis added.)

We and others had argued for years that the regime's brutality and its humanitarian consequences constitute an international threat to security and peace, and that the IC [International Community] therefore had an obligation to intervene, including under the United Nation's recognized Responsibility to Protect. All such arguments were derided by the regime's Security Council protectors, China and Russia.

Therefore, it was in a sense a huge break when we learned of the existence of the clandestine nuclear and missile programs. Surely, the International Community would respond to them.

Unfortunately, learning about the programs wasn't as helpful as it seemed in not only drawing attention to human rights abuses in Burma but in focusing attention on its nascent nukes. Watson: 

I am certain that Western Intelligence, particularly U.S. Intelligence, knows a lot more as well [as Dictator Watch]. Under the provisions of the 2008 Tom Lantos JADE Act, the U.S. is required to disclose what it knows in the form of a Report on Military and Intelligence Aid. 

But, Watson writes, "I guess I was naïve." The United States "refused to publish the report. We therefore filed a Freedom of Information Act request, in April 2010, which too has been ignored."

Why is the United States dragging its feet? Watson again.

It is ironic, to say the least, that for the lack of a little funding we cannot conclusively prove the existence of a major threat to world security. Of course, from the perspective of the West, this is a good thing. If we do ever get the goods on Burma’s nuclear ambitions, a real smoking gun, it will be forced to respond.

Among other things, if the United States pressured Burma it would be at odd with India and China, both of which trade with Burma. Once again, a nascent nuclear-weapons program is used as an implement with which to bludgeon states when it serves our purpose such as Iran. But when dealing with it puts the United States at odds with states that it doesn't wish to alienate (further, in the case of China), it's all too willing to turn a blind eye to its nuclear program. Burma no doubt banks on that.

Tyrants such as Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein seal their own fate. At Dictator Watch, using Burma's ruling junta (turned civilians as of the last election) as an example, Roland Watson explains.

Imagine what the generals of Burma will face when the country goes free. First, they may be killed. In the turbulence of the transition itself, there is a good possibility that they will be attacked, either by their fellow officers, through a coup, or by the people. Secondly, if they are not killed they will be arrested. They will almost certainly be subjected to war crimes prosecution, and end up as inmates in facilities such as Insein Prison, where for decades they have held and tortured dissidents. Thirdly, they and their family and friends, will lose all or a large portion of their wealth. Not everything can be hidden in a bank in Singapore. The businesses that they think they own will be nationalized.

In short

… they will lose it all.

Or as Daniel Drezner at Foreign Policy writes:

Simply put, when leaders have expectations of a violent demise if they lose power, they have a more powerful incentive to use force to stay in power. So, congrats to Libya, but this is simply going to harden the hearts of Bashir Assad and others out there determined to stay in power through any means necessary -- including instigating cross-border conflicts. 

Since at least the fake elections of November 2010, the Burmese junta has floated the fiction that it is now a “civilian government” with a real parliamentary process in place at the Potemkin capital of Naypyidaw, or “The Seat of the King.” Senior General Than Shwe, who “retired” in 2010, and his wife are said to have a Burmese royalty fetish, with only two chairs in their reception room. Visitors, it is said, must sit or grovel on the floor and use the “royal language” of the old pre-1886 Burmese court when addressing them. This may be apocryphal, but “Naypyidaw” does mean what it means, and the parade ground there features the three great conqueror kings of Burmese history.

General Thein Sein, now changed into civilian clothes, is Burma’s nominal “Prime Minister.” He is supposed to be the “reformer” behind the so-called moderate group now said to be on the ascendant. Since anti-sanctions, pro-junta apologists have always been seeing “young Turks” in the Burmese army, I think it is little more than a good cop, bad cop routine. But two weeks ago the controversial Myitsone Dam in North Burma was halted in response to “the people’s wishes.”

The junta also announced it would free 6,359 prisoners. The hope was that Burma’s over 2,000 political prisoners would be included in this “amnesty,” but the Association for the Assistance of Political Prisoners, Burma (AAPPB) has said that only 207 political prisoners have been released so far. Prominent leaders such as Min Ko Naing of 1988 fame; Ashin U Gambira, the monk who led the Saffron Revolution in 2007; and U Khun Htun Oo are not among the released.

Famous Burmese comic Zarganar, or “Tweezers,” is. 

In an interview with the Oslo-based Democratic Voice of Burma, Zarganar—with the charming insouciance of the true comic genius who can’t help speaking the truth, even at possible detriment to himself—said. “Yes, thank you, my health has been good, but since before I got on the plane [and heard about] the possible reforms, I got a headache and my neck began to hurt.” (I did all the translations presented here).

He added, “I can’t say that I am seeing any significant reforms, just because I have been released.”  He explained that he “was allowed to read newspapers and 12-13 journals, so I could keep up.”

Zarganar had been sentenced to 35 years, of which he had served only 3. “Up to yesterday [while still in prison],” he said, “I sort of believed there might really be reforms, but today, doubt has entered my mind. If it is true reform, then why aren’t all the [political] prisoners released? The number released is miniscule. Even former Lt. General Khin Nyunt [imprisoned in 2004 due to an internal junta purge and corruption charges] should be released. These weren’t arrested during the Thein Sein government. If it’s true reconciliation, please let everyone go…I’ll put up my life as security.”

Zarganar said in other interviews that he needed to consult with Aung San Suu Kyi and that he would be traveling to see other political prisoners and lend his support.

About his arrest and jail time he quipped, “Since I was arrested for giving alms to Buddhist monks, I might have to excommunicate myself from Buddhism.”

Long live Zarganar, and all the artists and jesters.

Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Kyi May Kaung is a poet, an artist, and an analyst of Southeast Asian politics.