Asia Unbound

Myanmar democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi shakes hands with people outside the National League for Democracy (NLD) head office after a meeting in Yangon November 18, 2011 (Soe Zeya Tun/Courtesy Reuters). With the announcement that Secretary of State Clinton will be traveling to Burma in early December, the first visit by such a high-level U.S. official in five decades, U.S.-Burma relations are actually moving so rapidly that it is hard to keep up with the change -- something I never thought I would find myself writing about Burma. But in anticipation of the visit, it’s important to critically examine how to proceed from here. The government of new president Thein Sein already has presided over more opening than any Burmese government in at least two decades, but the administration should be watching these key markers to see that reform is continuing to progress: Does Thein Sein continue to have the backing of the important power centers – the senior military, the parliament, and key ministries? For now, it appears he does, but despite the army commanders’ claims that they support the president, their loyalty remains uncertain. Many top commanders still owe their rise to former Senior General Than Shwe. However, some of the senior military see that, if they continue to support reforms, they might wind up being nominated for president or other top positions in the next election, due in 2015. However, other senior officers reportedly fear that, if reforms continue, they will wind up being punished for the army’s past crimes. Thus, the United States and other foreign actors need to more closely assess the stability of Thein Sein’s power base. In the early 2000s, the United States and other foreign actors were caught largely by surprise when a potential reformer, Khin Nyunt, was sacked. In retrospect, Khin Nyunt had never really built the power base he needed to succeed. On a day-to-day level, how well is reform being implemented? Burma is a sclerotic, poorly-functioning state, so some level of a failure to implement new policies, such as economic privatization, relaxation of censorship, or greater professionalization of the military, is to be expected.  But too often in the past, laudable goals set by senior leaders – on combating pandemic disease, for example -- were then completely undermined by a clear unwillingness to implement them on the ground. Does Thein Sein have the “buy-in” of the Burmese state? How much do officials and bureaucrats fear implementing his reforms, worrying that at some point the reforms will be reversed and those who implemented them will be punished? Beyond Aung San Suu Kyi, what kind of freedom do average members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) have to operate in areas of the country other than Rangoon and Mandalay? The Obama administration, like previous U.S. administrations, have made much of their policy contingent on Suu Kyi; the president noted in speaking about Burma last week that Suu Kyi essentially supported greater engagement. To be sure, Suu Kyi, like Nelson Mandela before her, is a critical symbol, but judging the reality of whether the NLD and other opposition parties can operate today requires a much broader lens. Suu Kyi, in reality, is exempted from some of the government’s harshest treatment. The United States and other foreign actors need to push to get into the Burmese countryside, and into smaller cities and towns, and closely observe how freely and effectively opposition parties can set up party offices, canvass, and make speeches. How does the Burmese government respond to initial outreach from the United States, Europe, Australia, the UN, and Japan? Besides the United States, other democracies may now unblock more aid, boost diplomatic relations, and generally engage more closely with the Burmese government. In previous eras, Burmese governments have shown that they were really interested only in using the outside world as leverage against China (and Thailand) because, after the initial détente with the West, relations cooled again. How serious is the government about resolving its conflicts with ethnic militias? The Burmese government has pushed for new talks with the ethnic militias, as well as the formation of a peace committee that would meet and help to resolve the conflicts. But at the same time, it has taken a tough approach to groups like the Kachin Independence Organization. And while much of the country seems energized by Thein Sein’s reforms, the ethnic minorities in the north and northeast are actually more unstable than they were just a year or two ago. Without a resolution of these conflicts, no real systemic change is possible in Burma

U.S. President Barack Obama announces that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Myanmar, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Bali (Jason Reed/Courtesy Reuters). In what is surely the biggest news in U.S.-Myanmar relations in fifty years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that she will be traveling to Myanmar next month. On the same day, Aung San Suu Kyi announced she will be re-entering politics, setting the stage for her and her party, the National League for Democracy, to contest the next elections, which are believed to be coming in 2015. As the New York Times reported, “The twin events underscored the remarkable and sudden pace of change in Myanmar, which has stunned observers inside and outside the country.” Clinton’s trip, though it caps off a year of serious reforms in Myanmar, is still something of a gamble. The new president, Thein Sein, does indeed seem to be a reformer, and possibly Myanmar’s de Klerk or Gorbachev. He has presided over an opening of the media environment, privatization of many companies,  a relaxation on political parties, a new dialogue with Suu Kyi, the freeing of significant numbers of Burma’s thousands of political prisoners,and a push to convince exiles who have fled the country to return. Still, many doubts remain about how much power Thein Sein himself wields, and whether the generals who formally retired after the elections last November will allow reform to continue. In a piece last week for The New Republic, I outlined these challenges. Indeed, it remains unclear whether the former senior military leadership, which has placed hard-liners throughout the top levels of the government, will allow reform to be consolidated if it costs them the wealth that they have (illicitly) gained over time. They may also achieve certain objectives -- a new strategic relationship with the U.S. in order to balance their dependence on China; hosting the 2014 ASEAN Summit, greater aid and investment from the West -- and then turn back the reforms. This has happened before in the mid-1990s and again in the early 2000s, where periods of détente were followed by periods of crackdown. Still, there’s no doubt the level of optimism now is even higher than at those times. Thein Sein seems to have more power than previous reformers in the government, and Suu Kyi is now fully on board – and since she remains the most popular politician in Myanmar, her influence still matters enormously. On Monday we’ll address what role Hillary Clinton can play on her trip.