• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
30.10.09 14:05Chennai Centre for China Studies » India-Myanmar Relations: A ReviewSeite 1 von 12http://www.c3sindia.org/india/1012
 
India-Myanmar Relations: A Review
 R.Swaminathan, C3S Paper No.396 dated October 29, 2009
Relations between India and Myanmar over nearly five decades have been governed by many complexfactors. Amongst them are the strategic location of Myanmar, India’s commitment to idealism-drivensupport to the restoration of democracy in Myanmar, realism-driven need to deal with those actuallygoverning the country, the implications of China’s increasing presence and role in Myanmar etc. China,fortunately for it, has been able to make its foreign policy decisions without having to bother about thenature of the regime in any country.India and Myanmar share a complicated and delicate history, marked as much by mistrust as amity. For those who may be interested, a “Historical Background” is annexed to this paper.
P O L I T I C A L
 Pro-Democracy Protests in 2007 
A series of anti-government protests started in Myanmar on 15 August 2007. The immediate and statedcause of the protests was mainly the decision of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) toremove fuel subsidies, resulting in very steep increases in the prices of diesel, petrol and compressednatural gas. The first demonstrations were dealt with quickly and harshly, with many arrested anddetained. Starting 18 September, the protests were led by thousands of Buddhist monks, and those werealso allowed to proceed. Initially, only a few hundred monks walked down the streets but, by end-September, the protesting crowds had grown to 100,000 – both monks and democracy activists. Therewas a renewed government crackdown on 26 September.The military junta’s actions against the “peaceful” and “almost Gandhian” ptotestors evoked aconsiderable amount of international condemnation. However, Beijing expectedly showed more interestin maintaining stability than in pushing for democracy.In an official statement issued in the wake of the violence, India expressed its support for the“undaunted resolve of the Burmese people to achieve democracy”. The Burmese language service of All-India Radio (AIR) was more outspoken in its criticism of Myanmar’s military government. It saidthat India was gradually succeeding in weaning Myanmar away from its near-total dependence onChina for economic and military support. It could not therefore be expected to take the strong positionthat the US, the European Union and Myanmar dissidents were asking her to take; and thus risk – toChina’s benefit – the precious foothold it had achieved in Myanmar over the previous decade.Ibrahim Gambari, the United Nations special envoy to Myanmar, undertook a tour across Asia, with thehope of cajoling Asian governments to take a tougher stance on the junta’s crushing of the protests.When he called on India (in October 2007) to join other countries in pressing Myanmar’s military rulersto stop their campaign of repression against pro-democracy protesters, the Indian government describedMyanmar as its “close and friendly neighbor” and assured that it would help in Myanmar’s nationalreconciliation. India’s decision to avoid direct criticism of the military regime came in for a lot of adverse comments. However, it is not as if India was totally silent on the issue. When Myanmar ForeignMinister Nyan Win, who visited India in January 2008, called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, thePM emphasized that there was need for greater urgency in bringing about political reforms and nationalreconciliation. “This process has to be broad-based to include all sections of society, including AungSan Suu Kyi and the various ethnic groups.”
 
30.10.09 14:05Chennai Centre for China Studies » India-Myanmar Relations: A ReviewSeite 2 von 12http://www.c3sindia.org/india/1012
 Aung San Suu Kyi
Aung San Suu Kyi (the daughter of “General” Aung San) has been under house arrest almostcontinually since 1989. When anti-government protests intensified in September 2007, hundreds of monks paid respects to her at the gate of her home. This was the first time in four years that peoplewere able to see her in public. On 29 September, she was allowed to leave her house briefly to meetwith a UN envoy who was trying to persuade (eventually, successfully) the junta to ease its crackdownagainst pro-democracy protesters.On 4 May 2009, a mentally unbalanced American (John Yettaw) swam across the lake and entered thehouse of Aung San Suu Kyi, uninvited, and remained there for two nights. Instead of faulting those incharge of security, both the intruder and Suu Kyi were held in prison and put on trial. While the intruder was sentenced to imprisonment, Suu Kyi was awarded (on 11 August 2009) an additional 18 months of house arrest – beyond the earlier term which was due to end on 27 May 2009. The sentencing onceagain showed how the milit.ary junta was determined to stop her participation in the elections to be heldin 2010. In a declared act of “benevolence”, the government had commuted the court’s originalsentence of three-years hard labour.Aung San Suu Kyi’s conviction drew almost universal condemnation. President Obama demanded her immediate release while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated that “This is a purely politicalsentence designed to prevent her from taking part in the regime’s planned elections next year” andcalled for a UN embargo on all arms exports to Burma. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France soughtfresh restrictions on Myanmar’s two important export items – rubies and hardwood. Thailand was evenmore explicit and urged Myanmar to immediately free Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest to allow her to play a role in next year’s general election. However, action by the U.N. Security Council was stalleddue to reservations on the part of Russia and China. “India’s reaction to the conviction of Aung San SuuKyi was shameful to say the least. It had not one word of condemnation or even ‘disappointment”,wrote Col. Hariharan, a very senior analyst of intelligence and security issues.Suu Kyi is said to have written a letter to Than Shwe, offering to work towards reducing internationalsanctions on Myanmar, and asked to meet representatives of the US, EU and Australia. Either in areaction to this or in response to US overtures and demands, two meetings were held in October 2009 between the junta’s liaison officer (Labor Minister and retired Major General Aung Kyi) and Suu Kyi.She was also allowed to meet with representatives from the US, Australia and the European Union. Her  National League for Democracy (NLD) party has also been allowed to meet with foreign diplomats,including a meeting (on 20 October 2009) with the US charge d’ affaires. Cynical observers may saythat the generals are making yet another attempt to put off international pressure, only to revert back torepression once attention shifts elsewhere. Or, are the generals playing the US card against China,knowing that any improvement in relations with Washington will improve its leverage with Beijing?Prime Minister General Thein Sein told (on 25 October 2009) the leaders attending the East AsianSummit in Thailand that the junta will consider relaxing the terms of Suu Kyi’s house arrest if she“maintains a good attitude”. He also said that she can contribute to national reconciliation.
Sanctions Regime
World governments remain divided on how to deal with the military junta in Myanmar. Calls for further sanctions by Canada, United Kingdom, United States, and France are opposed by some countries(including China) on the ground that “sanctions or pressure will not help to solve the issue”. India hadalso resolutely opposed the US call for sanctions on Myanmar. There is some disagreement over whether sanctions are the most effective approach to dealing with the junta, with some opining thatsanctions may have caused more harm than good to the people.
 
30.10.09 14:05Chennai Centre for China Studies » India-Myanmar Relations: A ReviewSeite 3 von 12http://www.c3sindia.org/india/1012
The International Labour Organization (ILO) has estimated that about 800,000 people are subject toforced labour in Myanmar. It announced in November 2006, that it will seek to prosecute members of the ruling junta – at the International Court of Justice – for crimes against humanity, over this issue.The military junta moved the national capital from Yangon to a site near Pyinmana in November 2005,and officially named the new capital as Naypyidaw (meaning “city of the kings”) on 27 March 2006. Ina futile gesture of criticism, many countries still consider the capital to be Rangoon.
Shifting US Position
India has been advising the west to engage with Myanmar and take off the pressure of sanctions. Manyin the west thought this was India’s way of keeping up with China. The Obama Administration, after aneight-month-long review, has apparently decided to engage with Myanmar’s generals. On 29 September 2009, US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell held his first meeting with Myanmar’s ScienceMinister U Thaung in New York. One of the key issues that India may take up during discussions withCampbell when he transits New Delhi this week, en route to Yangon, will be the delinking of thefledgling engagement process from next year’s elections in Myanmar. This, incidentally, will be thefirst US official visit to Myanmar in decades. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said (after the EastAsian Summit in Thailand) that there was an “atmosphere of hope” about improving relations betweenMyanmar and the United States.Dr. Subash Kapila, a noted International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst, has very recentlywritten a scholarly paper, which can be seen at www.southasiaanalysis.org. He has argued that theUnited States has for decades shunned Myanmar politically and economically, on the grounds of humanrights abuses and democracy. India adopted the same stance till the early 1990s. In the process, bothsucceeded in pushing Myanmar closer to China. India has to some extent retrieved its strategic losses by a political and economic reach-out to Myanmar. The US is still dithering, though the ObamaAdministration has made some tentative moves towards normalization of relations with Myanmar. Thestrategic key for checkmating in South East Asia lies in Myanmar. Dr. Kapila has advocated that the USshould frame its future policy towards Myanmar based on the considerations that Myanmar is of geo-strategic significance for US Naval interests, that Myanmar has not been adversarial to the US geo- politically, Myanmar’s importance for South East Asian Security, and that the US could use India as a bridge to reach-out politically to Myanmar. He has also emphasized that Myanmar has not yet become afull strategic satellite of China and that such an eventuality can be pre-empted.Almost simultaneously, the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee was told on 21October 2009 that a high-level US delegation is expected to visit Myanmar in the coming weeks, in anattempt to progress the US efforts to engage with the military junta. The talks will center on improvingthe human-rights situation in Myanmar, the claimed intention to move towards democracy, andincreasing US influence in a country widely viewed as a key regional ally of China – through improveddiplomatic relations. The delegation is hoping to meet Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of ethnicgroups. This policy shift is apparently a part of the US desire to build stronger ties with South EastAsia. Some analysts say that it is caused by the realization that Chinese influence in the region hasincreased considerably in the past decade, when US attention was diverted elsewhere. This may be the beginning of a quiet competition between Washington and Beijing for influence in South East Asia. AUS-Myanmar detente would undoubtedly be viewed as a threat to Beijing’s strategic interests in theregion. A repeal of even some sanctions (before or after the 2010 election) would put the US in directcompetition with China for influence in Myanmar.The US efforts to counterbalance China’s influence in South East Asia have a difficult road ahead inMyanmar. China has already secured a strong position in Myanmar, but the US currently has very littleleverage. It has no aid programs, civil society building projects or military-to-military exchanges. Eventhe US diplomatic mission is headed by a charge d’ affaires, since the US withdrew its ambassador in
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...