Changing Contours: US Policy towards Myanmar
18 Aug, 2009 · 2951
Sanjay Pulipaka reflects on the new nuances in US-Myanmar relations
The current Obama administration seems to be keen on changing the United States (US) policy towards Myanmar. Over the years, the US has been demanding the establishment of a democratic political system in Myanmar and to achieve this objective it had adopted a three pronged strategy. First, the US sought to isolate Myanmar internationally and drastically reduced its diplomatic interactions with the regime in Myanmar. Second, the US, along with the European Union (EU), imposed economic sanctions on Myanmar for its failure to move towards democracy. Third, the US continued emphasizing the release of political prisoners, and making them active partners in the political transition to democracy.
While the US continues to express its indignation at the detention of political activists, its policy has become increasingly nuanced in the recent past. The statements and actions of the US government and its representatives indicate that they are actively working towards greater engagement with Myanmar. In February this year, the US Secretary for State, Hillary Clinton, stated that the US is re-looking at its Myanmar policy and is exploring ways to influence the government in Myanmar. In continuation of the policy shift a month later (in March), the Director of the Office for Mainland Southeast Asia, US State Department, Stephen Blake visited Naypyidaw, capital of Myanmar, to interact with senior government officials. Incidentally, this was the first visit by a senior US government official to Myanmar’s new capital of Naypyidaw. While there was no formal statement from US officials, news reports speculated that Stephen Blake had suggested the possible of withdrawal of some economic sanctions while continuing other targeted sanctions.
American attempts to engage the government in Myanmar experienced stress during the trial and subsequent conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi on the grounds of violating the conditions of her house-arrest. The US Secretary for State, Hillary Clinton, stated that Suu Kyi should not have been convicted and called for her release. This rhetoric notwithstanding, it appears that the US is disinclined to reverse the new policy, as Jim Webb, the US Senator from Virginia, visited Myanmar in mid-August. Interestingly, this visit came within a week of Suu Kyi’s conviction. This was the first visit by a senior US politician to Myanmar in more than a decade. Jim Webb is a political heavy-weight in the Democratic Party and was mentioned as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate for Barrack Obama during the US presidential elections. He also chairs the sub-committee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs in the US Senate.
Jim Webb’s visit was dubbed a “private visit,” by US officials. However, Webb’s visit fits into the Obama administration’s approach of using special envoys for specific foreign policy issues. During his visit Senator Jim Webb met with Myanmar’s top leader General Than Shwe, which was interpreted as willingness on the part of the Myanmar government to engage with the US. The US Senator was permitted to interact with Aung Suu Kyi, a gesture that was denied to the UN General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon during his recent visit to Myanmar. Jim Webb was also able to secure the release of John Yettaw, the American who violated the conditions of Aung Suu Kyi’s house arrest. Significantly, after his interaction with leaders in Myanmar, Senator Jim Webb observed that economic sanctions have not propelled Myanmar towards democracy. Does all this mean that the US has given up hopes on stated objectives such as democracy promotion and securing the release of political detainees? Not necessarily. It appears that the US is treating issues such as democracy promotion and the release of political prisoners as a consequence of diplomatic engagement rather than as a pre-requisite for engagement.
What explains the recent change in the US policy towards Myanmar? Economic sanctions seem to be pushing Myanmar deeper into the Chinese orbit. China is one of the largest trading partners of Myanmar. China is also constructing pipelines for transporting oil and gas from Myanmar and to transship its energy resources from the Middle East. Furthermore, Myanmar’s active economic relations with neighboring countries and regional associations have already blunted the edge of US-EU economic sanctions. The US seems to suspect that attempts to isolate Myanmar may propel it to acquire nuclear technology from countries such as North Korea. Finally, the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan may well be guiding the US towards a more cautious approach to political transitions.
Will the Obama administration continue with this changed policy of engagement over an extended period of time? From the statements of the US officials it appears that they are keen on trying new approaches in Myanmar. However, the sustenance of the new policy of engagement will be contingent not merely on the evolving political situation in Myanmar but also on domestic political compulsions in the US.
While the US continues to express its indignation at the detention of political activists, its policy has become increasingly nuanced in the recent past. The statements and actions of the US government and its representatives indicate that they are actively working towards greater engagement with Myanmar. In February this year, the US Secretary for State, Hillary Clinton, stated that the US is re-looking at its Myanmar policy and is exploring ways to influence the government in Myanmar. In continuation of the policy shift a month later (in March), the Director of the Office for Mainland Southeast Asia, US State Department, Stephen Blake visited Naypyidaw, capital of Myanmar, to interact with senior government officials. Incidentally, this was the first visit by a senior US government official to Myanmar’s new capital of Naypyidaw. While there was no formal statement from US officials, news reports speculated that Stephen Blake had suggested the possible of withdrawal of some economic sanctions while continuing other targeted sanctions.
American attempts to engage the government in Myanmar experienced stress during the trial and subsequent conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi on the grounds of violating the conditions of her house-arrest. The US Secretary for State, Hillary Clinton, stated that Suu Kyi should not have been convicted and called for her release. This rhetoric notwithstanding, it appears that the US is disinclined to reverse the new policy, as Jim Webb, the US Senator from Virginia, visited Myanmar in mid-August. Interestingly, this visit came within a week of Suu Kyi’s conviction. This was the first visit by a senior US politician to Myanmar in more than a decade. Jim Webb is a political heavy-weight in the Democratic Party and was mentioned as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate for Barrack Obama during the US presidential elections. He also chairs the sub-committee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs in the US Senate.
Jim Webb’s visit was dubbed a “private visit,” by US officials. However, Webb’s visit fits into the Obama administration’s approach of using special envoys for specific foreign policy issues. During his visit Senator Jim Webb met with Myanmar’s top leader General Than Shwe, which was interpreted as willingness on the part of the Myanmar government to engage with the US. The US Senator was permitted to interact with Aung Suu Kyi, a gesture that was denied to the UN General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon during his recent visit to Myanmar. Jim Webb was also able to secure the release of John Yettaw, the American who violated the conditions of Aung Suu Kyi’s house arrest. Significantly, after his interaction with leaders in Myanmar, Senator Jim Webb observed that economic sanctions have not propelled Myanmar towards democracy. Does all this mean that the US has given up hopes on stated objectives such as democracy promotion and securing the release of political detainees? Not necessarily. It appears that the US is treating issues such as democracy promotion and the release of political prisoners as a consequence of diplomatic engagement rather than as a pre-requisite for engagement.
What explains the recent change in the US policy towards Myanmar? Economic sanctions seem to be pushing Myanmar deeper into the Chinese orbit. China is one of the largest trading partners of Myanmar. China is also constructing pipelines for transporting oil and gas from Myanmar and to transship its energy resources from the Middle East. Furthermore, Myanmar’s active economic relations with neighboring countries and regional associations have already blunted the edge of US-EU economic sanctions. The US seems to suspect that attempts to isolate Myanmar may propel it to acquire nuclear technology from countries such as North Korea. Finally, the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan may well be guiding the US towards a more cautious approach to political transitions.
Will the Obama administration continue with this changed policy of engagement over an extended period of time? From the statements of the US officials it appears that they are keen on trying new approaches in Myanmar. However, the sustenance of the new policy of engagement will be contingent not merely on the evolving political situation in Myanmar but also on domestic political compulsions in the US.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
