Meanwhile, In Burma

I still don't really know anything about Burma, but what I'd come up with in the way of an opinion is that the key actor here is China, and that aside from ineffectual posturing the most useful thing to be done is to try to influence China which, in turn, is actually in a position to restrain the Burmese military. According to Josh Kurlantzick, either many people who know what they're talking about agree with me, or else the leading western officials are no better informed than I am:

Many Western powers believe that China, the most important foreign actor in Burma, can be convinced to withdraw its blanket backing for the junta. In a British cable earlier this year obtained by THE NEW REPUBLIC, British diplomats argue "China is closer than any other country to Burma's military regime ... China's interests had changed in Burma. They [are] investing heavily and want to see a return on their investment ... There may be an opportunity to persuade China that it is in their interest to see a stable and developing Burma." Indeed, some of this week's Burma protests have signaled popular anger at China as well, with demonstrators pointedly going by the Chinese embassy; several Burmese previously told me of kidnappings of Chinese businesspeople in the north of the country. Recently, according to AFP, senior Chinese official Tang Jiaxuan offered a gentle rebuke to the Burmese junta, telling its foreign minister that "China sincerely hopes that Myanmar can bring stability back to its domestic situation."

Kurlantzick, though, is skeptical this will work and says that "placing so much trust in China conceals the fact that there are still steps other nations can take on Burma." His analysis, though, mostly comes down to the fact that there's are still steps other nations can take that might increase China's level of concern with the situation.

Comments

Except that China's goal is to run Myanmar as an extractive colony (and get access to the suspected oil deposits off the coast). The masses who are discontented are neither well-served by the Chinese economic actions in their country nor do they trust the PRC. Moving from an internally-generated military dictatorship to a Chinese protectorate would not be a gain from the view of the people taking the risks.

The sad thing is that the people of Myanmar still have an incredible level of trust in the good intentions of the United States and even in the current Administration. I fear they will be sadly disappointed.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 26, 2007 9:43 AM

When did it become Burma again? I though they had switched to Myanmar, but on MSNBC they keep saying Burma. I'm so confused.

Posted by Freddie | September 26, 2007 9:45 AM

> I though they had switched to Myanmar,
> but on MSNBC they keep saying Burma.

Burma was a name imposed by the English. Myanmar is a name imposed by the military government. Neither is a good generic term, but Myanmar is both the official name for the moment and closer to a typical indigenous name. Use of "Burma" in English-speaking nations has become a politically correct method of indicating opposition to the military dictatorship, but I doubt that ordinary citizens of that nation would really approve since it also carries the overtones of British rule.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 26, 2007 9:51 AM

The opposition in Burma tends to use the name Burma.

Posted by Reality Man | September 26, 2007 10:07 AM

A Burmese friend who'd been involved in the previous protests told me that Myanmar was junta-associated, and that Burma was the way to go.

Posted by d | September 26, 2007 10:11 AM

Is our "reliance" on China to exert influence in North Korea, Burma, etc, such a good idea? I'm not trying to derail the thread to one of "we're already so dependent on China to whom we owe so much money and why are we making them even more powerful?", but rather my concern is one of whether Chinese influence really is perceived all that beneficently by those being influenced.

We tend to think of whatever "hotspot" -- "oh, those {Africans, East Asians, Slavs, Arabs} are all alike anyway ... why shouldn't country A handle the problem in country B ... country B'll appreciate more if one of their own kind handles things". However, does this logic wash? Chinese influence in East Asia ain't that much better (if at all) than U.S. influence in Latin America (heck, why aren't we worried about the Chinese in East Asia like we previously worried about the Soviets behind the Iron Curtain?) ... don'tcha think that Chinese influence builds about as much US influence in Latin America? And do we want to be seen as pushing for something resentment building? That won't do us good either ...

I don't know what the "key" to Burma or North Korea or wherever is, but "let China use their influence" just ain't a good idea. How would Latin America act if the world deemed that all of their problems should be solved by a beefed-up Monroe Doctrine?

Posted by DAS | September 26, 2007 10:26 AM

The part of this story I find most extraordinary is the use of the phrase "British cable". Do such things still exist, except for the purpose of being "obtained" by sympathetic journalists?

Posted by Charlie Murtaugh | September 26, 2007 10:34 AM

Am I the only one getting the big picture here?

China and Burma are both undemocratic states where basic freedoms are prohibited and dissent is crushed with violence and repression. And are we to expect China to influence Burma so that Burma is less like China?

The hypocrisy in this is understandable - it starts with Bush, who is calling for more sanctions on Burma (but none on China), even though Burma is behaving exactly like China. Of course Burma doesn't own half the US national debt, and is not the economic powerhouse upon which the US economy depends...

Posted by McKingford | September 26, 2007 10:36 AM

Too late

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MYANMAR?SITE=FLROC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posted by IMU | September 26, 2007 10:56 AM

Re "Chinese official Tang Jiaxuan offered a gentle rebuke to the Burmese junta, telling its foreign minister that "China sincerely hopes that Myanmar can bring stability back to its domestic situation."
----------
In Chinese diplomatic-speak, I think that translates as "Send in the tanks and machine-gun the baldheaded motherfuckers."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

Posted by Don Williams | September 26, 2007 10:58 AM

As another poster noted, it is crazy to think China has any interest in moderating the junta and promoting democracy when China is there basically to set up a Chinese Protectorate that extracts raw resources and enriches the Chinese and a handful of Burmese generals.

Talk of using China's "good graces" to make Burma, N Korea, Sudan better is like talking about using Al Sharpton's "good graces" to diffuse racial tensions. The Chinese record of humanitarian aid, tempering dictatorships and repression, contribution to peacekeeping, UN agancies - is abysmal. China works only for advancing China, in an utterly amoral way.

Burma is bookended by two flourishing democratic nations, India and Thailand (monarchy+democracy), that are rapidly developing. Burma is far closer culturally to the Annamese and Thais than to Chi-commies. And of course there is the irony that the junta was originally able to seize power because they claimed they were the best way to resist communism and Chinese influence. Now it is the opposition that is anti-commie, anti-Chinese and want to be like Thailand and India and also establish strong relations with America, Britain again, Australia, and Japan.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Isn't it pathetic when the sort of discussion that passes for serious thinking on foreign policy displays less nuance and deep understanding of the cultural and geopolitical situations around the world than our very own Chris Ford?

Posted by DAS | September 26, 2007 11:40 AM

"I don't know what the "key" to Burma or North Korea or wherever is, but "let China use their influence" just ain't a good idea."

I agree with you on principle; however, China's tremendous influence over the junta is just too large to ignore. If we decide that helping out the popular democratic reformers in Burma is going to be a major foreign policy initiative, we can either craft a policy that makes China part of the solution or part of the problem. China has the benefit of being in the neighborhood and backing the side that has all of the guns. We're backing the side that has more popular and moral support, but is led by Buddhist monks and nuns. If China decides that it is better to slaughter the resistance and deal with the diplomatic fallout than having their client fall and seeing another potentially belligerent democracy in the neighborhood, they can choose do to so and we will have little power to challenge them.

Posted by Reality Man | September 26, 2007 11:51 AM

If China has influence on the Junta then those monks are in trouble.

Posted by danceswithgoats | September 26, 2007 12:16 PM

If China decides that it is better to slaughter the resistance and deal with the diplomatic fallout than having their client fall and seeing another potentially belligerent democracy in the neighborhood, they can choose do to so and we will have little power to challenge them.
Posted by Reality Man

Another variant of Reality Man's theme of "China the all-powerful" and America the "helpless superpower". We have plenty of power to challenge them and plenty of other nations in the region that strongly support bringing Burma out of the junta-Chicom twilight zone.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 26, 2007 12:22 PM

Strangely, I spent a portion of my undergraduate years studying the history of Burmese Buddhism. That the monks are now fronting the pro-democracy movement is not surprising; Burmese nationalism during the colonial era was a Buddhist nationalism. Burmese democracy under U Nu was a Buddhist democracy.

The relationship between the monks and society is complicated but it seems worthy of noting that while the monks do command a certain amount of respect (and $$$) from "regular" Burmese people they are not an untouchable elite. A significant minority of Burmese boys and men spend a portion of their lives as monks; they have popular, political authority.

In the 1950s Burma was a rapdily developing country with a growing middle class (whose religious habits were starting to mirror western conceptions of Buddhism [weekend meditation retreats, that sort of thing]; for most Burmese observance is not about flight from the world but church, prayer, and alms). Burma met all the necessary cultural, economic, and political preconditions for a functioning demcoracy. What it lacked was a military under effective civilian control. And of course the west didn't care.

Posted by Linus | September 26, 2007 12:27 PM

Burma is bookended by two flourishing democratic nations, India and Thailand (monarchy+democracy), that are rapidly developing.

Ahem. Last I looked, Thailand was governed by the military, which overthrew a democratically elected government and implemented martial law, and in so doing gutted the constitution. This was over a year ago, and "elections" designed to restore civilian rule haven't yet been held.

And it isn't as if this is one small blip on Thailand's record: they've had 17 constitutions since 1932, as a result of the constant interference by the military in the civilian control of government there.

And it is worth noting that even while under the most recent civilian government, Thailand had much less freedom than what we in the West expect from a democracy.

Posted by McKingford | September 26, 2007 12:29 PM

There's a few Chinese irons in this fire.

China badly needs oil -- and Iran is the shortest distance from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean oil terminals.

However, China's fleet has to pass through the Vietnam - Malaysia chokepoints to reach the Indian Ocean and would be sitting ducks.

It would be very convenient for China to have a major naval base on the Burma coastline to supply a Chinese fleet semi-permanently deployed in the Indian Ocean. The base could also be a fuel depot/maintainance port for diesel electric submarines. In shallow, coastal waters with complex thermal layers, sonar signals are refracted and those quiet subs can give even our Seawolfs a run for their money.

It's not all that far from China's border across Burma to the coast -- a railroad could carry huge supplies of armaments.

The USA fought the war in Vietnam , in part, because Vietnam is the cork which plugs up Chinese expansion. China may be trying to flank that obstacle.

Of course, Putin just knew that the CIA was behind the Orange Revolution in Russia's Ukraine Foodbasket -- and CHina probably thinks the same re who's behind the priests in Burma.

Especially after that big naval exercise our carriers just finished with the Indian navy.
See http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/279159

Anybody ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)?? See http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/285170

You'll notice they don't tell you guys this stuff in the New York Times. Which is why I crack up whenever some urban dweller sniffs that the Times keeps them better informed that all those rednecks watching Fox News out in the hinderlands.

Posted by Don Williams | September 26, 2007 1:18 PM

Two anecdotes:

I used to work in a research lab with a Burmese student. He was not a fan of the current regime. He referred to the country he came from, exclusively, as "Burma."

There is a (very good) restaurant in town that advertises itself as a "Burmese" restaurant and appears to be owned by natives of that country.

Whether these choices were made out of conviction that "Burma" is the proper name for the country, or out of conviction that Americans have never heard of "Myanmar," I can't say.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 26, 2007 2:14 PM

> Whether these choices were made out of
> conviction that "Burma" is the proper name
> for the country, or out of conviction that
> Americans have never heard of "Myanmar," I
> can't say.

Unfortunately you can't depend on refugees/exiles/expats/immigrants for the full picture of what is going on back home. They may have had good reason for leaving (e.g. post-1988 refugees) but the fact is that they left and are in some ways disconnected from the mainstream of their former society. And Myanmar has four large social groups, three large religions, and dozens of other communities; various forms of discrimination are quite common within the country apart from the government. So the use of "Burma" may be particular to subset.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 26, 2007 2:29 PM

Point taken. Anecdotally, though, it does seem that usage of the word "Burma" is acceptable to many ex-pats in this country, if not actively encouraged, and therefore you aren't likely to offend anyone around here by using it.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 26, 2007 3:23 PM

"Another variant of Reality Man's theme of "China the all-powerful" and America the "helpless superpower". We have plenty of power to challenge them and plenty of other nations in the region that strongly support bringing Burma out of the junta-Chicom twilight zone.

Posted by Chris Ford"

Strawmen arguments will get you nowhere. What tools do we have really? If Vietnam was backing the junta, then we could threaten Vietnam with not renewing most-favored nation trading status or something along those lines. However, economic reprisals against China would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Americans would probably be willing to deal with higher prices if China was subverting Korean or Japanese democracy, but Burma isn't on Americans' radar. We aren't going to send ground troops and air strikes would likely hurt the populace as much as the government. We already don't seel China arms and have an arms embargo on China since Tiananmen. It isn't enough to say "we can do this because we are powerful" but not offer any tools and explain how they can be used. Of course, if MY's new post is right and China has no real influence over the junta (which contradicts much of what I have read, but Burma is such a closed society under military rule these things are hard to tell), then this whole discussion is moot and direct pressure applied to the regime or engagement could work, but we also don't have trade with Burma that we could then cut off.

Posted by Reality Man | September 26, 2007 6:47 PM