Kerry Howley argues that the PRC has less influence over the ruling junta in Burma than a lot of people would like to think, and cites a variety of experts to that effect. Burma is, in her telling, something of a DPRK-lite whose rulers have deliberately courted isoloation in order to avoid being subject to foreign pressures. See more on the general theme of Burma-related China-bashing from James Fallows and Steve Clemons. To make a long story short, the notion that the US can productively bully China into bullying the Burmese generals into turning their country into a democracy seems like one of these pieces of foreign policy wishful thinking that the country's had quite enough of already.
« Abstinence on My Teevee | Main | Reconciliation »
The China-Burma Connection
08 Oct 2007 07:48 am
Comments (10)
A smart assessment of Myanmar starts with acknowledging how little we know, and how powerless we -- and even China -- may well be.
Bullshit. (Well, the article does make some fair points, but both the general drift and the conclusion are bullshit.)
It's actually very simple:
The Junta needs money, a lot of money. That money is to a large part generated through foreign investments. To stop that money from flowing in, you need concerted international action, which has been blocked by both China and Russia. So the strategy has to be twofold: publicly pressure and shame companies investing in Burma and publicly shame and pressure countries like China and Russia for blocking attempts to formalize such an international boycott.
Burma isn't nearly as isolated and backward as the article would have it, else there wouldn't be such massive
international investment. If you stop this investment, the Junta will not survive.
Kerry's article at least mentions an important fact that most people have missed: Thailand, not China, is Burma's main trading partner. But she failed to mention that most of the junta's foreign revenue comes from a single source: gas flowing through the Burma to Thailand gas pipeline that is owned by Chevron- Texaco. Were that pipeline to be shut down, Burma would lose most of its revenue. Given that it is operated by an American company, it would seem that the US actually has some leverage. But, like the rest of the world, we have decided that Burma's gas industry should be exempt from sanctions.
Even if the junta does depend on China for money, is it really a good idea in the long term to bully China into bullying the Burmese government to change?
Consider a similar sort of situation -- given the reputation of the US ... what would happen to a bona fide pro-democracy movement in a Latin American dictatorship (given our reputation of propping up dictatorships) if the US bullied the dictatorship into supporting it? I betcha people would begin to wonder why we would be so interested and it would discredit the pro-democracy movement (this sorta thing is happening thanks to Bush in other parts of the world, ain't it?). Whatever the Burmese words for "yankee imperialist gabacho gringo" are, I'm sure they get used to describe the Chinese ...
I don't think hitching whatever nascient pro-democracy movement Burma might have to the Chinese is really such a good idea. What are the Chinese interests really? Perhaps even more importantly, how will the Chinese be perceived?
OTOH, I guess it's no surprise that the sorts of people who think that America would be welcomed in various places as liberators might think that China will be similarly welcomed.
Given that China buys most of our T bills, it is a little difficult to see how we could bully China on any subject whatsoever.
To quote Okkervil River, "Let's take the world's stupidest stand and really mean it."
China is only part of the equation, but a crucial one, and vulnerable as it's currently very concerned with its international image and the Olympics.
China along with Russia has used its veto against a Burma UN resolution in January, both are significant arms suppliers to the Junta and are seeking investment opportunities in the gas sector. China regards the whole thing as an "internal affair", which is understandable, since its own human rights record isn't stellar either.
There is really no need to pressure China into bullying Burma outright, that's putting the bar too high, just getting them to sign up to the international effort would be a significant step and a massive signal to the junta that its days are numbered.
One also need not solely rely on government action: NGO criticism of France and TOTAL oil has already had some effect. Germany's involvement could be targeted in a similar manner.
"One also need not solely rely on government action: NGO criticism of France and TOTAL oil has already had some effect. Germany's involvement could be targeted in a similar manner."
Good point. We could also target Chevron- Texaco, whose pipeline is basically Burma's lifeline.
On the one hand you have the brave Burmese civilian protesters and monks, risking life and limb.
On the other you have Total Oil, Chevron-Texaco, etc. making windfall profits, with China and Russia giving Burma diplomatic cover in the UN security council.
novakant makes good points. One need not "bully" China, just point out that human right aren't an "internal affair."
"If you stop this investment, the Junta will not survive.
Posted by novakant | October 8, 2007 8:34 AM"
It worked in Cuba, except for that time it didn't.
Comments closed October 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
one of these pieces of foreign policy wishful thinking that the country's had quite enough of already
You'd think. You'd hope. But, ya know, what do these guys have to do but sit around and dream up ridiculous scenarios of heroic triumph?
It's like having a bunch of screenwriters sitting around waiting for a movie offer to come along.
max
['Well, shit, I'm bored! Let's just write something on spec!']
Posted by max | October 8, 2007 8:31 AM