Stories in the newswires alert us to the pending visit of Secretary of State Clinton to Myanmar. Based upon President Obama's perception of "flickers of progress in these last several weeks..." and his belief that Myanmar's government is "on the path toward reform", Clinton's trip will assist in determining "whether the United States can empower a positive transition in Burma...".
Ok, I am by nature a skeptic and a cynic. Reform by the government of Myanmar (Obama even called it by a name that the country has not used since the 1940s) means...not killing a few hundred Karen Christians each year; not rearresting Aung San Suu Kyi within one year of the end of the last period of detention; not denying basic necessity of life supplies to be delivered to people following natural disasters. Ok, so the state released 100 political prisoners in October, how many 1000s more have been killed or are still imprisoned?
So, the big question that must be answered in dealing with Myanmar is what the best means of addressing issues in Myanmar (sorry, but the U.S. government does not get to simply ignore the fact that the name of the country has changed and continue to call it Burma) is?
--diplomatic engagement by diplomatic missions
--diplomatic engagement by normalization of relations
--continued pressure by political and economic sanction
The answer here depends upon the particulars of preferred diplomacy style and the underlying question.
The underlying question is what the goals of U.S. diplomatic efforts in relation to Myanmar are and how these fit with U.S. interests in Asia? Obviously one goal of U.S. interests in Asia is to balance against China. One balance against China is to actively pursue commerce agendas through APEC interactions and through interactions with ASEAN. Another balance against China is to engage in diplomatic efforts for the purpose of eventual commerce and security agreements with as many countries proximate to China as possible. Myanmar, like North Korea, has close commerce and security ties with China. Interesting to note that also in today's newwires are articles about China vowing closer military ties to North Korea. Can we through diplomatic engagement persuade the government of Myanmar to move toward democratic reform and will this help loosen the connections between Myanmar and China?
I propose diplomatic missions and commerce options in return for any solid signs of positive reform--but I do not believe that positive reform is always democratic reform. Just my two cents, of course.
for more interesting thoughts regarding U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific check out Stephen Walt's latest blog.
Ok, I am by nature a skeptic and a cynic. Reform by the government of Myanmar (Obama even called it by a name that the country has not used since the 1940s) means...not killing a few hundred Karen Christians each year; not rearresting Aung San Suu Kyi within one year of the end of the last period of detention; not denying basic necessity of life supplies to be delivered to people following natural disasters. Ok, so the state released 100 political prisoners in October, how many 1000s more have been killed or are still imprisoned?
So, the big question that must be answered in dealing with Myanmar is what the best means of addressing issues in Myanmar (sorry, but the U.S. government does not get to simply ignore the fact that the name of the country has changed and continue to call it Burma) is?
--diplomatic engagement by diplomatic missions
--diplomatic engagement by normalization of relations
--continued pressure by political and economic sanction
The answer here depends upon the particulars of preferred diplomacy style and the underlying question.
The underlying question is what the goals of U.S. diplomatic efforts in relation to Myanmar are and how these fit with U.S. interests in Asia? Obviously one goal of U.S. interests in Asia is to balance against China. One balance against China is to actively pursue commerce agendas through APEC interactions and through interactions with ASEAN. Another balance against China is to engage in diplomatic efforts for the purpose of eventual commerce and security agreements with as many countries proximate to China as possible. Myanmar, like North Korea, has close commerce and security ties with China. Interesting to note that also in today's newwires are articles about China vowing closer military ties to North Korea. Can we through diplomatic engagement persuade the government of Myanmar to move toward democratic reform and will this help loosen the connections between Myanmar and China?
I propose diplomatic missions and commerce options in return for any solid signs of positive reform--but I do not believe that positive reform is always democratic reform. Just my two cents, of course.
for more interesting thoughts regarding U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific check out Stephen Walt's latest blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment