Myanmar's peaceful protests are nearing their tipping point, with the military junta weighing the potential costs of a full military crackdown. But Myanmar's generals will have little incentive to opt for an alternative to bloodshed and repression if China continues to provide them with support and protection against sanctions at the UN Security Council.
China has more influence over Myanmar's ruling generals than any other country. Indeed, without Chinese support, it is debatable whether the Burmese regime could sustain itself. So, while the current crisis in Myanmar is not of China's making, a peaceful settlement may only be possible if China acts to support it.
China is thus facing an unwanted test of its claim to be a responsible stakeholder in the international community. China has held its tongue on Myanmar, sticking to its policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of any nation. But that policy may no longer be tenable.
It is in China's interest to find an effective alternative to a brutal crackdown that would only remind the world vividly of the massacres in Rangoon in 1988 and in Tiananmen Square the following year. With the Beijing Olympics and 17th Congress of the Communist Party on the horizon, a military crackdown in Myanmar is the last thing the Chinese authorities can afford.
Yet China may be able to pre-empt difficulties by making the cost of a brutal crackdown prohibitively high to the Burmese regime. It should privately threaten to cut off all aid and trade links, and to end its efforts in the UN to protect the regime from any additional international sanctions.
China can also provide an inducement to peaceful change. Beijing can guarantee the personal safety and wealth of the military junta should its members have to leave Myanmar suddenly. But China should make it clear that such protection requires the Burmese generals to cooperate in finding a peaceful solution.
It may be morally repulsive to allow the junta's members to retire with their ill-gotten gains, but any alternative will exact a dramatically higher price from the Burmese people. China's national interest does not require it to prop up the Burmese junta forever.
China benefits greatly from Myanmar's energy and other natural resources. By playing a positive role in bringing about a successful and peaceful transfer of power, China can expand these benefits and secure a friendly neighbor in Myanmar more effectively than with its current policy, which merely incurs the hatred of the Burmese people.
As a matter of geo-political strategy, taking a positive lead in Myanmar can help China reassure its neighbors that its policy of "peaceful rise" is beneficial and real. Whatever ASEAN governments say in public about welcoming that rise, their lingering doubts and suspicions will not be erased until they see China actively playing a positive role in assuring regional stability. The current crisis in Myanmar offers China a rare opportunity to do so.
The international community, too, has a vested interest in seeing that China rises peacefully. It should encourage and support China in taking the lead over Myanmar, as long as China commits to finding a peaceful solution. The international community's objective should be restricted to a peaceful outcome that allows Myanmar's people to work out their own solution.
Any change of regime in Myanmar will not be the result of international intervention. Instead, it will be the result of political negotiations between the junta and its domestic opponents. China should recognize that using its influence would not necessarily imply intervention in another country's domestic affairs.
Steve Tsang is a fellow of St. Antony's College at Oxford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS