Myanmar and Pakistan are both Asian countries whose military rulers are in trouble. But they are heading in opposite directions, because, whereas Pakistan understands why Asia is rising, Myanmar does not.
Asia is rising because Asian countries are increasingly opening their doors to modernity. Starting with Japan, this wave of modernization has swept through the four "Asian Tigers" (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore), some ASEAN countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam), and then to China and India. Now, it is moving into Pakistan and West Asia.
I was in Pakistan during one of its more exciting weeks. Exiled former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif sought to return, but was promptly sent back into exile. The world expected a political eruption. Instead, the country carried on calmly.
Pakistan did not erupt because Pakistan's elite is focused on modernization. Led by Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who was formerly with Citibank, the country has carried out dramatic structural reforms, matching best practices in leading emerging-market economies. This explains its high economic growth rates.
Pakistan has welcomed foreign trade and investment. And, just as the success of overseas Indians in the US inspired Indians in India, Pakistan stands to similarly benefit from its own successful diaspora.
But this opening to modernity extends beyond economics and finance. Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is strong. But this has not completely changed the fundamental texture of Pakistan's society.
One sight at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), a leading private university, heartened me when I saw how women were dressed. When I visited Malaysian campuses as a young man in the 1960s, few Malay Muslim women covered their faces or hair.
Today, on the same campuses, almost all do. By contrast, at LUMS, which has the look and feel of Harvard Business School, only about 5 percent of female students cover their faces, a remarkable expression of social freedom.
There has also been an explosion of free media in Pakistan. An astonishing number of Pakistani television stations openly discuss the activities of Sharif and the other exiled former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. Indeed, many elements of an open society are in place, including -- as the world learned in March -- an independent judiciary.
Myanmar, in contrast, broadcasts no information on Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi and would never allow the reinstatement of a chief justice fired by its generals, as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did in March, let alone demonstrations in the streets in the chief justice's favor.
Of course, there is much silent resentment about the enormous political and economic space occupied by the Pakistani military and a danger of a backlash if the military does not learn to share more power in the country. I met many retired Pakistani army generals occupying key posts. Fortunately, they seemed to have a temperament closer to former US secretary of state Colin Powell's than to Than Shwe or Maung Aye, the two closed military minds who have cut off Myanmar from the world.
The decision of the US to engage, rather than isolate, Pakistan has also helped. I have no doubt that closer US engagement helped to nudge Pakistan in the right direction. Many members of Pakistan's elite have been educated in US universities -- another leading indicator of a country's orientation. Just imagine how different international relations would be if US leaders could visit Myanmar or even Iran with equal ease and have friendly discussions about agreements and disagreements.
Myanmar's generals deserve to be condemned for their brutal crackdown on civilian protesters and Buddhist monks. The Western world will rush to demand more sanctions and more isolation. But to what avail? Myanmar has effectively isolated itself for more than 50 years. What can even more isolation achieve?
A courageous Western leader might choose to confront Myanmar's leaders with a threat that would really frighten them -- deeper engagement.
Myanmar's generals genuinely believe that they are protecting Burmese "purity" by shutting out the world. Imagine the impact if as many Myanmar generals visited the US as Pakistani generals do.
As Thant Myint-U, a brave young Burmese intellectual and the grandson of former UN secretary-general U Thant, asked: "What outside pressure can bring about democratic change? And why, after nearly two decades of boycotts, aid cutoffs, trade bans and diplomatic condemnation, are Myanmar's generals apparently more in charge than ever before?"
I was in Pakistan as a state guest. But my real mission was to reconnect with my ethnic roots, as I had never visited the country where my parents were born. Only those who understand the pain of the partition of British India in 1947 will appreciate the powerful symbolism of a child of Hindu parents being welcomed back warmly to Muslim Pakistan. Those cultural ties helped me understand the language being spoken and feel the deep urge to modernize in the Pakistani soul -- an urge that exists alongside the urge to reconnect with Pakistan's rich cultural past.
I left Pakistan feeling hopeful because I saw the strong desire to join today's rising Asia. If a similar impulse could be nurtured in Myanmar, both its people and the world would benefit.
Kishore Mahbubani is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS