In the west of Myanmar, terrified villagers flee burning homes after an explosion of ethnic and religious violence. In the north, refugees from a civil war cower in chilly camps, desperately short on basic necessities. In dank jails, hundreds of political prisoners languish behind bars, wondering if they will ever be freed.
This is not the Myanmar that US President Barack Obama was to see when he became the first US head of state to visit the pagoda-studded country yesterday. He wanted to encourage the stunning democratic transformation Myanmar has undergone since last year, but there are concerns his visit may be premature.
The nation’s warp-speed revolution is fragile. Its nascent transition has already been bloody. Much unfinished business remains: from repealing harsh laws that helped silence a generation of pro-democracy dissidents, to overhauling a political power structure still tipped heavily in favor of the Burmese army.
“If President Obama doesn’t put his full weight behind further urgent reforms in Myanmar, this trip risks being an ill-timed presidential pat on the back for a regime that has looked the other way as violence rages, destroying villages and communities just in the last few weeks,” Amnesty International US executive director Suzanne Nossel said.
White House officials on Thursday said that Obama’s visit to Myanmar should not be viewed as a “victory celebration.”
They reiterated that urgent action is still needed, particularly on freeing political prisoners and ending the unrest in western Rakhine State.
“This is a moment when we believe the Burmese leaders have put their feet on the right path and that it’s critical to us that we not miss the moment to influence them to keep going,” Obama’s top Asia adviser, Danny Russel, said.
There is little doubt that the reforms in Myanmar have come quicker and gone farther than any Burmese citizen dared dream.
Just a few years ago, Myanmar was a place denigrated by Washington as an isolated “outpost of tyranny,” a country led by a xenophobic clique of army officers so distrustful of the West that they rejected foreign aid even when Cyclone Nargis killed more than 100,000 people in 2008.
Even when the junta ceded power to an elected government early last year, few considered the prospect of real change. The vote, boycotted by the main opposition, was considered neither free nor fair and the elected leader, Burmese President Thein Sein, was a former general.
SETBACKS
However, Thein Sein’s government surprised the world. It freed hundreds of political prisoners, though not all of them. It signed cease-fire deals with numerous rebel groups. It abolished a draconian system of media censorship. It revamped finance and investment laws.
Aung San Suu Kyi — the longtime opposition leader who spent most of the lpst two decades as a prisoner in her own home — is now an elected lawmaker with an official voice in the government.
Today, the consensus is the reforms are irreversible. However, that does not mean “the future is necessarily bright,” said Myanmar historian Thant Myint-U, the grandson of the late UN secretary-general U Thant.
The problem is “not with the political leadership at the top, but with the enormity of challenges facing this country after decades of war, repression, and international isolation,” he said.
Myanmar is a country where oxen still haul carts of wheat past simple houses made of bamboo and dried leaves, much like they did centuries ago. Its education and healthcare systems are neglected, in tatters.
Although the country exports electricity, its infrastructure is so poor and mismanagement so high that only about 25 percent of people living there have access to electricity.
The nation’s best and brightest are abroad: A 1988 crackdown on democracy protesters forced a generation of skilled labor to flee. Refugees — hundreds of thousands in Thailand alone — continue to live in camps, still too uncertain to return.
Although Thein Sein’s administration has been widely credited with beginning the monumental task of turning the ship of state around, it also has seen grave setbacks.
Chief among them is the collapse of a 17-year-old truce with ethnic Kachin rebels in Myanmar’s north that triggered a wave of fighting that has driven more than 75,000 people from their homes. On Wednesday last week, Kachin rebels attacked a prison convoy, killing two convicts and injuring 14 others, state media reported.
In western Myanmar, another 110,000 people have been displaced in a separate conflict between the Buddhist Rakhine and the stateless Muslim Rohingya.
MINORITY STRIFE
Many Rohingya are born in Myanmar, but denied citizenship because the government considers them foreigners from neighboring Bangladesh.
The conflict has degenerated into an anti-Muslim campaign also targeting the Kaman minority.
“Please tell Obama that we want to go home,” Ohnmar Saw pleaded this week in Sin Thet Maw, where she fled with 5,000 other ethnic Kaman Muslims after Buddhist mobs turned their neighborhood to ashes and forced them to flee on boats.
“We have no schools, no medicines, no toilets,” the 48-year-old said. “We need help and nobody is helping us.”
Although the crisis in Myanmar’s west goes back decades, it has been exacerbated — ironically — by the newfound right to freedom of expression the US has pushed so long for.
Racist rants against the Rohingya have appeared online with increasing frequency and viciousness. The Burmese government’s lifting of a long-standing ban on protests has paved the way for massive anti-Muslim protests staged by Buddhist monks, bolstering nationwide antipathy toward Muslims and setting the stage for the latest spasm of violence last month.
The “democratic opening has allowed for repressed voices ... both negative and positive, to emerge,” said Aung Naing Oo of the Vahu Development Institute think tank, who traveled back to his homeland for the first time this year after fleeing two decades before.
However, the upside is clear: “Myanmar is no longer a dictatorship,” he said.
Given the new democratic equation, solving the conflict in Rakhine State will be difficult because the Rohingya are a deeply unpopular cause that few politicians will defend — not Thein Sein and not Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party is looking toward elections due in 2015.
There is also concern that the US can do little to help.
The US’ own interests — businesses are keen to tap into what is for them virgin territory rich in natural resources — are at risk of trumping human rights. Obama’s trip is also part of a broader effort to bolster US influence in a region dominated by China.
Washington’s decision to suspend sanctions this year has also dramatically diminished its leverage here, said Aung Din of the Washington-based US Campaign for Burma, which called on the US president to cancel his visit.
“The risk, without political and economic pressure, is that we will not see the process of democratic change moving forward,” he said.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS