Foreign Affairs: How To Move Forward On Burma

Georgetown Professor Michael Green and CSIS Senior Fellow Derek Mitchell present a must-read article in Foreign Affairs, “The Battle Over Burma.”

The highlights:

Japan is a key player because of the evolution of Japan’s foreign policy, especially the opportunity Burma offers for Japan to “demonstrate its bona fides on promoting democracy, protecting human rights, and advancing regional security- especially at a time when the rhetoric and policies of China, the other ASEAN giant, continue to focus on outdated mercantilist principles.”

ASEAN is at its wits end after 10 years of attempting constructive engagement with Burma’s junta, leaving them stuck with Burma’s instability and failure to improve dragging down their credible progress, shown in the ongoing “revision of underlying principles in their charter that champions democracy promotion and human rights as universal issues”.

China and India are the two largest stumbling blocks to a reasonably unified effort by ASEAN, Japan, America, EU and others.  Their competition in every relevant arena from military assistance to economic development will continue to have a negative impact until they both grow out of their short-term thinking.  China’s reputation among ASEAN members and others stands to suffer, as well as its security interests, while India can ill afford more instability along its already porous and strained borders.

“Given the differing perspectives and interests of these nations, a new multilateral initiative on Burma cannot be based on a single, uniform approach.”  Multi-track efforts utilizing targeted sanctions and various carrot and stick engagement schemes could allow “Washington to lead the five key parties — ASEAN, China, India, Japan, and the United States — in developing a coordinated international initiative and putting forth a public statement of the principles that underlie their vision for a stable and secure Burma.”  

Furthermore, “the road map should present the SPDC (the Junta’s official name) with an international consensus on how Burma’s situation affects international stability and the common principles on which the international community will judge progress in the country.”

This would represent a significant improvement over the current conflicting efforts of all parties, shifting from a helpless stalemate to a potentially effective international concert of interests.  For this to succeed, obviously the President and others would have to have diplomatic flexibility and the necessary dexterity to pursue seemingly contradictory paths that add up to moving up the calendar for change in Burma.

Ending, the authors posit that “as with the six-party talks on North Korea, a multilateral approach will require some compromise by all participants. The United States will need to reconsider its restrictions on engaging the SPDC; ASEAN, China, and India will need to reevaluate their historical commitment to noninterference; Japan will need to consider whether its economics-based approach to Burma undermines its new commitment to values-based diplomacy. But all parties have good reasons to make concessions. None of them can afford to watch Burma descend further into isolation and desperation and wait to act until another generation of its people is lost.”

An excellent essay that is worth the attention of anyone interested in the future of Burma.