The low road to Yangon
From the Blog PkColumnist.com: The low road to Yangon - ONE of the points raised by President Barack Obama during his speech to the parliament in New Delhi earlier this month went down particularly poorly with many of his Indian listeners: a none-too-subtle reprimand about his hosts` relations with the regime in Myanmar. It was irresponsible, Obama suggested, for one of the world`s largest democracies to be so uncritical of a demonstrably anti-democratic regime in its immediate neighbourhood. Any number of Indian commentators bristled at the criticism, with many of them pointing out that the United States` own record vis-Ã -vis repressive regimes, including military dictatorships, was hardly above reproach. That`s a perfectly fair comment, and not only in a historical context. Not all that long ago, military juntas appeared to be Washington`s preferred form of government in large parts of the Third World, driven largely by the fear that democracy would lead to left-leaning administrations. American paranoia along those lines eased somewhat in the aftermath of the Cold War, but in some respects the assumptions behind that misguided approach remain in place. Pakistan, as many Indians were predictably quick to note, remains a prime example of a country whose military rulers have invariably found a warm welcome in Washington, albeit with the goodwill occasionally tempered by pressure towards erecting some sort of a civilian facade. And as far as repressive regimes are concerned, the US counts Egypt and Saudi Arabia among its closest allies in the Middle East. The question of sanctions against Saudi Arabia as a means of promoting democracy has simply never arisen. And if such alliances can be excused on the grounds of realpolitik, why should India`s ties with the regime of Senior General Than Shwe, based as they are on economic as well as strategic interests, be considered problematic?In an increasingly energy-hungry world, Myanmar is said to be the largest source of natural gas in Asia. The border between India and Myanmar is a volatile region, with rebels operating on both sides. And, perhaps above all, India feels the need to counter growing Chinese influence. It`s hardly surprising, of course, that China has never had too many qualms about cavorting with Myanmar`s generals; given its own political system, it would be curious for it not to sympathise with their efforts to keep democracy at bay. It is not inconceivable that the huge pro-democracy protests in Myanmar in the summer of 1988 served as an example for some of the Chinese activists behind the Tiananmen Square rallies of the following year. In both cases, the mass mobilisations were ruthlessly crushed. Back then, India was fairly clear about which side it was on: it supported Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD), which won a landslide in the elections held in 1990 but found its path to power decisively blocked by the army. Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize the following year, and spent much of her time since then in incarceration. It`s possible China sees a parallel between that and this year`s decision by the Norwegian Nobel committee to bestow the award on Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident lately sentenced to 11 years in prison. In the two decades since then, India has seen its fit to change its mind. Even among Asian democracies, it is by no means alone: most of Myanmar`s neighbours favour "constructive engagement" with the junta. Many of them would argue that this is the least painful means of encouraging a gradual transition to more representative rule. However, there is precious little evidence to cite in support of this thesis. This month`s elections were farcical at many levels. A small amount of democratic space was conceded, but that could be interpreted as a clever means of dividing the opposition: a faction of the NLD that favoured participating in the elections split off from the party, which subsequently stands dissolved. A new constitution that ostensibly gained `popular approval` in a referendum a couple of years ago effectively entrenches military rule, which has been reinforced also by the fact that the junta`s political wing enjoyed exceptional advantages in the Nov 7 polls. This was the first electoral exercise since the annulled elections of 1990, and it requires an inordinate amount of optimism to propose that it has taken Myanmar substantially further down the democratic path. Less than a week after polling day, the regime felt confident enough to free Suu Kyi on schedule. It goes without saying that China did not demand her release, but nor did India offer any public gesture of support. For what it was worth, the pressure came mainly from the West. Amid indications that the military government has been hoping to effectively sideline Suu Kyi, the generals are likely to have been taken aback by her continued popular attraction. Two days after she visited an HIV/Aids centre in Yangon, inevitably drawing a crowd, local officials effectively served an eviction order on residents and staff, according to a BBC report. Comparisons between her release and that of Nelson Mandela 20 years ago seem silly on any number of levels — as Suu Kyi herself has noted, conditions in Myanmar today bear little resemblance to South Africa on the eve of democracy — but perhaps particularly in the sense that once Mandela was free, the possibility that he could again been imprisoned was negligible. There`s a perfectly good chance, on the other hand, that Suu Kyi could once again be placed under house arrest if the generals begin to see her once more as a potentially unmanageable threat. Would such an unfortunately development again be greeted with silence in New Delhi and most other Asian capitals? It`s all very well to decry American hypocrisy, but let that not serve as an excuse for unprincipled support of a corrupt and repressive regime that has sought to make itself less unattractive through calculated concessions to crony capitalism. . Read Full Post
0 comments :
Post a Comment