Burma/Myanmar round-up

The last few weeks have provided an interesting snapshot of the Myanmar/Burma debate. The following makes no pretence of being an exhaustive listing, but it certainly flags the themes:

At the end of July, Bunn Nagara highlighted ASEAN’s continuing struggle with the problem that just won’t go away: “Naypyidaw is claiming 'mission accomplished' and is about to collect on its Asean chairmanship. Suddenly, a very subjective judgment on its political reforms has to decide on the objective prospect of its Asean chair”. Given the widely differing sets of expectations and demands, Tin Maung Maung Than agrees that ASEAN’s “review mission carries a heavy burden in ‘assessing’ Myanmar’s ‘commitment to the principles of ASEAN’”, and hopes for a solution that will be beneficial for both Myanmar and ASEAN: “Otherwise, there is a possibility that Myanmar would come to believe that its quest for the ASEAN Chair is turning into a game of musical chairs in which the music is not indigenous to the grouping.”

Debate on Burma/Myanmar is notoriously subject to polarization. The pragmatic strand that is willing to countenance the usefulness even of small steps has been very detectable all year. Examples from the middle of August include Joshua Kurlantzick’s wondering (with every due caveat) whether there are “signs of change in Burma?”, given the presence of some “optimistic signals”, and the BBC’s reference to “several recent signs that the nominally civilian government is trying to change its hardline image” (18 Aug). Bunn Nagara agrees, again very cautiously: “Political reconciliation in Myanmar is still a long way off, but there are visible efforts all-round of getting there.” He is fully aware of the lack of confidence on all sides that impedes progress, and remarks: “So far, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa is in no rush to visit Myanmar, perhaps mindful of how such a visit could be interpreted as premature endorsement of Naypyidaw. Holding off a visit could work as another spur for continued reform” (21 Aug).

Kyaw Kyaw, in a piece at New Mandala, again steers well clear of unbridled optimism, but argues that “the early signs are actually more promising than is widely realised”, even though “the majority of people remain disengaged” (23 Aug). The change theme is to the fore in a Reuters piece, too, if a little more grudgingly: “Diplomats, political analysts and many Burmese interviewed inside Myanmar say the retired generals brought back to power after a controversial election last year now appear to realize some moves toward reform could be the key to their survival” (26 Aug). Kavi Chongkittavorn predicts “extensive engagements and commitment” over the next few weeks as Myanmar tries to convince both ASEAN and the UN that it is moving in the right direction. Kavi suggests that the inclusion of Aung San Suu Kyi, “in whatever capacity”, in the official Burmese delegation to the Bali Summit would provide “a win-win situation” for all (29 Aug). (I can’t help wondering whether this is akin to those high-stakes, pre-stacked challenges that are often laid out for ASEAN: If [fill in target] doesn’t [fill in really difficult task] then this will show that it is [fill in undesirable adjective]. But maybe not…)

But there is still a strong strand of activism and commentary that sets the bar very high for any progress to be declared in Myanmar, and wholly distrusts anything that implies accommodation. Commentators who try to take a nuanced line on Burma/Myanmar (and nuanced is the word – it’s hard to find serious commentators who defend it) again came in for some hard and angry criticism this month (22 and 23 Aug).

Meanwhile, Baroness Kinnock, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Democracy in Burma, in the British Parliament, warns that “Thein Sein is back with Plan B, a new charm offensive designed to create the impression of change, while so far not making any actual changes at all” (31 Aug). And Asian Tribune reports a statement by the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus, and notes: “Following a series of meetings with Myanmar’s government officials and political opposition leaders, the [UN] Special Rapporteur also described the possible expansion of political space and welcomed the creation of Parliamentary committees to tackle human rights issues in Myanmar. Regardless of whether or not such developments take shape, a mechanism should be set up to investigate possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. Justice and accountability should not be sidestepped by the ‘potential’ for improvements in the political sphere” (1 Sep).

Joshua Kurlantzick brings us back full circle, citing a court sentence for “subversion” as “not exactly a sign of a Burmese spring” (31 Aug).

One thing certainly doesn’t change about Myanmar/Burma – its capacity to divide.