SUBSCRIBE|ADVERTISE | DONATION
Irrawaddy CONTACT US|FAQ
BURMESE VERSION




CONTRIBUTOR
China’s Failed Foreign Policy
By NYO OHN MYINT/MOE ZAW OO Thursday, September 10, 2009

COMMENTS (8)
RECOMMEND (105)
E-MAIL
PRINT

The recent breakdown of a two-decade-old ceasefire between Burma’s military junta and ethnic militias in the country’s north demonstrates the failure of China’s outdated foreign policy, according to Burmese political analysts.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Beijing has aggressively pursued a path of rapid economic development as the surest way to avoid a similar fate. Although it has dramatically expanded its trade ties with the rest of the world, the principle of non-interference in other countries’ political affairs remains the cornerstone of its foreign policy. However, as the situation in Burma attests, this principle may no longer be sufficient to protect China’s national interests.

Beijing certainly enjoys the economic benefits of being the Burmese junta’s best friend. Since 1989, China has been the regime’s most important supplier of military aid, providing jet fighters, armored vehicles and naval vessels, as well as extensive training to Burmese military personnel. In exchange, it has been given access to Burma’s abundant natural resources.

A joint statement on “Future Cooperation in Bilateral Relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Federation of Myanmar,” issued in June 2000, indicated the future direction of Sino-Burmese relations, which were to be based on the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” and the consolidation of mutual relations for wider regional stability and development.

Despite Beijing’s willingness to be more direct in persuading Burma to enhance its economic reforms and to push for political reconciliation at home, China still regards Burma’s poor human rights record as an “internal affair.”

At the same time, the United States has continued to denounce the Burmese generals’ human rights records and refusal to honor the 1990 election results. Washington’s harsh criticism, especially during the Bush administration, gave the Burmese generals no other choice but to turn to the Chinese government for support. In 2003, when the US imposed tougher sanctions against the regime under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, Beijing was highly critical of the move.  

China’s foreign policy is completely divorced from the harsh realties of life under military rule in Burma. Without taking this suffering into consideration, Beijing has used its veto at the United Nations Security Council to block resolutions designed to push Burma toward genuine political reform. This has allowed the junta to simply move forward with its efforts to orchestrate a political transition from an absolute dictatorship to a faux democracy within the framework of a militarized constitution.

China has continued to back the Burmese regime as part of its policy of extending its influence within the region. However, Burma’s long history of ethnic conflict and political dissent presents serious challenges to Chinese policy, which may not be viable in the long run.

Another problem facing Beijing is that the Burmese regime is deeply distrustful of China. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Burma’s armed forces fought hard against the Burmese Communist Party, which was backed by China’s ruling Communist Party. This experience has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Burmese generals and continues to affect the thinking of the current military leadership.

China’s current dual-track policy of supporting both the junta and the ethnic groups living along the Sino-Burmese border has helped to keep these memories alive. It has also raised the specter of renewed conflict with China. In a 2006 quarterly report, Burma’s ruling military council said that it needed to brace for an invasion from the northeast—obviously referring to China.

According to a reliable source, officials from China’s Yunnan Province have recognized the significance of developments inside Burma and are seeking to minimize the negative impact of Beijing’s policy. However, China can’t change its foreign policy within a few years; it will take decade, said a high-ranking diplomat from Beijing.

However, other China watchers have argued that Beijing is less interested in dealing with the Burmese junta since it purged Gen Khin Nyunt, the former intelligence chief, in 2004. Chinese leaders know that the current rulers in Naypyidaw have little interest in engaging with the outside world, but believe that the generals would not dare to turn their guns against China.

China may also feel that it is paying too high a price for backing Burma politically. Some analysts suggest that Beijing could move away from its long-held position on Burma in international forums to protect its broader geopolitical interests. China realizes that defending Burma may have triggered a more aggressive US policy in the Asia-Pacific region.



1  |  2 



COMMENTS (8)
 
Please read our policy before you post comments. Click here
Name:
E-mail:   (Your e-mail will not be published.)
Comment:
You have characters left.
Word Verification: captcha Type the characters you see in the picture.
 

Saya San Wrote:
19/09/2009
This is not a relationship of equals. Burma is just a tiny satellite in China's orbit - the 12th province of "Chinamar".

I don't know if it's misguided nationalism but a lot of analysis of late seems to be more wishful thinking than reality.

China gets what it wants 99 percent of the time and is in full control of this "relationship."

China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that a lot of Burmese activists don't want to talk about, let alone confront.

If you could visit Mandalay and the Northeast, you'd see that China has already taken over more than half your country?

To suggest the relationship is somehow at a "crossroads" is wrong and not borne out by facts. And to conjure up an image of China, cheered by the Mest, lobbying for Suu Kyi's release is beyond ridiculous.

China IS the problem - not a solution. The best hope for Burma's freedom is a destabilized China (economic or social unrest, or both). Only then will the generals be vulnerable.

Wishful thinking won't change that.

Tun Tun Wrote:
13/09/2009
China and India exhibit relative similarity in terms of historical length, philosophical depth and population numbers. However, ethical and human perception may be dissimilar.

One more important fact shows that Indians, people live in enlightened Buddha’s birth place enable effectively apply Soft Power (SP) than China where the same can be traced dated back to such ancient philosopher as Lao Tsu in the 7th century BC. Due to practice and perception Burmese Opposition Activists handle strtegic matters through co-operation and attraction (SP) much much better than Junta and China.

China and Burma’s corruption go from covert to overt. Both are crimes against humanity in 2008 Nargis disaster. Killing of Monks and thousands people at Tiananmen Square. There are a lot to tell. We can conclude that the Brother-in-Arm, Communism China and Burmese Junta are walking repeatedly through path of failed policy. The more failure means the nearer to their end game.

Aung Aung Wrote:
12/09/2009
To be exact, China’s outdated foreign policy failed globally. Its successes were those conquering by arm forces today and in history. The reason is very simple: she is still deploying outdated “Three Kingdom” strategies.

The strategies were renowned since four thousand years back resulted from non-stop cross fighting among local warlords. Finally came into last Manchu Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). Chinese regarded the strategies as a “Power Gem” and applied without reservation as of today. Unfortunately, Chinese never analyze suitability of the present environment where modernized and civilized society live. But method they used, do not forget, resulted from crushing among warlords like bull-fight, without morality.

Therefore, China is able to control junta such in Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe etc. They are people without self-thinking capability. Why China is still stranded there because sons/daughters of communist party members continued ruling the country. These three countries plus China are trouble-makers globally.

plan B Wrote:
12/09/2009
Taking back 30,000 refugee=more wealth off the back of the country this Photo from here has clearly shown:
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16723

Even in their so called "set back" China profited.

However that paled into insignificance compared to other Phin Chat Khan of a deal clearly stated elsewhere and here;
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16736

Looking towards China for changes in any shape form or useful actions in the foreseeable future of let say 3030?

Words to the wise: FORGET IT!

Timothy Wrote:
11/09/2009
It is simply wishful thinking for Burmese Junta to turn the gun to Chinese communist government.

Currently China, India, Thailand and the Junta are partying for endless opportunities of sucking the 57-million's blood.

China will sacrifice 30,000 Chinese refugee influx from recent attack of ethnic cleansing in Northern Shan State so long as blood sucking party lives long.

He will say that it is the internal affair of Burma. Burmese people only need 3 divisions of US troops going into Rangoon and Mandalay to send the Junta to Saddam Hussain`s path.

Obviously it is also wishful thinking of me and ordinary folks in Burma who had shouted in front of US embassy in Burma to help them from senseless killing of unarmed demonstrators in 1988 uprising.

The world is unfair for Burmese folks. UN is useless.

Tun Tun Than Wrote:
11/09/2009
Ko NOM, Today we are experiencing the complicated world, and it is very difficult for us to know who are Burma's real enemies in Burma's peace struggle. The US and China can be seen as allies as they are benefiting profits from their current relationship. Additionally, India gradually becomes a strategic partner of the US, but is building a good relationship with Russia. Obviously, China and India are competing with each other or control in the Indian Ocean, while the prosperous future China hugely depends on Japan's investment in its country. Of course, N Korea destabilizes their current relationship between powers. The complicated relationships between those countries are tightly tangled and intertwined, but when they lose their balance in their relationship, there must be a different world. To me, Burma's real enemies are those who see the SPDC's 2010 elections as an opportunity and plan to participate in the elections.

Eric Johnston Wrote:
11/09/2009
China must be made to see its alliance with Burma's military dictatorship not as a matter of simple expediency but as something very much more complex involving negative effects upon herself, including commercial "fall-out." The ways that this might be effected are various and need to be studied. But it is worth noting that China caters to consumers worldwide, even in products such as supermarket foodstuffs.

Don't expect fast results. It is a question of turning screws—as many as possible—and at the same time offering China the hand of friendship, on condition that she mends her ways.

Tom Tun Wrote:
11/09/2009
This is a good article. Let's see China's next move. The Chinese are so desperate for energy-consuming factories. The Chinese are also looking to buy some oilsand projects in Canada. Whether China will succeed with the Canadian government still depends on US interest in oilsand as well. I hope the Canadian government will not forget about Chinese policy toward Burmese citizens, Tibetans and other ethnic minorities in China. For Burmese democracy, the current situation is all positive.



More Articles in This Section

bullet The Case for China's Intervention in Burma

bullet How Long will Burma’s New Constitution Last?

bullet UN Best Hope for Change in Burma

bullet Burma and National 'Plagiarism'

bullet US Burma Policy under Obama: One Year On

bullet A Tragedy Waiting to Happen?

bullet NLD Needs a New Breed

bullet A Mischievous Quid pro Quo?

bullet US Must Admit More Rohingya Refugees

bullet Chasing Change in Burma


 

Home |News |Regional |Business |Opinion |Multimedia |Special Feature |Interview |Magazine |Archives |Research
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.