CONTRIBUTOR
What Will China Do Next?
|
By ADAM SELENE |
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
|
Much has been said about China’s active role in protecting the Burmese junta in the United Nations Security Council. It is common knowledge that Burma is important to China economically and (geo) strategically. The unease of the generals with the considerable influence in Burma’s economy is a well documented fact too. The junta would rather not depend completely on Big Brother China lurking nearby.
Now that the election in 2010 seems unavoidable and will create a new political playing field, one wonders what China will do next. Is China going to stand idly by as a guided Indonesia-style democracy evolves at its borders? Will the Chinese leadership tolerate more Western influence—at its own expense—in Burma? Or will China act to manipulate the situation to its advantage?
Evidence is piling up that China will not remain lethargic.
The most visible, and comparatively most innocent, sign is China’s reaction to the talks that have been initiated between Burma and the United States. For the first time China (and Russia) joined the West last week in a call for the release of all political prisoners and a fair and free election process. This could be read as a signal to the Burmese leadership as punishment for its new found friendly relations with the US.
More worrisome are the developments at the Chinese border, where reportedly a sizeable Wa army, the United Wa State Army (UWSA), is in training on Chinese soil. On the Burmese side of the border, these reports say, a small arms factory has been built, supposedly to arm the UWSA, who will enjoy the full support of Beijing. Of course, the Burmese regime knows this and is worried about it.
Why has a step like this been taken at a time when the Burmese government is trying to reform ethnic groups into a sort of border police? The regime aims to eradicate all ethnic and private armies within its borders before the elections. A difficult task, even without the Chinese meddling in Burmese affairs.
It looks like China is standing by to use the Wa forces as a proxy army whenever deemed necessary—a covert strategy reminiscent of the Cold War. China knows full well that it cannot invade or divide Burma itself. But if the Wa initiate a local military conflict it will be hard for the international community to intervene. The US will not risk a Vietnam-like situation in a country that is of secondary importance. And India will not risk a conflict with neighboring (nuclear) superpower China.
At the very least the threat of possible military action will send a clear message to the regime in Burma: remember who your friends are and where your loyalties lie. If not, we can take your crown jewels from you and you won’t be able to do anything about it. Within opposition ranks some seriously take into consideration the possibility that at some stage in the near future China will take Upper Burma, via the Wa.
For the time being, it is hard to predict with certainty what the Chinese will do. That the junta has some serious political and diplomatically juggling to do in the coming year seems certain, though.
Adam Selene is a journalist based in Bangkok.
 COMMENTS (15)
|
Saya San & some of the posters here are playing the very thinly veiled "race card" approach to the so-called "Chinese in Burma."
Will someone care to explain simply:
1)What has the prosperous Chinese shop keeper to do with China?
2)It might be true, yet unproven that the numbers of Chinese exceed the numbers of Burmese or Indian shop owners, what has that got to do with China? One will quickly learn the surprising truth if one goes to Zhé Cho!
3) Why are Chinese merchants always associated with China even though most of them arrived decades ago and are Burmanized yet retaining their ancestral culture.
Racism is a two-edged sword. No matter how thinly veiled, it will hurt.
China is not the Chinese in Burma.
China is a country simply taking advantage of Burma because of Western negligence.
The Chinese prospering through thick and thin is another entirely different subject. |
|
 |
|
pecker
Like all good abstracts, the very first sentence of the article says it all:
"China’s political and commercial position in Burma/ Myanmar is in large part a consequence of decisions made in Western capitals."
|
|
 |
|
China will now learn that not doing the right thing soon enough will cost more later.
When the benefit of protecting the SPDC is glaring, China took all advantages.
Now that the pipeline is closer to completion, the SPDC can play the joker card.
It is not by accident that the SPDC built up a 400,000 strong force. Quality aside, nobody is going to mess around by supporting the Wa, just like ion the Ne Win era. The recent absorption of the Kokang group has made it loud and clear.
Once the PLA enters Burmese soil, the SPDC will no longer be encouraged to change. The thought of the SPDC supported by the West to face the Chinese aggression does not bode well for the future of Burmese citizenry.
|
|
|
Moe Aung Wrote: |
11/10/2009 |
|
Another of Than Shwe's China cards up his sleeve is of course to stoke up anti-Chinese sentiment when it's convenient for him just as he has used Chinese support for as long as he can against the West. He is nobody's fool, and he will fool gullible and misguided nationalistic Burmese into fomenting race riots when it suits his purpose. The Chinese Question is the Eastern equivalent of the Jewish Question in the Europe of old. Beware.
It is perfectly understandable for people to be rightly angered by China's selfish neo-imperialist antics today, and look to the West, perhaps the lesser of two evils. But Burma in the 21st century cannot afford to alienate any of its neighbours, least of all China which has always strived to stay on good terms with the exception of its open support for the Burmese Communists following the race riots in 1967. You can bet the Chinese reaction to another such episode will be in a like manner, though taking Upper Burma through the Wa is just plain fanciful. |
|
|
Eric Johnston Wrote: |
10/10/2009 |
|
Love of one's country, and self-sacrifice for it, is a wonderful thing.
Who are sacrificing their lives for their country at this moment? The political activists and prisoners? Or the generals in Naypyidaw?
There is an old saying that "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". Stalin shrewdly called the Soviet struggle against Nazi Germany "The Great Patriotic War" once he realised that few were prepared to die for communist promises. Even exiled aristocrats returned to join him.
Patriotic officers do not syphon their country's wealth into Singapore bank accounts.
From a propagandist viewpoint, the SPDC's lack of patriotism is its Achilles heel. |
|
|
|
After reading Adam's fascinating article and thought-provoking comments I have read the ICG report.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/north_east_asia/177_chinas_myanmar_dilemma.pdf
published last month. Not so much intrigue, but full of quotes from players, it is very informative.
China (like most countries) goes for the money in international relations first. The Wa and shopkeepers are relevant too. All are mentioned in the report.
I'm interested in views on the crisis group too. Are they recommended? Too conservative? Too human right focused? |
|
|
Eric Johnston Wrote: |
09/10/2009 |
|
Saya San,
One is of course aware of the large-scale massacre of Indians that occurred in 1942 at the hands of some of the Burman population and of more recent violent anti-Chinese riots fomented by Ne Win. Therefore such things could happen again. But China's interests go far beyond the shopkeepers in Mandalay. Not to say that she would not be deeply upset by their collective murder.
The Chinese shopkeepers in Mandalay are a visible vexation to ordinary Burmese. But what does more to prop up the regime and therefore to ensure foreign and domestic exploitation of ordinary Burmese are the huge gas revenues from Total, Chevron and others.
The most productive approach towards China as regards encouraging a more favourable attitude toward human rights in Burma is that recently expressed by DASSK in her meeting with Senator Webb. |
|
|
|
Don't think China won't involve itself militarily in Burma via the Wa. Remember, the Wa are the product of what they have done in Burma since long ago. Frankly, the Burmese army has been fighting both Kumintang Chinese and then again with the BCP (the Burmese Communist Party backed by China) for nearly four decades, without having any aid from outside countries.These are the reasons why we are in this political situation right now.
If China tends to start again her covert war against Burma, that won't be easy, because we already have a lot of experience with them since Qing dynasty's invasions of Burma and they failed in all four attempts. |
|
|
|
Saya San wrote: "Don't underestimate the completely justified resentment of the Burmese towards the Junta-backed Chinese (and their fake "citizenship"). In Mandalay, 19 out of 20 shops are owned by Chinese. In the morning, Chinese kids go to school while Burmese kids go to work in Chinese shops.
The Burmese will never forget this (how could they?)"
The Chinese in Burma are not systematically exploiting the Burmese. The Burmese have the same rights and opportunities as do the Chinese, but they lack the enterprising spirit that is typical of the overseas Chinese. A similar situation occurs in other South East Asian countries. It is faulty to use the Chinese as the scapegoats. Saya San's obvious resentment of the Chinese will please many Chinese-haters, but will be despised by the Chinese. The Burmese will have to learn how to work harder, and don't conveniently blame the Chinese for the sake of winning foreign sympathy. Don't try to bully the Chinese by complaining about them! |
|
|
Adam Selene Wrote: |
08/10/2009 |
|
| I agree completely with Saya San. China doesn't want to see any change in Burma. The current status quo suits its business interests and those of the Chinese community in Burma best. This is one of the main reasons why I think China will try to complicate things in the coming months for the regime to disturb the elections. They know that the elections will mean the end of their monopoly and are the first step towards the really free and democratic Burma that in - lets say - ten years will emerge. |
|
|
tocharian Wrote: |
08/10/2009 |
|
I have been saying many things that are quite close to the main tenor of this article.
I am against the military junta but it is obvious that as a man with Burmese ancestry (to be precise, half Burmese half Rakhaing), I would rather live in poverty and repression under a patriotic Burmese regime than live as a Chinese slave. Fortunately, I don't have to live in Burma, so I just feel sorry for the poor people in rural Burma (including ethnics) who will have to suffer under Chinese domination. Burma as I know it is dead for me, in spite of what "Myanma Ahlin" propogates! |
|
|
Saya San Wrote: |
07/10/2009 |
|
Eric Wrote:
"China's interests could be better served by a government that recognises the rights of the people"
I disagree.
If China's grip on Burma is ever broken (however that may be), Chinese shopkeepers in Mandalay will be fleeing for the borders (and in some case their lives).
Don't underestimate the completely justified resentment of the Burmese towards the Junta-backed Chinese (and their fake "citizenship"). In Mandalay, 19 out of 20 shops are owned by Chinese. In the morning, Chinese kids go to school while Burmese kids go to work in Chinese shops.
The Burmese will never forget this (how could they?)
I believe that in a free Burma an exodos of Chinese in many parts of Burma would inevitably occur.
The scenario which best suits China is the status quo. |
|
|
George Than Setkyar Heine Wrote: |
07/10/2009 |
|
Within opposition ranks some seriously take into consideration the possibility that at some stage in the near future China will take Upper Burma, via the Wa.
No need to be a genius to note this, given the situation and time.
The KMT tried this trick too.
Remember what is happening in Georgia today?
Of course UWSA is a proxy of China for this very reason also. Hence, Than Shwe has the idea to cozy up to the US before he goes for the UWSA, SSA(S)and others affiliated with the Reds next door.
China calling for release of all political prisoners and holding a free and fair election is just a ruse if not a gimmick, trust me.
Than Shwe has his ACE - military constitution - in hand. Daw Suu and her people will certainly boycott Than Shwe's farce. Whoever wins the elections is no big deal for Than Shwe holds all the aces; either tow his line and play by his book - military constitution - or else.
Than Shwe will remain smiling on his throne.
And China has no cause to shed tears also. |
|
|
Eric Johnston Wrote: |
07/10/2009 |
|
It is unlikely China would become directly involved militarily in Burma. It would be useless to her or even counterproductive unless she were prepared to seize the whole country. And that has not been China's style to date. (Tibet was a special case - Chinese suzerainty was recognized by the West since the year dot). But the Chinese government may wish to express in tangible form its distaste for lack of gratitude.
China's interests could be better served by a government that recognises the rights of the people, that has a stable policy towards China, and that respects international conventions. |
|
|
Tom Tun Wrote: |
07/10/2009 |
|
Adam Selene,
I think the Chinese are interested in Burmese shores opened to the Indian ocean. It is for economy and for the Chinese Navy controlling the region.
Of course, if the Burmese regime is out of control, the Chinese will happily turn them over to International Crime Court.
However, is it going to happen? I personally don't think so. If China loses the regime, that will be the end of it. The future government will not be friendly with the Chinese.
Wa is not a problem for Burma. Isolated territory right next to China, the UWSA is backed by the communist regime and their business is mainly trading drugs.
Think about it: what will the whole of Burma do with them? If the Chinese do not see a good future with the Wa, the Chinese will do the same thing that they do with the regime.
China is only going after resources, not ethnic Chinese sentiments with the Wa.
I can give another example: look at Tibet, minority Muslim Chinese, and the Manchu - how do they get treated?
If I were Wa, I would be careful. |
|
|
|
|
RECOMMEND (39)
E-MAIL
PRINT
