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




COMMENTARY
Playing With Super Powers
By AUNG ZAW Wednesday, October 28, 2009

COMMENTS (19)
RECOMMEND (36)
E-MAIL
PRINT

If ever the Burmese regime made it clear it preferred “Made in America” to “Made in China,” it would be no surprise to see relations between China and Burma suffer a severe hiccup.

China is now keenly observing Washington’s new policy toward the Burmese regime and Burma’s opposition movement. At the same time, Beijing is observing the unpredictable Naypyidaw regime’s paukphaw (kinship) commitment to China.

Burmese military officers familiar with Western standard weaponry employed this arsenal to counter Chinese-backed insurgents in the past. They have long memories of Chinese chauvinism and Beijing’s former plan to export communism to Burma and install there a government sympathetic to Mao Zedong’s communist ideology.

Those days are long gone. China became Burma’s staunchest ally after the regime brutally crushed the pro-democracy uprising in 1988. For the past 21 years, China has adopted a paukphaw policy toward Burma and played an influential role there.

Burma has always firmly supported a “One China” policy and expressed its sympathy to Beijing at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Burma hastily issued a statement condemning the West when the Chinese embassy in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, was hit in a NATO air strike in 1999.

Perhaps Burmese leaders have had little choice but to embrace Beijing since 1988 in view of worsening relations with the West. However, it can be argued that the strength of ties between Burma and China is perhaps grossly overstated and may be just an anomaly.

Former dictator Gen Ne Win, who fought British and Japanese occupiers, was always fearful of imperialists. During his reign from 1962 to 1988 and throughout the Cold War, he played safe with world powers.

Ne Win and his top commanders were well aware of their country’s geopolitical importance, strategically located between China and India.

Ne Win’s neutralist balancing act didn’t prevent him, however, from seeking military aid from the US and Europe when Burma faced a serious threat from Communist China in the late 1960s.

Four years after coming to power in the 1962 military coup, Ne Win visited the US and had lunch at the White House in Washington with then President Lyndon Johnson.

A few months earlier, Ne Win had received US Senator Mike Mansfield, the first high-ranking US official or legislator to visit Burma since the coup.

Ne Win’s visit to Washington caused some apprehension in Beijing, although the Burmese dictator never gave cause for real Chinese concern. He was clever enough to appease and exploit Beijing.

One year after the US visit, anti-Chinese riots broke out in Burma, causing Ne Win to placate Beijing and steadily repair strained relations, while still adhering to his country’s neutralist foreign policy.

At a Chinese National Day reception in Beijing, Ba Thein Tin, the leader of the Communist Party of Burma, was mentioned second only to Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot among distinguished guests at the main table in Beijing.

In December 1977, Ne Win made a surprise visit to Phnom Penh to meet Pol Pot, the first foreign leader welcomed to Cambodia since the Khmer Rouge takeover two years previously.

The visit was intended to break the Khmer Rouge’s international isolation. It certainly paid off, as Beijing increased its economic assistance to Burma and also ordered Burmese communists to relocate their clandestine radio station to Burmese territory.

Burma’s current military strongman, junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe, was then an army captain temporarily serving with the Light Infantry Division 101. He was undoubtedly an interested observer of how Ne Win was handling internal and external challenges.

Than Shwe was later assigned to lead Light Infantry Division 88 in northern Burma in countering a communist threat there in the 1980s.

Like many infantry commanders, Than Shwe and his No 2, Dep Snr-Gen Maung Aye, are known to harbor no great love for China.

Beijing somehow miscalculated the eccentric, nationalistic, independent-minded and battle-hardened Burmese army leaders. China had backed the wrong horse by wooing intelligence chief Gen Khin Nyunt, only to see him abruptly removed in 2004, thus losing one of Beijing’s most valuable friends.

Than Shwe, like many Burmese nationalists, was reluctant to see Burma becoming too dependent on China, even for the armaments his regime so badly needed. When Chinese-made jet fighters began to malfunction and crash at an alarming rate, the Burmese regime went looking for reliable arms manufacturers in Russia and Eastern Europe.

 
The Chinese have always found the Burmese difficult to deal with.



1  |  2 



COMMENTS (19)
 
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.
 

Oo Maung Gyi Wrote:
06/11/2009
In politics there are no permanent enemies and permanent friends. China is not a big super power in the mind of the Burmese generals, therefore Snr-Gen Than Shwe needs America to balance China growing power in Asia for the sake of Burmese nationalism and wants to become a strategic power player within the Asean nations because of Burma natural resources.

okkar Wrote:
05/11/2009
planB,

I do give credit where it due. If you pay attention, you will no doubt find that I attributed a lot of credit towards Irrawaddy for their tireless effort in pushing their pro-Islamic, pro-KNU, pro-anything-that-is-reasonable views. I credit them for their lack of common sense and their inability to practice what they preach. So, don't you worry, I do give credit where it due.

plan B Wrote:
04/11/2009
Ko Soe Thane

Facts rule. Principles are meant for guidance. Facts must dictate. Thank you.

plan B Wrote:
02/11/2009
Ko Okkar
If you keep shooting the messengers there won't be any more left to deliver messages.
Reminds me of some entities called SPDC, HIE SSE and such.
Criticize the messages. Don't forget to give credit when credit is due.

okkar Wrote:
02/11/2009
nono,

The last time I looked, it was ethnic people and opposition supporters who were sad and angry. Wasn't "The Irrawaddy" writing all these sad articles about IDP and refugees? Weren't the angry comments from opposition supporters?

If everyone on this site is happy and laughing, then the SPDC must be doing something right.

George Than Setkyar Heine Wrote:
01/11/2009
The US gesture to the Burmese has set alarm bells ringing in Beijing. As in the past, Burmese leaders will have more room to play one super power against the other.

Yes, that is the ruse and it is working also.

In this light, Daw Suu and her people will be the only losers in this game at the end of the day. And that is not right.

US is joining the fray and participating in Than Shwe's play, instead of standing and fighting.

Knowing very well it wouldn't pay in terms of freedom, democracy and human rights, much less in a peaceful way. That is certainly not right.

Of course Than Shwe will not bend his knee to America or China. He will not yield.

He will harbor no talk on freedom and democracy, nor human rights in Burma, but will savor only the prospect of making some more dollars.

Thus Campbell is on a wild goose chase running in a maze dazed with a dream of finding a maiden with an angel face.

nono Wrote:
31/10/2009
I know that Mr Okkar is the only super hero for SPDC, while other people happily are talking and laughing; but he always seems to be sad and angry.

I believe the ethnic minority groups have suffered enough. Please don't wipe out and kill all these poor people, Mr Okkar.

Okkar Wrote:
31/10/2009
pLanB,

Who needs to thank you when they get paid $$$$ for it? The Irrawaddy does not represent 3ES at all, but instead it represents censorship, propaganda and self-promotion.

How does encouragement work if they are selectively censoring any comment that does not share their extremist views? Or how do they educate when they censor any comments that offer a different point of view ... how can there be enduring fellowship in a site where censorship is as ripe as press scrutiny board in Myanmar?

You can't defend the indefensible. Just like one cannot say SPDC is entirely innocent, nevertheless, we must recognise the shortcomings of The Irrawaddy.

Soe Thane Wrote:
31/10/2009
In response to Kyi May Kaung's argument on why sanctions are not the main problem:

1. Of course a change in government policies (and better governance generally, rule of law, etc) would lead to considerable improvements in the economic lives of people.

2. But - as we see in many other poor countries (e.g. Cambodia and Vietnam) - two of the most important sectors for growth and employment are tourism and textile exports to the US and Europe. Neither can really grow without a lifting of Western sanctions.

3. Agriculture can probably grow, but will be hobbled by the US financial sanctions, with a lot of the profits going to banks and other middlemen in Singapore and India.

4. It's unlikely the regime is even able to steer the economy toward reform even if they wanted to without basic technical help (in IT, collecting data, monetary and banking reform, tax collection, etc) - they are decades behind and without (now blocked) assistance, dont have the basic managerial capacity.

Than Lwin Wrote:
31/10/2009
Having pre-occupied with our country’s political problems for decades, for almost my entire adult life, reading The Irrawaddy, especially Ko Aung Zaw’s occasional investigative journalistic pieces on past & present Burma and soul-searching of our country’s unbiased history that can be found in internet (mostly by 3rd party foreign researchers, who have no direct interest in Burma) sometimes brings me to my senses what challenges, we, Burmese, both as a country and as a race (including minorities) lie ahead after resolution of our own internal problems one day.

In my opinion, I prefer being closer to US (or any democratic country, say India) than to China.

Being friends with democracies, they will at least infest us with democratic principles and instil the people, most importantly, the people in power, to respect mass opinion, to say in least.

We (not Burmese people, just Burmese army) inherited fascism from Japanese and are practicing it ever since.

KKK Wrote:
31/10/2009
To Okkar:

At least you have a website to post your comments and read news and articles, right? Can you post your comments on SPDC media?

Let's say what if The Irrawaddy cannot afford to run its website? Where are you going post your comments? NLM? Irrawaddy is the only website where we can share our views and ideas. Come on, Okkar. You still don't get it.

ludu Wrote:
31/10/2009
The root cause of the China-Myanmar strained relation is the Burman race which is trying to control Myanmar although it just occupies 64% of the population.

Look at split countries like former Yugoslavia, Slavs were just 53% of the great Yugo.


pLan B Wrote:
30/10/2009
Ko Okkar

Soro's grant aside, The Irrawaddy does bring the most important 3Es journalism/information sharing.
Education, Encouragement, thus effecting Enduring fellowship. You and I are the proof.

As you and I are accused of being SPDC apologists, we have also dished it out to The Irrawaddy numerous times as HIE, DASSK= lover anonymous and such.
Fair is fair, especially given the source of funding, the location of The Irrawaddy and last but not the least the "wringer' that most Irrawaddy staff have been put through by the SPDC's "hold on to power" at all cost approach,
Living in the West long enough and to be able to be openly critical about information does not justify not exercising deference when appropriate.
A forum where exchange of ideas is afforded is always valuable.
Look no further than DVB forums and see how lopsided and self-serving the comments are.
Would you like to be doing the thankless task of The Irrawady?

Okkar Wrote:
29/10/2009
Plan B,

You are overestimating Irrawaddy's abilities here. Don't forget, Irrawaddy only exists because of George Soros's grants. If you don't believe me, look up the grant recipients on the Soros website, Irrawaddy is listed there.

Irrawaddy is just like a parrot and they have to toe the NLD and NCGUB line or they will be accused of being regime supporters.

Irrawaddy's sole purpose is to peddle opposition propaganda even if it means twisting the truth and suppressing any dissident views. It is exactly the same as NLM, only the name is different. Free press and democracy? Certainly not!

tocharian Wrote:
29/10/2009
A very well written article Ko Aung Zaw!
There are a few minor points I disagree with but on the whole, this is a fair synopsis of the extremely precarious geopolitical situation that the Burmese junta has to deal with now. I am definitely not a supporter of this repressive and corrupt regime in Burma, but I do admit that like many Burmese of my generation, I have always been extremely wary of Chinese ambitions. I think that for many years the USA totally misjudged the situation and it is now scrambling to rectify some of its major mistakes by trying a more realistic approach.
In a perfect world, the Burmese people (I include everyone whose ancestors have lived there for centuries) will find the inner strength and unity to overcome this regime without having to rely on foreign countries like China or the US, but unfortunately external geopolitical strategies will decide the future of Burma, especially the fate of the rural population, living in poverty and fear.

pLan B Wrote:
29/10/2009
Stating a clear, simple attainable objective in any endeavor makes success more likely.
Sun Tzu has stated and has proved it multiple times.

So have others;
1) The SPDC clearly intends to hold on to power at all cost.
2) Thailand and China clearly plan to take advantage for each country's interest.

If the West desire an end to this quagmire,instead of confusing objectives such as: Freedom, Democracy, Human right etc.,
even now such empty definitions
such as "dialogue,"engagement" "reconciliation" mean different things to the SPDC, China and the US.

Now The Irrawaddy needs to clearly state the objective(s) that the West needs to have in ongoing talks with the SPDC, instead of placing significance on DASSK one day, people suffering the next, ASEAN treachery tomorrow.
When will The Irrawaddy boldly step to the plate and clearly define what the true objective should be?
Thus ensuring winning the war before it's even fought. A concept spelled out well and used skillfully by all, especially the SPDC?

Kyi May Kaung Wrote:
29/10/2009
Some old and new news --

In the 1970s in Burma, a niece of Ne Win's told me that when U Ne Win went to then Peking, he sat down to a formal dinner and was really surprised to see Ba Thein Tin seated next to him.

Of course, now China since 1978 and Deng Xioaping has not supported the BCP (Bakapa).

This Friday there is a seminar at the School of Advanced International Studies in DC where Gambari, Scott Marciel, David Steinberg, Khin Zaw Win and a Dr. Zhai Khin from Beijing are going to speak. I hope The Irrawaddy will cover this.

It may be connected to the so-called Yunnan Initiative, but I am not sure.

What I am sure of is if Burma were to adopt economic reforms like those instituted by Deng in 1978, with Special Economic Zones and farmers owning their land, it would also enjoy Chinese-style economic growth, much more than lifting sanctions ever could.

People would have factory work and more food. But to have a stop to human rights abuses will take real political reform.

Kyi May Kaung (Ph.D.)

okkar Wrote:
29/10/2009
This article is like a broken record. The opposition media should at least have dignity even in the face of failure.

The US engagement policy with Myanmar is a sign that opposition supporters and media have failed in lobbying. Sooner or later, America will be supplying weapons to the SPDC armies and helping the SPDC wipe out all these armed terrorists along the border.

Thailand no longer gives backing to the KNU and border dwellers, America no longer provides grants and funds to border dwellers.

pLan B Wrote:
29/10/2009
No sanctions that are truly proven to be to the detriment of the SPDC should be lifted, especially if there is a 99 percent in favor.

At this point, where even the one percent against the most vulnerable is too much, temporary considerations and exceptions should be made.

Sanctions are like a sledge hammer.
Carefully and diligently refined it can become a dental drill that gives the SPDC the benefit of that effect.

However, Ko Aung Zaw should be aware that N Korea as an example awaits.

The West must approach this as a "hostage negotiation". Otherwise, it does not bode well for the hostages—the citizenry.



More Articles in This Section

bullet Climate Change and Aung San Suu Kyi

bullet The Next Big Step

bullet The Facts Remain the Same

bullet Time to Inject Pragmatism

bullet Too Soon for Optimism

bullet The World is not Flat

bullet Pressure Off Burmese PM

bullet Asean Should Review Its Engagement Policy with Burma

bullet A New Political Environment?

bullet The Message from Oslo


 

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