As Myanmar Eases Controls, U.S. Sees Diplomatic Opening

[sabaijai]

As Myanmar Eases Controls, U.S. Sees Diplomatic Opening

November 18, 2011

By THOMAS FULLER and MARK LANDLER

BANGKOK — The long-isolated nation of Myanmar embarked on a potentially decisive shift in direction on Friday, as its main opposition leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, agreed to rejoin the country’s political system and Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared to become the first secretary of state and highest-ranking American to visit the country in half a century.

The confluence of events, though weeks in the making, unfolded with dramatic speed during a tour of Southeast Asia by President Obama, and underscored the central message of the president’s trip: that the United States intended to reassert itself in the Asia-Pacific region to limit the influence of a rising China.

Under decades of military rule, Myanmar, also known as Burma, counted neighboring China as its primary ally and economic partner. But a new cast of leaders there has begun to ease political controls, court the opposition and repair relations with Western and other Asian powers, an opportunity the Obama administration has eagerly embraced.

Combined with the announcements this week that the United States would station 2,500 Marines in Australia and that it intended to enhance military ties with the Philippines, Mr. Obama’s decision to send Mrs. Clinton to Myanmar next month clearly rattled Beijing, which has issued a series of warnings claiming that the United States is seeking to destabilize the political and military situation in the region.

“We are seeing a very significant new phase in U.S. policy toward China,” said Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a top China adviser in the Clinton administration, “a much more active, integrated, assertive U.S. posture in Asia than anyone expected six months ago.”

For Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, the decision to reregister her party and compete in elections in the military-backed system represents a historic shift. Known globally as a symbol of endurance in the face of dictatorship, she has spent most of her 23 years in politics battling the country’s generals, much of that time in prison or under house arrest. Now she is joining the system they created.

The civilian government that took power in March is dominated by former generals, including President Thein Sein. It has sought to liberalize Myanmar’s moribund economy and pushed the country toward a more open political system, wooing Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi in a carefully choreographed rapprochement.

In announcing Mrs. Clinton’s plans to visit, Mr. Obama cited “flickers of progress” in the country. The United States, he said, remains concerned about human rights abuses, the persecution of democratic reformers and brutality toward ethnic minorities.

But he hailed policies by Mr. Thein Sein as leading the country “on the path toward reform.” He cited the government’s cooperation with Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, the release of political prisoners and the relaxation of media restrictions. “These are the most important steps toward reform in Burma that we’ve seen in years,” Mr. Obama said.

The subtext is that Myanmar has unexpectedly become a kind of diplomatic prize for the United States, which is eager to show its traditional allies in Asia, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand, that it is no longer distracted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that it is advancing democratic interests, promoting free-market economic reform and counterbalancing the power of authoritarian China.

While Mr. Obama traveled to Australia to seal an arrangement to base Marines there, Mrs. Clinton signed a declaration with the Philippines on the deck of an American destroyer that called for disputes over maritime claims in the South China Sea to be settled through a “multilateral” process — something China has flatly rejected and a term the United States avoided when it first waded into the South China Sea dispute in July 2010.

She also somewhat provocatively referred to the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea, a term preferred in the Philippines but reviled in Beijing.

Such moves, added together, may prompt broader alarm in China. “With their mind-set, whatever you do, it may be considered part of a conspiracy,” said Cheng Li, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Some China watchers say the American moves may feed suspicions in China that the United States is seeking to encircle it because it is uneasy with having an economic and military rival.

Indeed, China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, warned the United States on Friday to steer clear of territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, saying they ought to be resolved directly “through friendly consultations.” And the Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed concern about the political changes in Myanmar, saying it hoped they would not destabilize the country.

In September, China aimed its anger at Myanmar after it suspended a Chinese-led project to build a hydroelectric dam in northern Myanmar, creating a rare rift between the countries.

This tension helps explain Myanmar’s openness to dealing with the United States, which was itself eager to expand its presence in the region — as Mrs. Clinton articulated in an article published this month in Foreign Policy magazine titled “America’s Pacific Century.”

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in the article. The United States should resist the temptation of downsizing its “foreign engagement” after the wars, she said, because engagement in Asia “is critical to America’s future.”

Administration officials say they are trying to bring China into the club of responsible great powers. Mrs. Clinton; Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser; and others have labored, with mixed results, to enlist China in problems like climate change, global economic imbalances and renegade nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

But progress is halting, officials admit. A senior administration official described China as a “peculiar adolescent that can no longer hide behind its status as a developing nation, but does not see itself with the full responsibility of a global power.”

Closer ties to the United States would bring Myanmar full circle to its years immediately after independence from Britain in 1948. At the time Myanmar sought close ties with the West to balance relations with China, said Thant Myint-U, a historian and former United Nations official.

In recent years, China has become one of Myanmar’s largest trade partners, lured by bountiful natural resources. Myanmar has relied on China for much-needed investment, partly to mitigate the effects of Western sanctions.

Yet anti-Chinese sentiment has flared up periodically in Myanmar’s history, and observers said resentment at China’s plans to consume nearly all of the power from the halted dam was one reason the plan was so unpopular.

Aung Din, the executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, a pressure group that supports Myanmar’s democracy movement, says he saw the seeds of backlash against Chinese interests in Myanmar. “Many projects are carried out by Chinese companies; prominent businessmen are Chinese; everything belongs to China, actually,” he said. “If we don’t take any action, Burma will become a satellite state of China.”

Mrs. Clinton’s visit, he said, might encourage the Burmese government and people “to confront Chinese interests.”

Thomas Fuller reported from Bangkok, and Mark Landler from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 18, 2011

[sabaijai]

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release November 18, 2011

Statement by President Obama on Burma

Grand Hyatt

Bali, Indonesia

12:42 P.M. WITI

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody. Throughout my administration -- and throughout this trip -- I've underscored America’s commitment to the Asia Pacific region, but also I've underscored America's commitment to the future of human rights in the region. Today I'm announcing an important step forward in our efforts to move forward on both these fronts.

For decades, Americans have been deeply concerned about the denial of basic human rights for the Burmese people. The persecution of democratic reformers, the brutality shown towards ethnic minorities, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few military leaders has challenged our conscience, and isolated Burma from the United States and much of the world.

However, we have always had a profound respect for the people of Burma, and the promise of their country -- a country with a rich history, at the crossroads of East and West; a people with a quiet dignity and extraordinary potential. For many years, both the promise and the persecution of the Burmese people has been symbolized by Aung San Suu Kyi. As the daughter of Burma’s founding father, and a fierce advocate for her fellow citizens, she's endured prison and house arrest, just as so many Burmese have endured repression.

Yet after years of darkness, we've seen flickers of progress in these last several weeks. President Thein Sein and the Burmese Parliament have taken important steps on the path toward reform. A dialogue between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi has begun. The government has released some political prisoners. Media restrictions have been relaxed. And legislation has been approved that could open the political environment. So, taken together, these are the most important steps toward reform in Burma that we've seen in years.

Of course, there's far more to be done. We remain concerned about Burma’s closed political system, its treatment of minorities and holding of political prisoners, and its relationship with North Korea. But we want to seize what could be an historic opportunity for progress, and make it clear that if Burma continues to travel down the road of democratic reform, it can forge a new relationship with the United States of America.

Last night, I spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi, directly, and confirmed that she supports American engagement to move this process forward. So today, I've asked Secretary Hillary Clinton to go to Burma. She will be the first American Secretary of State to travel to the country in over half a century, and she will explore whether the United States can empower a positive transition in Burma and begin a new chapter between our countries.

That possibility will depend upon the Burmese government taking more concrete action. If Burma fails to move down the path of reform, it will continue to face sanctions and isolation. But if it seizes this moment, then reconciliation can prevail, and millions of people may get the chance to live with a greater measure of freedom, prosperity, and dignity. And that possibility is too important to ignore.

Later today I'll reinforce these messages in America’s meeting with ASEAN -- including with President Thein Shein. Meanwhile, when she travels to Nay Pyi Taw and Rangoon, Hillary will have the chance to deliver that message to the government, to civil society, and to democratic activists like Aung San Suu Kyi.

Again, there's more that needs to be done to pursue the future that the Burmese people deserve -- a future of reconciliation and renewal. But today, we've decided to take this step to respond to the positive developments in Burma and to clearly demonstrate America's commitment to the future of an extraordinary country, a courageous people, and universal values.

Thank you very much.

END

12:48 P.M. WITI

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/18/statement-president-obama-burma

[electau]

It will be interesting to see what countries in the region come under Communist Chinese influence. Where is Russia and the CIF in the equation?

Afganistan has a narrow border with China, and the US wants a presence there.

Points of possible confict, Korea, the Spratley islands in the South China Sea. There is the Indian Ocean and this is where Burma (Myanmar) comes in.

China is seen a a future enemy as far as the US and its allies are concerned but they will not publically admit it. Remember China is Communist it is not a Western style democracy.

Forget all the humanrights and humanitarian talk. perhaps a new "cold war"is in the air. China is interested in many areas of the world ie African countries and South America including Australia. China will have a large naval force which will rival the US in the West Pacific.

Remember Japan 1931, 1941. History has a habit of repeating inself only the script and the players change.

And Indonesia may not remain democratic in the future.

And there is India and China.

　

　

[sabaijai]

'We’ve Reached a Tipping Point in Burma'

Monday, November 21, 2011

Irrawaddy

Thant Myint-U is a US-born historian and the author of two best-selling books on Burmese history. He received his PhD from Cambridge University, where he wrote his dissertation on the reigns of Burma's last two kings, Mindon and Thibaw. He has taught as a Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, and worked for the United Nations, of which his grandfather, the late U Thant, was secretary-general from 1961 to 1971.

He is also an outspoken critic of Western sanctions on Burma, which he says have only served to reinforce the country's “disastrous” isolation. In this interview with The Irrawaddy, he discusses recent developments in Burma, the country's increasingly important place in the region, and the challenges that lie ahead as it appears to open up to the West and allow more space for the democratic opposition.

Question: In your new book, “Where China Meets India,” you make the case that Burma has the potential to become a major crossroads in Asia, bridging the world's two most populous nations, which for centuries were separated by a vast area of inhospitable terrain. Although this area is no longer so inaccessible, it is still beset by political instability, particularly in northern Burma and northeastern India. How much do you think this will affect Burma's prospects of assuming greater geopolitical importance in the future?

Answer: Finding a peaceful end to the armed conflicts and instability in northeastern India and northern and eastern Burma is absolutely essential if ordinary people are to benefit from Burma’s greater geopolitical importance. Burma will become geopolitically more important in any case, with the rise of China and with its emerging role as southwest China’s corridor to the Indian Ocean. As I’ve written in my book, it is already set to become an important new Asian crossroads, not only because of developments over the past couple of decades, but also because of centuries-old demographic, environmental and political processes that have finally brought both China and India to Burma’s doorstep. But if there is no real peace or good government, it’s hard to see how the new connections being made will be to the advantage of the majority of people. On the other hand, a peaceful and democratic Burma will be able to benefit immensely from its changing geography.

Q: Some have criticized your recent op-ed piece in The New York Times for describing Burma's ethnic conflicts as “brutal little wars.” Many would say that resolving these conflicts is the key to restoring stability not only in border areas, but also in the country as a whole. How significant, then, are recent “reforms” in Burma, in light of the fact that the government appears to be no closer to bringing peace to these regions, and in fact seems to stepping up its offensives against ethnic armed groups?

A: The actual sentence in my op-ed reads: “It is hard to imagine a successful and democratic transition while these longstanding and often brutal little wars continue.” I think the recent political changes and economic reforms are incredibly significant and represent the country’s best opportunity since 1962 to move in a positive direction. But, as I’ve said, progress in Naypyitaw or Rangoon cannot be divorced from progress in those largely border areas that have suffered terribly from armed conflict for decades. Democracy is impossible without a demilitarization of Burmese society generally. One of the main points I tried to make in my last book, “The River of Lost Footsteps,” was exactly that—the civil war in Burma and the rise of its military dictatorship are closely related, and that what we need are not simply ceasefires, but real peace and a new and more inclusive national identity.

Q: In your book, you say that Burma could go from being an economic backwater to a key regional player, provided it achieves its goals of restoring peace, prosperity and democracy. How optimistic are you that the country will break out of its half-century-old cycle of war, poverty and oppression in the near future?

A: It’s always good to be optimistic and it’s certainly easier to be optimistic now than a year ago. But at the same time it’s difficult not to feel overwhelmed by the extent of the country’s challenges. And it’s not just the legacy of war and poverty and oppression. In key areas we lack the institutions we need to move ahead. The judicial and banking systems are both key for future progress, but these systems will require enormous amounts of work before they are able to function properly. Or take education. Fifty years ago the Revolutionary Council government began to destroy what had been a first-rate system of higher education. We’re still living with the consequences and any improvement will take many years if not decades. And as in much of the rest of the region, corruption has reached levels that will be extremely difficult to reverse.

Q: During your travels to China to do research for your book, you were able to see for yourself how much that country has transformed itself economically. China's continuing rise is also having a major impact on other developing countries. What do you think about China's growing influence in Burma's economy? Do you think that Burma is in danger of becoming completely dominated by China's economic might?

A: For any poor country, being next to the fastest growing economy in the world should be a huge advantage. Chinese trade and investment can be a major asset to Burma in the future. But it’s a relationship that needs to be very carefully managed. There is an urgent need to make sure that China’s growing economic presence in Burma is something that will create jobs for ordinary people and help develop the economy in a proper way, not something that will simply fuel corruption, displace local communities or destroy the environment. But this is easier said than done. Developing the state institutions we need to do this will take a very long time. I suppose it’s possible that Burma could become completely dominated by China’s economic might, but I don’t think it’s likely; nationalism in Burma has long been very strong and if there is to be an end to Western sanctions in the near future, I think we’ll see a more balanced relationship with China. My fear is actually the opposite: that a very negative view of China has crept up over the past many years, and there could well be a backlash, and that would be a tragedy for both countries.

Q: Some analysts have suggested that the Burmese government's recent moves toward reform are aimed at improving relations with the West as a means of counterbalancing China's influence. Do you think there is a danger that, far from benefiting from its key strategic position in the region, Burma could become a battleground for the competing interests of China, India and the West, as well as other regional players such as Thailand and Japan?

A: There’s good competition and there’s bad competition. If Burma is seen as increasingly important, because of its natural wealth or geographic position, and this leads to healthy competition from the West, China, India and elsewhere for access to Burma, then that’s good, as long as new business and other ties are well managed. A good government could make sure that the country gets the best possible deal. But of course it would not be good if Burma actually became a “battleground” in a literal way, or if a corrupt government was unable or unwilling to manage growing international business interests in a way that benefited the majority of people. In general, though, I think moving away from over-reliance on any one country is extremely important.

Q: You have actively argued against Western economic sanctions imposed on Burma. Do you think that Burma's rulers would have made any concessions if they hadn't been under pressure from the West? Couldn't last year's election and President Thein Sein's meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi earlier this year, for example, be attributed largely to a desire to end the sanctions?

A: No, not at all. Nothing the old junta did over the past twenty years suggests that a desire to end sanctions was high on their agenda. We have to be mindful of what the sanctions actually are. They include, for example, restrictions on the international financial institutions providing technical assistance and the effective ban on the UNDP having a normal development program in the country. Even now, it’s not entirely clear that these things would be welcome. I think the old junta always wanted to normalize relations with the West and wanted a relaxation of sanctions as a sign of better relations, but I don’t think they actually wanted many of the things that would come with an end to sanctions, such as more development aid or an increased international presence. There were sanctions they did want lifted, for example the visa ban, but this was never a priority, and in general I think most were very comfortable in the closed economy that sanctions helped maintain. It’s only now, with a new government that actually wants to reengage with the outside world and reform the economy, that ending sanctions becomes more important.

In my last book I tried to argue that two things underpinned the status quo in Burma. One was the absence of peace, as we’ve discussed, and the other was the country’s isolation, begun by Gen Ne Win in 1962, and that has been, in my view, an unmitigated disaster. My principal argument on sanctions has been that they reinforced the isolation that already existed. In the 1990s, at a time when friendly governments should have been trying to help tear down the wall that Gen Ne Win had built around Burma, they instead started building a new one.

Recent positive changes have taken place in spite of sanctions, not because of them. They have little to do with a desire to end sanctions and everything to do with the realization that a military dictatorship was unsustainable and that at least some reform was necessary. Despite sanctions but because of better communications and information technology, more movement of people back and forth internationally, a greater awareness of the outside world, we’ve reached a tipping point in Burma. No one can defend the status quo and everyone, or nearly everyone, can see that a better future is really possible.

Q: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently wrote that the United States wants to increase its influence in the Indian Ocean through greater engagement with the countries of the region. What is your opinion of President Barack Obama's dual-track approach to Burma, which combines sanctions and engagement?

A: I’ve already said what I think about sanctions and I understand why the Obama administration felt unable to push for a relaxation of sanctions in 2009-10. I think the US government’s engagement is very welcome and I think the new US envoy Derek Mitchell has done an excellent job. A close relationship with the United States is crucial for Burma. We can’t be the only country in the region under sanctions, with essentially no access to US markets and US investment. Burma’s main trading partners—China, India, Thailand and Singapore—have all benefited immensely from their economic and educational ties to the US. If we are deprived of those ties, we’re doomed to second-class status and everything that means for ordinary people.

Q: You recently met with Aung San Suu Kyi, who appears to have taken a fairly positive view of recent developments in Burma. Did you see any change in her approach to dealing with the country's rulers? How far do you think the government and opposition forces can go in working together to establish democracy and improve the lives of the people?

A: I think it’s terrific that she met with President U Thein Sein, I think it’s terrific that there is a much better dialogue now between her and the government through Labor Minister U Aung Kyi, and I think that both sides have made incredibly important concessions and that we are on the verge of an historic compromise. My sense is that both the president and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi are trying to work in the interest of the country as a whole and have had to deal with many tough decisions in recent months, with resistance from a number of quarters. But I think they have both played their hands well and I think the vast majority of people are happy to see compromise and political reconciliation. But the future is unpredictable, and it’s hard to say how different people will be able to work together in future. Generally, there’s a lot of mistrust and there’s not a big history of cooperation in Burmese politics. Future issues may also be very different. Issues like unemployment, inflation, and the government’s trade, fiscal and monetary policies are the bread and butter of government in most countries but we seem to have very little public discussion on these matters, even though they are what affects the ordinary person the most.

Q: You have written three books about Burma and are well-known in the West as an authority on the country. However, some Burmese dissidents have criticized you for not really talking to opposition activists, exiles and others working for change in the country. What is your response to such criticism?

A: Since I left the UN four years ago and began returning to Burma on a regular basis, I’ve met literally hundreds of people, Burmese and non-Burmese, of every possible political persuasion, both inside and outside the country. I’ve also been in regular touch with dozens of mainly younger Burmese, who I’ve never met, but who have contacted me over social media sites, and have been very pleased to discuss and debate with them the sorts of issues we’ve discussed here. I also now travel around the country very frequently, and try to meet people from as broad a range of backgrounds as possible.

Q: Throughout history, real progress has required heroic sacrifice on the part of the people and their leaders. Do you regard figures such as Ko Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi as heroes in Burma's democratic struggle, or do you feel that their sacrifices have been misguided?

A: First of all, no one should have had to sacrifice years in prison because of their convictions or the peaceful expression of their views. Hopefully this will soon be a thing of the past. And I wouldn’t call anyone’s sacrifice misguided. More generally, though, if we really do see a successful transition to democratic government over the coming years, I’m sure we will be arguing for decades to come over why and how it happened. And if we look at Burmese history there are many things we could easily still argue about. Who was right in 1885, the Kinwun Mingyi who understood the power of the British and sought a protectorate, or the Taingdar Mingyi and Supapyalat who wanted to resist to the very end? My point is that this is the time to release all political prisoners and to respect everyone’s sacrifice, as well as to recognize the tremendous suffering that millions of ordinary Burmese people have faced, as a result of war and poverty, but that it’s impossible to say with any honesty what effect different individual sacrifices may have made.

Q: Your grandfather once served the Burmese people. What will your contribution to Burma be? Do you have any plans to play a political role in the future?

A: I don’t see myself playing a political role at all. And I’ll leave it to others to say that they will “serve the Burmese people.” I would be happy if I could help in a few areas that are of special interest to me and for which I feel I have some competence. One of the legacies of the 1960s and 1970s is the downgrading of expertise and education, and the replacement of many well-educated Burmese by others with no relevant training or experience. I think this needs to change. My background is in writing and teaching history, and in international relations and development, and I’ll look to see how I might be able to help based on this background. I’ve been very happy as well to have served over the past year as a member of the board of the (Myanmar) Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund, which provided support to 150,000 poor households in 2010 alone and is now working in several different states and regions. I hope that I will be able to contribute to very concrete efforts like this in the future as well.

Q: Last Friday, US President Barack Obama announced that he would send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Burma next month. What do you think about the Obama administration's Burma policy, and how do you think Burma will balance its relations with the US and China?

A: I was very pleased to hear President Obama praise President U Thein Sein and the Burmese Parliament for the reform measures taken so far and I think he's doing exactly the right thing in sending Secretary Clinton to Burma at this critical juncture. I'm happy as well that he was able to speak directly to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and I hope that a full normalization of relations between Burma and the United States will be possible before too long. I don't think China has anything to worry about from a good relationship between Naypyidaw and Washington; on the contrary, a more balanced set of relations will be in Beijing's own interests in the longer term; a skewed relationship where Burma is too dependent on one country will only fuel Burmese resentment and lead to a backlash, as I've mentioned.

But I think that at this point we need also to think very carefully about what should come next. Nationwide ceasefires are of course critical, as is the further release of political prisoners. But so is the economic direction of the country. Political reconciliation will be near impossible unless we are also able to keep inflation down and reduce unemployment. I am absolutely convinced that efforts towards democratic change will come to very little without a basic economic reorientation as well. It's economics that's going to decide a lot of the political landscape and determine the lives of ordinary people. I fear that we might achieve some kind of democracy before long but that it will be the wrong kind of democracy, where where wealth remains highly concentrated, demagoguery dominates discussion, and where a corrupt gangster-style politics triumphs over everything else. This is far from an unlikely scenario. We need to consider exactly how the provision of technical assistance, a drawing down of existing trade and investment embargoes, and the government's own economic reforms can be properly sequenced, to avoid Burma becoming more corrupt or aid-dependent, and to lay the foundations for broad-based growth. I think a discussion on this should be very high on Secretary Clinton's agenda. The institutions of democracy are not enough, we needed policies that can actually respond urgently, and in a practical and effective way to the needs of ordinary people.

http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/article.php?art_id=22504

[sabaijai]

Clinton to Make Historic Visit to Burma Next Month

By BEN FELLER/ AP WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT Friday, November 18, 2011

BALI, Indonesia — In a breakthrough with a nation long shunned and sanctioned by the United States, President Barack Obama is sending Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Burma next month, making her the first official in her position to visit that repressed country in more than 50 years.

Obama was to announce the news on Friday during his diplomatic mission to Southeast Asia, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

In deepening his engagement with Burma, the president first sought assurances from democracy leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. She spent 15 years under house arrest by the nation's former military dictators but is now in talking with the new civilian government about reforming the country.

Obama and Suu Kyi spoke by phone Thursday night.

The administration sees Clinton's visit as a sign of success for Obama's Burma policy, which was outlined in 2009 and focused on punishments and incentives to get the country's former military rulers to improve dire human rights conditions. The U.S. imposed new sanctions on Burma but made clear it was open to better relations if the situation changed.

Still, U.S. Officials emphasized that Obama has deep concerns about Burma's human rights record, treatment of ethnic minorities and closed nature of its society. Clinton's mission is to explore what the United States can do to support progress on political reform, individual rights and national reconciliation, the official said.

Burma, a former breadbasket of Southeast Asia, suffered not just repressive government but poor economic management during nearly 50 years of military rule.

It is subject to wide-ranging trade, economic and political sanctions from the US and other Western nations, enforced in response to brutal crackdowns on pro-democracy protesters in 1988 and 2007 and its refusal to hand power to pro-democracy leader Suu Kyi's party after the 1990 elections.

Now Burma's nominally civilian government, which took power in March, has declared its intention to liberalize the hard-line policies of the junta that preceded it.

It has taken some fledgling steps, such as easing censorship, legalizing labor unions, suspending an unpopular, China-backed dam project and working with Suu Kyi.

Obama will see Burma's president, Thein Sein, on Friday during a summit of Southeast Asian nations.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22486

[elliss]

good news , for the people of burma .

now the race is on between ,

russia, china and america

to gain favour in burma.

i wonder why?.

:jap:

[electau]

good news , for the people of burma .

now the race is on between ,

russia, china and america

to gain favour in burma.

i wonder why?.

:jap:

Balance of power in the region. Political, Military and Economic. All can be used to influence a nation.

[theblether]

China is not an altruistic power, but equally neither is the USA. Every judgement call made by the US is based upon a cost/benefit analysis, which is fair enough. Even a country as wealthy as the US cannot solve the problems of the whole world.

The Chinese are on a world-wide natural resource shopping spree, and once they have exhausted the resource they will disappear over the hill without a backward glance. The US is highly attuned to geopolitical problems across the world, and Burma lies on a fault line between an essentially friendly to the US state in Thailand on the one side, and a potential conflict zone on the other between India and China. Those two countries have been locked in a war of attrition re borders for decades. Added to that the highly sensitive Tibet issue and access to the Bay of Bengal waters it would be better that Chinese hegemony was broken in Burma.

I don't think many Western nations fancy the idea of having a Chinese fleet based in the Bay of Bengal, it would make the world seem a much smaller place.

Anyway, I digress. As a rule of Thumb the Chinese don't want war, and they will do anything to avoid it. What they do want is financial control of the West, and guess what? They are getting it. That's the true cost of your cheap clothes from Walmart.

As for Burma, anything which is going to aid stability to the country and hopefully reduce or end ethnic fighting must be welcomed. I for one cannot wait to see the country truly open for business, and cannot wait to visit it to spend my tourist dollars there. It's a real pity that Burma went the way that it did, other former British colonies in the area such as Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong have been extremely successful, and the real new superpower of India is right on the doorstep.

I forecast that in twenty years the talk won't be of China as the new superpower, it will almost certainly be India. Chinese demographics are a disaster waiting to happen.

[hellodolly]

I picked this out of Obama's talk

"Still, U.S. Officials emphasized that Obama has deep concerns about Burma's human rights record, treatment of ethnic minorities and closed nature of its society. Clinton's mission is to explore what the United States can do to support progress on political reform, individual rights and national reconciliation, the official said."

What do they know about human rights treatment look at what they did to the various ethnic groups to get where they are today. Slaughtered them and forced them to live on reservations where they were cut off from their normal means of support.

They started off with munch the same situation that the Burmese are faced with today when it comes to nationalization of the whole country. Are they prepared to go into the Shan states and tell them carry on we won't bother you in your poppy growing means of survival.