Obama’s Myanmar overtures
MYANMAR—For the past week, I have been in Naypidaw, the new capital of Myanmar, upon the invitation of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (based in Geneva). I lectured on international law, human rights and humanitarian law before government officials. By the time this is published, the city will have welcomed Hillary Clinton, the first US Secretary of State to visit Myanmar in the past half-century.
It is amazing to see first-hand and at ground-level the major changes that one just reads about in banner headlines or sees on television via CNN. The openness, candor and energy of the officials I have met inspire confidence that change indeed is in the offing for this proud and noble nation.
As a Filipino who was often on the wrong end of police truncheons during martial law and who is old enough to have seen how we meandered toward freedom, I can only wish for the people of Myanmar that they do not repeat the foolish mistakes we have made.
US President Barack Obama said before Asean leaders in Bali last month: “After years of darkness, we’ve seen flickers of progress in these last several weeks”—referring to the release of political prisoners; peace talks with ethnic minority rebels; the first high-level anti-corruption conviction; the cancellation of a hydroelectric project with China; and the return of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) to the electoral process.
“For decades, Americans have been deeply concerned about the denial of basic human rights for the Burmese people …. 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.”
That positive note was no sooner followed by words of caution: The United States is not ending its sanctions. “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.”
I marvel at how Obama could capture the world’s dilemma so succinctly (and, oh, how I wish our own President Aquino’s speechwriters can likewise give him such good material!).
Obama then cited the one dramatic measure that should assuage our doubts. En route to Bali, Obama spoke by telephone to Myanmar’s icon of democracy, 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 [and she] supports American engagement to move this process forward.”
For sure, this is a foreign policy coup for Myanmar’s leaders who have long been pariah to human rights activists the world over. Also, following the history of US policy in Asia, it’s not all about American altruism. It’s also about checking the power of China and winning over Myanmar, which borders China’s southern flank. Thus the recent reforms are most telling.
In September this year, Myanmar’s government bowed to public pressure—including Suu Kyi’s—and canceled the Myitsone project sponsored by the Chinese to dam the legendary Irrawaddy River to generate electricity. It would have displaced 10,000 people of the ethnic Kachin minority, and submerged historical temples and heritage sites. It would be built close to an earthquake fault. It would also ruin the spawning habitat for local fish species. Worse, 90 percent of its power would go to China. Junking the project was a powerful statement, both to China and to Myanmar’s democracy activists.
Filipinos should recognize their own struggle against the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and the Chico River Dam. In the NLD’s saga alternating between participating and boycotting elections, we should also recall our own dilemma on whether we were merely being used to bolster the legitimacy of the Marcos-era elections. But we should also recognize the differences in Myanmar’s transition to democracy.
Three great women, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Suu Kyi, now hold a place in history distinct from the stature of two husbands and a father who had preceded them. Cory is said to have had a good chuckle when she read Ninoy referred to as “the husband of Cory Aquino,” a fate that might soon await former President Bill Clinton and Gen. (“Bogyoke”) Aung San.
Myanmar should learn to use Dau Suu’s symbolic power wisely and deliberately. We Filipinos dissipated Cory’s, and allowed her subalterns wantonly to use her name for short-term politics rather than structural changes.
Myanmar should also see the folly of how we romanticized democracy as merely a procedure for communal decision-making. Democracy is not just about voting and having our votes counted (though the second is problem enough)—it’s about voting wisely. But we didn’t find that wisdom because we limited ourselves to a “procedural republic” that evades substantive ideological debate. We thought it was enough to recite the mantra of free elections and the rule of law. Mercifully, Dau Suu’s political party has had more than 20 years to mature, compared to the three years we had between Ninoy’s death and Edsa 1. It shouldn’t squander away the momentum and goodwill that it has earned with its decades of sacrifice and which history now brings to its doorstep.
* * *
Comments to [email protected]
