The United States' relationship with Burma has long been defined by a “carrot and stick” approach. However over the course of the Obama administration’s first and second term, the stick seems to be disappearing, even as Burma stalls and regresses in its promises for reform. Sectarian conflict has flared up once again and is threatening to reignite strife throughout western Burma.
The Obama administration made it clear to Burma that it would take positive but cautious action over any reforms to Burma's political system. Over the last two years, Burma has gone through a series of dramatic changes, with political prisoners released and censorship considerably eased. Most notably, the government ended the fifteen years of house arrest for Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and allowed her to participate in the 2012 by-elections. In August 2012, the government removed almost all censorship on print media organizations and the August 6th newspapers were covered with images of Suu Kyi and her father—and founder of Burma—Aung San. Three months later Obama officially began the process of rapprochement with his landmark visit to Burma.
Over the past year rapprochement has been hastily ramped up, with President Thein Sein's visit to the United States in March marking the erasure of most sanctions and the creation of a trade and investment agreement; the EU was also quick to remove sanctions. Many scholars have highlighted Burma's strategic importance in the Asia-Pacific theatre and emphasized its value in the economic chess-game with China.
However, the past year has also been marked by an uptick in human rights violations in Burma that threaten to jeopardize the precedent of supporting democracy set by the United States in Southeast Asia. Just before Obama's visit in November, riots flared in the Rakhine State between the minority Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists. Over 140,000 Rohingya Muslims were displaced from their homes and 88 causalities were officially reported. Obama stated in his November visit that “for the sake of our common humanity, and for the sake of this country's future, it's necessary to stop incitement and to stop violence.” Instead, the Burmese government would go on to deny citizenship to the Rohingya community, continuing their status as a stateless group since 1982. Human Rights Watch described the Rohingya's situation as “ethnic cleansing.” A Reuters special report found the Rohingya to be suffering in cramped ghettos under apartheid-like laws. Since May 2013, ethnic violence has reemerged, with the central city of Meiktila becoming a battleground, resulting in the killings of at least 40 people. A radical anti-Muslim group called the 969 Movement has risen to dominance in the country, and has subsequently been pinned for numerous hate crimes throughout Burma. Only two months after lifting sanctions against Burma, the EU has condemned “the grave violations of human rights” in Burma. Local regulations in the Rakhine state have imposed a two-child limit to the Rohingya community—the first of any such policy to apply to a religious group.
Another obstacle to the democratic process in Burma has arisen with the recent announcement that Suu Kyi will be unable to run in the 2015 presidential elections. The military-drafted Burmese constitution bars anyone with children who are foreign nationals from becoming president, and also stipulates that all candidates must have experience in the Tatmadaw, the Burmese military. Without significant constitutional reform, not only will the presidency be indefinitely controlled by the army, but will also be basically out of bounds for women and minorities.
Although significant reformist steps have been taken by the Burmese government, the United States has been too willing to mend relationships with Burma. The Burmese government is only paying lip service to the promises made in the past. The way to end ethnic violence is not by artificially limiting minority populations, but through education and reconciliation efforts. The United States has, in the past, supported similar quasi-democracies to further its own goals in the region; however, too often these regimes collapse, leaving a power vacuum that allows for anti-American sentiment to take root. The U.S. has always made an exception in Southeast Asia, supporting democracy almost quixotically, even when genocide was taking place. The United States is sending the wrong message to the Burmese people and is acting far too quickly. Now, of all times, the United States must stand strong in its support of human rights in Burma and commit to a better future for all Burmese people.
Akshan de Alwis teaches youth participation in democracy to youth groups in Burma and writes on the democratic transition in Burma.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's September/October 2013 print edition.
a global affairs media network
Burma: A Still-Simmering Cauldron in Asia
October 3, 2013
The United States' relationship with Burma has long been defined by a “carrot and stick” approach. However over the course of the Obama administration’s first and second term, the stick seems to be disappearing, even as Burma stalls and regresses in its promises for reform. Sectarian conflict has flared up once again and is threatening to reignite strife throughout western Burma.
The Obama administration made it clear to Burma that it would take positive but cautious action over any reforms to Burma's political system. Over the last two years, Burma has gone through a series of dramatic changes, with political prisoners released and censorship considerably eased. Most notably, the government ended the fifteen years of house arrest for Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and allowed her to participate in the 2012 by-elections. In August 2012, the government removed almost all censorship on print media organizations and the August 6th newspapers were covered with images of Suu Kyi and her father—and founder of Burma—Aung San. Three months later Obama officially began the process of rapprochement with his landmark visit to Burma.
Over the past year rapprochement has been hastily ramped up, with President Thein Sein's visit to the United States in March marking the erasure of most sanctions and the creation of a trade and investment agreement; the EU was also quick to remove sanctions. Many scholars have highlighted Burma's strategic importance in the Asia-Pacific theatre and emphasized its value in the economic chess-game with China.
However, the past year has also been marked by an uptick in human rights violations in Burma that threaten to jeopardize the precedent of supporting democracy set by the United States in Southeast Asia. Just before Obama's visit in November, riots flared in the Rakhine State between the minority Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists. Over 140,000 Rohingya Muslims were displaced from their homes and 88 causalities were officially reported. Obama stated in his November visit that “for the sake of our common humanity, and for the sake of this country's future, it's necessary to stop incitement and to stop violence.” Instead, the Burmese government would go on to deny citizenship to the Rohingya community, continuing their status as a stateless group since 1982. Human Rights Watch described the Rohingya's situation as “ethnic cleansing.” A Reuters special report found the Rohingya to be suffering in cramped ghettos under apartheid-like laws. Since May 2013, ethnic violence has reemerged, with the central city of Meiktila becoming a battleground, resulting in the killings of at least 40 people. A radical anti-Muslim group called the 969 Movement has risen to dominance in the country, and has subsequently been pinned for numerous hate crimes throughout Burma. Only two months after lifting sanctions against Burma, the EU has condemned “the grave violations of human rights” in Burma. Local regulations in the Rakhine state have imposed a two-child limit to the Rohingya community—the first of any such policy to apply to a religious group.
Another obstacle to the democratic process in Burma has arisen with the recent announcement that Suu Kyi will be unable to run in the 2015 presidential elections. The military-drafted Burmese constitution bars anyone with children who are foreign nationals from becoming president, and also stipulates that all candidates must have experience in the Tatmadaw, the Burmese military. Without significant constitutional reform, not only will the presidency be indefinitely controlled by the army, but will also be basically out of bounds for women and minorities.
Although significant reformist steps have been taken by the Burmese government, the United States has been too willing to mend relationships with Burma. The Burmese government is only paying lip service to the promises made in the past. The way to end ethnic violence is not by artificially limiting minority populations, but through education and reconciliation efforts. The United States has, in the past, supported similar quasi-democracies to further its own goals in the region; however, too often these regimes collapse, leaving a power vacuum that allows for anti-American sentiment to take root. The U.S. has always made an exception in Southeast Asia, supporting democracy almost quixotically, even when genocide was taking place. The United States is sending the wrong message to the Burmese people and is acting far too quickly. Now, of all times, the United States must stand strong in its support of human rights in Burma and commit to a better future for all Burmese people.
Akshan de Alwis teaches youth participation in democracy to youth groups in Burma and writes on the democratic transition in Burma.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's September/October 2013 print edition.
