On September 7, 2016, a decree by US President, Barack Obama, lifted the last restrictive sanctions on financial and economic transactions with Myanmar.
Amidst the tumultuous events in the Middle East, this act by the retiring US President does not seem worth either discussing or mentioning. Moreover, perhaps not every reader knows that until recently, Myanmar has been more widely known as Burma.
Meanwhile, the above-mentioned decree looks rather meaningful amidst the series of events accompanying the development process of the new global political game, whose gravity centre is shifting to South-East Asia, where Myanmar is located.
It is in Myanmar (i.e. in a relatively little noticeable way) where most of the violent fighting has been taking place for the past 25 years between the two major world’s “bulldogs” (China and the USA). From the standpoint of the historical process, the major participants’ motives and objectives are quite clear and traditional in nature.
The very same fact of the complete lifting of the US sanctions against Myanmar demonstrates a part (but not the final) of the result of the mentioned struggle.
Myanmar is rich in various natural resources. Owing to this fact, it might become an object of increased attention. However, the main reason for the violent struggle for control over this country is its geographical position, which is acquiring strategic importance in the context of developing US-Chinese confrontation.
In supporting long-term friendly relations with Myanmar leadership, which came to power after the last military coup in 1988, Beijing was solving one of its key problems in foreign affairs, which was determined by the vital need to enter the region of the Indian Ocean and gain access to the African continent and the Persian Gulf. Due to the overarching control over the sea route passing through the South-China Sea and the Strait of Malaсca exercised by its geopolitical opponent, China had nothing to do but gain access by land via Myanmar. Beijing has been engaged in this process since the 1990s by developing all-round relations with this country, which had become isolated from the “civilized world.” This isolation had been exacerbated by the refusal of the military officers that just put an end to the chaos in the country to watch from the sidelines for its next (and perhaps inevitable) outbreak, which could occur after the 1990 National League for Democracy (NLD) election victory.
It was at that time that the US introduced its economic sanctions against the nation, as it was “violating universally recognized democratic norms.” In the meantime, a new star appeared on the Myanmar political stage in the person of Aung San Suu Kyi, a daughter of the national hero of Burma – General Aung San, the pioneer of NLD.
In the fight against an undesirable local regime (and, indirectly against the new geopolitical opponent, i.e. the rapidly developing China), the United States resorted to its proven technology (very simple, but well proven, for example, in the case of the USSR) involving the formation of “democracy and human values” icons in the the country – the target of the attacks. In particular, for this purpose, they attracted the Nobel Peace Committee (which was quite infamous by that time), which gave a title of the laureate to the Myanmar dissident in 1991, who had been put under house imprisonment. As it turned out, the imprisonment had lasted for many years.
Having done nothing since that moment, Madame Suu Kyi started to perform the role that had been assigned to her by the foreign director.
Apparently, under the burden of the internal and external problems that had accumulated by the end of the past decade, the Generals decided, “Now let them try to take the lead.” At the same time, they preserved the controlling “gaze from behind” in the form of the 2008 constitutional amendments.
In November 2010, the general parliamentary elections were conducted. Civil authorities were formed to which the military expressed its formal loyalty. Amidst jubilation from the “world community,” Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest. However, she failed to win the 2016 Presidential elections due to some complications in formalities. Htin Kyaw, famous only for being Aung San Suu Kyi’s school friend, was elected to this position.
To her credit, it should be noted that being the actual leader of the country, she has not suffered from any ‘star fever’, and has demonstrated the qualities of quite a shrewd and conscientious politician who takes into account facts on the internal and external environment.
The second most important (and inevitable) fact is the presence of China as a neighbouring state. China is the world’s second largest state, with which one should not argue. Moreover, Beijing has demonstrated clear readiness to continue fruitful bilateral cooperation.
She made her first state visit, which always has a symbolic nature for a new politician, to China. Only after that did she visit the USA. In fact, the lifting of the remaining US sanctions in early October was largely as a result of her visit to Washington.
The new Myanmar leadership is demonstrating its readiness to keep balance between the powers formed by the leading global players. If the latter do not get absorbed in the game, thus bringing the situation in the region to a dangerous exacerbation, such a policy can be very efficient for a relatively small backward country like today’s Myanmar.
Former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s former assistant, Kurt Campbell, who was responsible for the American policy in the Asia-Pacific Region in 2009-2013, once called it a baby tiger. This definition contained an obvious allusion to the top four “Asian Tigers” (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore), which had achieved impressive economic successes.
Abstracting from the ethnic and religious social problems, and, on the contrary, taking into account Myanmar’s enormous natural wealth, such a prospect could have been predicted.
The most uncertain thing is the ambiguity in the further development of US-China relations. The result of the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA may considerably affect these important bilateral relations.
K. Campbell may be given the position of Secretary of State in the future US administration. Campbell has contributed a lot to US political success in Myanmar. His recent activities in US foreign policy, coupled with the general growth of the Asia-Pacific Region’s importance in US foreign policy, might become quite handy. Moreover, K. Campbell is no stranger to the waters of this region.
Another important factor making a significant contribution to the uncertainty in any forward-looking estimates regarding the future of Myanmar has to do with the emergence of India and Japan as the new regional and global political actors. Both these states are demonstrating a growing interest in the events in South-east Asia in general, and in Myanmar, in particular. India’s reasons for this interest include the increasingly significant assessment of the country by the Indian military and political elite as a successor to British India, which existed at a time when the current Myanmar and Pakistan constituted a single state managed by a representative of the British Crown.
In addition, Myanmar is the first country in respect of which India’s foreign policy has long since been formulated on a “focus on the East” basis.
Will Myanmar become a new “Asian tiger” or it will follow the fate of Afghanistan, a state whose control the global players (interchangeably) have been fighting over for more than 200 years? The answer to this question depends on the further development of the new global game that will encompass the major players.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
