America is calling the military takeover in Myanmar a coup. Not quite. Myanmar’s fragile democracy always existed at the pleasure of the military and the military became displeased when it appeared the people wanted to strengthen democracy.
The major – but not ruling – party of Myanmar, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won a landslide victory in the national general election held in November 2020. The NLD won 86% of the vote, up from 79% in 2015, representing 396 seats; the Union, Solidarity and Development Party, USDP, the party of the military, won 6.9% of the vote, representing 33 seats.
No doubt spurred on by Trump’s leadership in such matters, the military declared the election rigged, an impossibility considering its control of the country, and on 1 February moved to place under house arrest senior members of the government including State Counsellor (Prime Minister) Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Mynt and 24 other ministers.
The military reluctantly moved to elections in 2015 but in so doing made its agreement conditional on holding 25% of seats in Parliament and retaining the ministries of Defence, Border and Home Affairs. In the wake of the takeover, it has claimed 11 additional ministries including finance, health, interior and foreign affairs. The military moved toward greater democratic freedoms in 2014 as a result of Chinese overreach and US blandishments in response. The US made its generous assistance conditional on the Myanmar military moving down a path to democracy, with the 2015 elections being the result.
Since 2015 much has changed in the region. After Trump became US President in 2016, he progressively undermined America’s standing in South East Asia. He imposed trade sanctions on China at a time when Xi Jinping was increasing and consolidating his power. Trump’s sanctions assisted the process. Where America stood in 2015 and where they stand now are two very different places. America is not as powerful economically and militarily. Covid-19 imposes restraints on the US military that did not exist before Trump unleashed it. The US has the defence materiel but not the men and women to man it.
The US has talked about imposing sanctions on the new military regime in Myanmar but it doesn’t have the volume of trade to make an impact and it doesn’t have the money to bribe the regime back into the barracks.
It is an early test for Biden. But then again, it’s not. The tragedy of the loss of democracy in Myanmar will underline the impotence of America in not being able to effect its restoration. It will also highlight the growing influence and power of China over Myanmar and the region.
America is talking about the restoration of democracy at a time when its democracy is fractured. It does not have the moral authority, after the attack by Trump supporters on the institutions of democracy. America is in no position to lecture dysfunctional regimes and press for change, if ever it was. America is unable to enforce its own rule of law.
Democracy should and must prevail in Myanmar. But the chances are slim. China controls the nominally democratic but chronically corrupt government of Sri Lanka, precisely because it is corrupt. It has significant influence in Communist Cambodia and Laos for the same reason. It has a complex relationship with Communist Vietnam, which steadfastly maintains its independence. Vietnam would like to see America remain a balance to China in the region but it is realistic and will do whatever it takes to maintain its sovereignty without compromising its national pride and integrity. Singapore can look after itself with respect to China but Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand will, through greed and weak leadership, gradually be white-anted by China.
China does not seek to occupy countries in the region. It seeks, like America before it, influence and the measure of control that comes with it. China is playing America’s old game and succeeding. It is the game America learnt to play in South America. China is well placed to do the same in South East Asia. Over time, maybe a short period of time, it will mend its fences with India and Japan, particularly if it looks as if the United States is prepared to come to blows in the South China Sea in an attempt to reassert its role as the worlds leading power.
And all this is being further advanced by the greed and venality of the Myanmar military regime. How ironic. How sad, and how tragic for the beautiful people of Burma.
America is now in the position of the British Empire before the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore in 1942. The British were full of chutzpa after 100 years of being unchallenged in the region, used to bullying, but with little understanding of the decline in their power. And Australia’s wagon was firmly hitched to them just as it is to America, another likely loser in the region.
Despite Fox News, America has few real friends in the region. And those they have are fair-weather friends, only as good as the strength of American influence and power. And that is declining. The only reliable friend America has in the region is Australia. We are the only country that lets America do our thinking for us, from economic, foreign and defence policy to religion.
It is a risky relationship because it is based on the presumption that America will always be a winner, which ignores Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. There is not a successful US model despite the hype from gym-bred US army Colonels with medals from failed engagements.
The US will fail to restore a corrupted democracy in Myanmar. It will be lacerated on the sharp shoals of South East Asia; wounded and humiliated will it turn its anger on China.
China can work with whoever is in power in Myanmar. Its objectives in the short term are economic. In the longer term, it strives for influence. Xi Jinping is a hard man with a vision for China. He wants to develop an economic corridor to the Bay of Bengal. He wants oil and gas pipelines to the port of Kyankpyu, which along with the port of Sihanoukville in Cambodia, he wants to develop into a deep-water port for Chinese merchant and naval vessels. He wants to resume work on the massive Myitsonne Dam in Myanmar, halted by the NLD, which when completed at a cost of $3.6 billion will produce 6,000 megawatts of power.
America is doing nothing like this in the region. It is out of it. It is howling and seething from the sidelines but it has no influence. As always American diplomacy relies on the threat of the use of military force, but increasingly that looks unreliable.
The Chinese may broker an outcome with the Myanmar military which allows a façade of democracy to return but that is unlikely to include Aung San Suu Kyi in the short term unless she agrees to be a permanent figurehead which over time she might.
The Chinese can work with whoever is in power in Myanmar and other neighbouring states, as what they want most is stability in order to achieve their economic goals. ASPI and other rabid sabre-rattling lobbyists should note that.
Bruce Douglas Haigh is an Australian political commentator and former diplomat.
Comments
22 responses to “Myanmar: the US howls and seethes from the sidelines but it has no influence”
China will quite possibly have enough influence on Myanmar’s military government to keep the improvements of the last 10 years going. China’s spectacular economic rise was a product of investment in poor people to make them more productive and give them better lives. It’s an old model. It’s what happened in the West 100 years ago. Free education at tax-payers’ expense is always the key. The elite benefit financially more than the poor, but the overall effect is spectacular. China wants to keep that project rolling in poor countries it trades with, to enrich itself and them. China should, by its own example, be able to sell that win-win story to the Myanmar military. The Myanmar government needs taxpayers to invest in the poor. While present-day elected governments fail to find enough taxpayers for that purpose, a military government can wave its guns under noses and create large numbers of them. It all depends on whether it wants to keep its people down or be hoisted on their rising shoulders.
The problem with these type of countries is that it is actually better to not develop and keep the existing power structure to benefit vested interest than to actually develop, upset the apple kart and end up upsetting the existing vested interest. DPRK, Latin America etc. also falls in this camp.
You have pretty-much described the stagnating West! It has also happened many times in military dictatorships. By the time no-hoper officers reach senior level, their overwhelming aim is a super-cushy retirement surrounded by scores of obsequious dependents. Next-door Thailand is a classic example of a cozy relationship between the military and the super-rich. However, socialism is part of the rhetoric of Burmese independence, urging more energetic, more stoic glory-hunters to emulate spectacularly successful China rather than Thailand. China’s diplomacy will nudge them in that direction.
I wonder if Myanmar’s internal conflicts stem, at least partly, from the NLD’s encouragement or tolerance of the massive presence of American NGOs in recent times- for just one example, see: https://www.ned.org/region/asia/burma-2019/ . As we all know, NED is just a front for the CIA in entrapping foreign governments in the web of American directed or controlled foreign governments- always under the guise of ‘freedom and democracy’, of course.
We can see the same massive post-coup popular demonstrations and uprisings calling for democracy and human rights- exactly the same kind of organised rebellion that we saw in Hong Kong, Thailand, and a few years ago in Ukraine. To wit, an attempt at a ‘colour revolution’. The US will not succeed, not when the generals still get the nod from neighbouring China.
Whilst we are all sympathetic towards Aung San Suu Kyi, she might have crossed the red lines of the generals who see themselves as the custodians of Myanmar’s independence and integrity as a nation.
Here’s an interesting take by the Filipino Foreign Secretary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Ae6DHfOyI
It would be useful to observe in the next 12 months and see what China actually do in response to the political crisis in Myanmar compared to what US would do to a neighbouring country south of the US. If it was Mexico, I predict the US would have send troops and possibly annex the territory. Let’s observe and test the hypothesis whether China will intervene in the political affairs of Myanmar.
A coup is defined as a removal and seizure of a government and its powers. If it’s “not quite” a coup then what is it? The armed forces seized power by military force despite the fact they held compulsory seats and a constitutional process to assert power by legislative invocation under particular circumstances. They didn’t use the legislative process but stormed the gates and imprisoned the Government the people elected under agreed constitutional rules. Why? Because “they” were unhappy with the speed of democratic reform the people demanded. The military are puppets of China who are really the “they” component in all of this. Xi’s shaky relationship with the CCP relies on nullifying any example of democratic success that may wake up their own population to their draconian political system. If Myanmar was a democratic success it would be anathema to the Chinese ruling elites. It IS a coup for cripe’s sake and China’s fingerprints are all over it. The USA is absolutely justified in rejecting the coup as is the UN. I note the latter received little mention in this article. I wonder why?
Any other weak kneed explanation of the seizure of power by force and not calling it out as a coup is like saying an organism is half pregnant until the moment of birth.
Make my point. The military were part of the government. They held Interior, Border and Defence portfolios. There was no parliamentary oversight of the military. Democracy in Myanmar was a shame. A smokescreen for the military.
What intelligence to you have to suggest that China was involved? You do not understand Myanmar. China has has considerable and growing influence through multiple channels and entities. It doesn’t have to get involved, it is involved, and also in every country in SE Asia and the Pacific. Just as America once was until it started to rot. Do I need to make my point again? The US and the UN have little influence. Why would I give them a role that they can’t fulfill?
Thanks for your insights Bruce (as usual), and I came to a similar view to yours in that Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy in Myanmar was fragile given that they had the military behind their backs as a form of duress during the entire time they have been in office. They eventually arrested her on accusations of having walkie-talkies in her possession, which shows just how much power she really had in the end.
She was also abused by Western media for years for the Rohingya crisis, a convenient scapegoat to blame, and something in my view she had little power over. Meanwhile we stood back and said nothing, argued against taking any refugees, many of which perished at sea in boats in quantities we will never know about. That was January 2015.
It was all Aung San Suu Kyi ‘s fault shouted the media. Militant and violent Buddhists were doing it all they said, except that genuine Buddhism is a religion that promotes peace, compassion, non-violence and empathy. Australia has been cooperating with the Burmese military for years and giving aid, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, but many prominent Australians have been calling for it to stop for several years as well.
The Rohingya crisis was already arising in late 2014 when Morrison was minister for immigration, and at that time he was brokering $40 million plus deal with Cambodia to accommodate our refugees with a toast of champagne, this with one of the most human rights violating and impoverished countries that exist in the world. When Dutton took over the role, he showed his usual void of compassion and did nothing. Let’s also remember that the Cambodian deal was an absolute failure and a gift of money to a seriously despotic regime. It is remarkable how leopards change their spots given the shift in geopolitics today, and our susceptibility to blindly follow the US on anything.
And as you point out the conditions are ripe for China to make deals and win over many countries by listening to what they want and making deals, turning them away from US and Western interests. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the conditions in the same region prior to the war in Vietnam, where the Americans unable to listen to, and respond to the needs of many poorer countries through making no effort to understand the cultures, provoked a situation where the communists who appeared more closely aligned to the peoples’ needs and their anti-imperialist push, won the ear of many of the same countries. The US would have done far better if they had built a few hospitals, a few decent roads, better infrastructure, and concentrated on health in regions where they would have been the winners for doing it. Instead it fell on deaf ears, more interested in military power than ever trying to understand the needs of the people. A war then broke out with devastating consequences that continue to this day.
Well said George and thanks. One thing is for sure Australia will not do any independent thinking or analysis on these events. Typically, the focus is on one Australian academic under house arrest.
Thanks Bruce.
Absolutely, we are off on US La La land here and we are off on another ridiculous ‘Quad’ coalition. India, Japan, Australia + US? Has anyone looked at India’s economy lately? Hardly ready for a major conflict. Human rights issues? Meddling in Kashmir by moving in more Hindu population which is exactly what the Chinese are accused of in Xinjiang with Han Chinese. India searching the South China Sea for oil. Not to mention Modi’s inclination for corruption and his inclination towards fascism, and India’s high level of property rights theft. Even Adani tells his mates he can organise a meeting for them with the Indian prime minister. Still, to have an ally in the Indian Ocean is worth turning a blind eye for Quad.
What makes us standout internationally is that we seem incapable of directing the same criticisms at countries equally, just as America does par excellence. We are also prepared to destroy our economy, especially the agricultural sectors, to get silly awards for the Prime minister. How good will that be?
We are in such bad hands, at so many levels it is not funny.
I’ve been on the lookout for your articles recently, and I’m glad to see you do not disappoint once again. I notice your last one which stimulated a great deal of commentary is still up there as currently the most read.
Thanks George. It is grim.
I hadn’t noticed that about the article.
Her government has had a gigantic network of support; it has been the product of decades of US backing.
Just go to the National Endowment for Democracy website .Go to their page from Myanmar they’re still calling Myanmar Burma by its British colonial name.
Count up the number of programs are on this list the list just keeps going and going at least 80 programs.
There are also organisations and programs not on the list US AID ; the British funded organizations and programs and of course everything ; corporate funded foundations like Open Society are funding inside Myanmar.
The last couple of decades has created this gargantuan network of parallel
institutions to basically just hijack the entire country; its political mechanisms and to just colonize it culturally and politically and in some ways even economically.
The military basically owns everything but the elected government has a constant flow of money coming. Both are problems but the projects in Myanmar are not exclusive to the elected government many are military projects.
One needs to look at the history and background to Myanmar to get more understanding of current issues and looking at it through a western lens is not the full picture!
Quoting Bruce: “We are the only country that lets America do our thinking for us, from economic, foreign and defence policy to religion”. Sheesh! There isn’t much else left. We are now all colonials – inhabitants of a US colony. We perhaps need a version of the Mau Mau uprising to get our independence back!
An uprising for sure, but not Mau Mau.
When I dream that Australia is better than the US, I suffer from the vanity of nationalism. We are cut from the same cloth. We are both on the way out, and both doing it disgracefully.
You are right. We might have adapted, but have decided to make it as painful as possible.
Yes we could both be on the way out, especially if we have no independent view.
But the point is, in terms of comparisons, we are a young country compared to the US, UK, India and Japan (Quad), despite the Indigenous ~50,000 to 60,000 years of inhabitation that should always be acknowledged. And indigenous Australia was not part of our British heritage that has affected all us Australians far more.
On the simple basis of comparative Western democracies, our post-colonial culture and our place in the world is very young, and we have a great opportunity to be anything we want to be like any other adolescent planning for a good future. UK and US are much older, they were/are the imperialist countries that put Australians into the position we are in, they are like grandfathers who will not let the young have a point of view, and they continue to tell us there are ‘no new steps’ in security. In that sense we should be taking the opportunity to be “young and free”.
I can even see a place for the US in our defence security arrangements (despite my mistrusts of US actions), but not if we are so overwhelmed by their geopolitical aims and so uncritical of anything they do as to become negligent of our own lives and futures. As such we are now via federal governments and ms media, somewhat unctuous sycophants, always willing to be told what to do; we are giving up our right to determine our future and instead be told like children how to behave. Sadly Labor is not much better these days , compared to where it was once when Simon Crean as opposition leader rejected Howard’ s push to go to war in Iraq as part of the ‘coalition of the willing’ in an illegal war.
Some will say why does George support some kind of continued security arrangement with the US? Because under Morrison, if we did break free of the US, he would have an excuse to triple our military budget, purchase even more hideously expensive military equipment and toxic weapons, and help us become even more part of the military industrial complex. That would turn our neighbours off even more, particularly when we have also cut foreign aid and lost much of the ability to use diplomacy within our region. The effect that a more militarised country has on its people is a step in the direction of a more security paranoid country, and one where our rights would be even further reduced towards an Orwellian dystopia by people like Peter Dutton only to happy to do it.
Bravo, George!
Thanks Teow Loon Ti
I’ve been enjoying reading your comments on several recent articles too.
Your noble sentiments have inspired me to search for holes in that sweeping generalisation.
Here is a big one: Arthur Phillip, in his memorandum to Lord Sydney on the
proposed new colony, wrote: “The laws of this
country will of course, be introduced in New South Wales,
and there is one that I would wish to take place from the moment his
Majesty’s forces take possession of the country: That there can be no
slavery in a free land, and consequently no slaves.”
Tell that to Indigenous Australians who worked for flour and tobacco
For some take “no slaves” was a licence to just shoot them on the run so they would get off the land. Man woman and child.