The return of Aung San Suu Kyi, the dynamic Burmese political
figure and international icon, from long-term house arrest to full
activity has energized her entire country. The United States has
accepted the Burmese government’s claim that it has released
“hundreds” of political prisoners, though there are hundreds more
still being held. How this will manifest itself in the near future
is open to debate, but full diplomatic recognition is now in the
works even though the U.S. never did fully close its embassy when
it withdrew its ambassador in 1990.
Meanwhile, the crush of celebrity visitors to Yangbon
(Rangoon) run the gamut from Hillary Clinton and George Soros to
every precious stone dealer and extractive industry executive who
can afford the trip. They are all, whether diplomat, politician or
businessman, already behind the curve. Burma in all its not
inconsiderable economic potential already has been well
reconnoitered over the past decade and earlier. Soros, himself, for
some years has been running an active behind-the-scenes operation
through his multiple charitable foundations. George Soros has never
missed a chance to take advantage of political/economic openings
afforded by his conveniently targeted eleemosynary activities —
and it’s doubtful he has changed his modus operandi when
it comes to Burma.
With the aid of the global photo opportunity queen,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Burma has become an example of
the Obama Administration’s theatrical foreign policy that has
discovered an international issue in the last year on which to
focus the attention of its left-liberal base. The image of Hillary
and Suu Kyi in matching local hair-dos as “bosom buddies” linked in
the fight for freedom was of great use to the White House. The
Obama Administration is eager to portray itself as the champion of
high profile Asian democracy as it seeks to cover its waning
involvement in the previously priority areas of the Middle
East.
Washington officialdom is not the only foreign group
seeking to take credit for Burma’s reform. Any changes that exist,
however, are due strictly to internal developments, including the
ascent of the new government under President (formerly General)
Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi’s willingness to work with him.
Andrew Seith, highly respected Australian analyst of Burmese
affairs, has
written, “…there is hardly a single sector of Burma’s
government economy and civil society that is not begging for reform
and desperate for financial, technical and other kinds of
assistance.” Expectations by outside do-gooders have to be adjusted
to deal with these many difficult realities.
The long-standing issues involving ethnic minorities such
as the Karen and Shan have at last grown into full-scale
negotiations. Unfortunately the Kachin insurgency has continued,
some say quite unabated. Some of the ethnic tribal leaders question
Aung San Suu Kyi’s judgment or even interest in these matters.
Problems between the military and the various tribal groupings go
all the way back to their treatment after World War II. Reform in
relations with ethnic minorities in Burma, as elsewhere in
Southeast Asia, is more the result of historical complaints than it
is the product of perceived contemporary disadvantage.
Not talked about openly, but always on the mind of her
supporters, is the upcoming parliamentary elections in April as the
first step in what many consider Suu Kyi’s rightfully inherited
position of the nation’s leader. Too fast a move beyond a
parliamentary seat could trigger a serious military backlash, and
she is well aware of that. The complexity of the country’s problems
will require many years to solve. During that period it must be
remembered that Burma holds a strategic position between China and
India. External factors easily can become determinant depending on
regional events.
Pragmatism on the part of Aung San Suu Kyi dictates she
work with, and even perhaps for, President Thein Sein to achieve
mutually desired goals of national reconciliation and reform. He
can supply the discipline necessary to introduce a controlled but
workable democracy, while she can continue to act as an inspiration
for a future more open to democracy.
It will take both leaders to focus the many voices of the
nation in such a manner as to construct a consensus of the
electorate and a military that would no longer see itself as the
sole arbiter of justice and fidelity to national interests. If Aung
San Suu Kyi finds she can not work with Thein Sein, contrary to
current appearances, this entire national reformation enterprise
could still collapse. So far it appears that both principals are
well aware of this and are working hard to preserve their initial
collaboration. Meanwhile all of Burma holds its breath — and the
rest of the world tries to figure out where they should line up.
They should keep an eye on George Soros. He seems to make money
from every situation.
