Myanmar (Burma) has been in the news lately for the recent iron hand crack down by the military junta on the saffron clad monk's pro-democracy demonstrations . Myanmar's most prominent allies and trade partners India and China have come under some strong criticism for their low key and muted response. India and China can play a key role in restoring democracy but will the burgeoning trade relations and Burma's strategic geographic situation be a strong deterrent for either country to come down heavily on the military regime.
Burma a former British colony gained its independence in 1947. But in 1962, Ne Win; an army general, and his military men him overthrew the then elected government. He set up an authoritarian government to smother democracy and realize his vision of a socialist state. He isolated the country from the rest of the world, created a one-party system and cracked down on any expression that detracted from this vision. The once most prosperous part of the British Empire transformed into one of the world's poorest nations.
Ne Win's rule finally ended in 1988 finally after nationwide student demonstrations calling for democracy that were forcibly and brutally crushed.
India was the first neighboring country to criticise the Burmese military government's actions during people’s uprising. The Indian Embassy in Rangoon is said to have actively supported the pro-democracy student activists.
Yet later that year came the formation of a new and even more repressive military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council. The military junta renamed the country Myanmar in 1989.
India followed a policy committed to open support of the forces of democracy and “complete disengagement” with the ruling military junta in Burma. Most of the rest of the world also participated in isolating the country. China was one that did not.
In 1990 Burma held its first general elections and Aung San Suu Kyi's party; the National League for Democracy, won. However the military junta never allowed her to take power and instead put severe restrictions on her movements and access to the Burmese people as well as the outside world. The military junta has been accused of grave human rights abuse including curtailing the freedoms of its citizens.
Until around 1994 India continued its anti-junta policy but then after intense internal debate it reversed its course and resumed relations with Burma.
Why India changed its policy: Strategic, security and financial concerns
China used Burmese isolation to its advantage and aspired to create a strategic alliance with the country's regime. It pumped in economic, military and development assistance. India's ideological stand on the other hand failed to produce any tangible changes in the Burma, instead it saw the strengthening Burma-China alliance as a possible threat to its eastern flank and maritime borders.
India also suffered increasing attacks along the border it shares with Burma from insurgent groups such as the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF). It assumed the milatry junta could have been of assistance in helping quell the insurgency.
With India's economic boom, private and government business eyed the market across the border. The military junta also wary of its over dependence on China were looking for alternate sources to help its development.
With its disengagement tactic failing, India was weighed down by its strategic and security concerns as well as Burma's business potential. It seems that it decided to put aside its moral and ethical ideology and instead engaged the military junta.
India-Burma ties; Mixed results and wrong signals:
Trade between the two countries is now said to soon reach 1B dollars. India will also become the largest investor in the country. India has managed to almost level its leverage with that of China's on the small nation.
Unfortunately Indian trade and cooperation has not just been in developing infrastructure and use of resources. It has become a major supplier of arms and ammunition's in an effort to make money and equal that of China's supplies. The Burmese generals have also been promising cooperation with the counter insurgency operations but have shown little in terms of true effort.
New Delhi hosted a visit by Burma's military leader in 2004 and more recently India's Minister for External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Myanmar to further boost ties. He also gave a weak statement in response to the crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations by the Burmese Monks that raised eyebrows the world over. A government official is said to have compared India's alliance with the junta with that of US's interest in Pakistan's Musharaff.
What India can and should do:
India needs to adhere to the highest standards of international conduct to maintain its steadily increasing visibility on the world stage. It needs to revert to its morality and ethically driven ideologies in dealing with Burma. Trade sanctions might be necessary while maintaining humanitarian assistance. India needs to involve China in a bilateral coordinated move to find ways to pressure the regime to return the country to democracy. With both the nations working together neither would have to have be concerned about the other taking advantage of its pullback. The Burmese people are looking to the outside world to oust their oppressor. For India to fail them would be a grave error and a serious lack of moral considerations.
No comments:
Post a Comment