What’s the policy?

Myanmar will never defy China — New Delhi must understand this

Nobody should be surprised that the public protests against Myanmar’s military junta demanding civil liberties, spearheaded by students and novice monks, has been crushed.
Estimates of casualties range from nine to several hundreds. The real death toll may never be known, since the military regime has snapped communications between Myanmar and the outside world. It was naïve to expect that the military junta would bow to public opinion after enjoying a monopoly on power since 1960 and acquiring full control over Myanmar’s stagnating economy and repressive administration.

It is impossible for any domestic opposition to influence the junta, far less dislodge it. Its selling point has been that the military has prevented a descent into chaos, containing ethno-political insurgencies that have excoriated Myanmar since its birth. Serving and retired military officers permeate every institution — bureaucracy, civic bodies, and public sector enterprises. 

An illusion persists in New Delhi that Myanmar wishes to balance India against China and thereby acquire leverage with both Asian giants. This is not true. China has historically exercised much more leverage than India on Myanmar, as its largest trading partner, major source of military equipment, diplomatic link to the outside world, using its veto in the Security Council to prevent its castigation by that body.

That Myanmar will continue indefinitely under the heel of its military junta — which cannot displease or defy China — is an objective reality New Delhi must live with; they are framing the backdrop that guides India’s Myanmar policy.

Four other verities inform that policy: India’s need for Myanmar’s oil and gas reserves, to gain road access and connectivity into Southeast Asia, to secure cooperation for effectively pursuing India’s counterinsurgency operations in the Northeast and to counter the Chinese influence.

What has India to offer Myanmar? Trade and technology transfers? Development assistance? With a closed Soviet-style economy, the junta has little desire for them, but is suspicious of efforts to enter its North Korea-type society. These compulsions and vulnerabilities have guided Indian policy to refrain from adopting any definitive stand on the crisis in Myanmar, which amounts to support of its military leadership.

Sad, because India’s inclination is towards the democracy movement and the heroic Aung San Suu Kyi, educated in New Delhi. India’s ambivalent policy towards Myanmar has invited criticism, as it has departs from its traditional and unequivocal commitment to democracy and respect for human rights. 

India’s current Myanmar policy was encapsulated by Pranab Mukherjee in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. He said, “…the present situation in Myanmar concerns us deeply. We urge a broad-based and inclusive process of national reconciliation and peaceful reform to lead Myanmar’s political evolution.

Bloodshed in this situation is unacceptable. India will work with like-minded countries to make a peaceful outcome possible in Myanmar.” It would be difficult to improve on this policy of saying nothing, but expressing it in evocative prose. But, can Pranab Mukherjee be faulted?

The foreign policy of all nations is guided by perceptions of national interests, never mind its contradictions and hypocrisies.  For instance, President Bush has urged that Myanmar’s desire for democracy must be supported, never mind the
unstinted US support to President Musharraf’s on India’s western borders.

Having mentioned the arguments for a low profile approach towards the crisis of democracy in Myanmar, the major counter-argument against this quiescence might also be noticed. Starkly stated: How does a do-nothing policy accord with India’s search for great power status, a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and a place at the high table of the world’s most powerful nations? Can India be a leading light in the coalition of democracies, but remain silent on its trampling in Myanmar?

These issues suggest that India should initiate some rethinking on these issues, especially since it is encircled by undemocratic failing states on all its borders. A more forthright statement expressing general concern on this phenomenon is overdue. India should also pursue with greater vigour the Foreign Minister’s advocacy that it “will work with like-minded countries to make a peaceful outcome possible in Myanmar.”

It should coordinate its efforts with the United States, Japan, European Union, ASEAN countries; but also Russia and, yes, China.

The writer is Research Professor, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies,New Delhi