Is Burma Obama’s Real Test?
From day one, there has been rampant speculation about what will test Obama on foreign policy. Iran and North Korea come up frequently as countries that could force Obama into a crisis situation. However, I think that another country may be the real test of the fledgling Obama doctrine: Burma.
Aung San Suu Kyi went on trial last week. Her crime is allowing an American trespasser, John Yettaw, who swam to her isolated house uninvited, to spend a night in her guest room. This violated the rules of her house arrest, which she has been under for years. The house arrest was about to end and conventional wisdom holds that the Burmese generals who rule the country would have trumped up some reason to keep her under lock and key. Yettaw just saved them the trouble of having to make something up.
The U.S. has condemned the trial, just as we have condemned every action by the ruling junta since they took control of the country decades ago. The Administration also announced that sanctions would continue on Burma for at least another year, by which time I assume the announced U.S. review of Burma policy will be complete. The question is what could possibly change.
There are no push factors with Burma. It is not a national security threat to us. There is no direct threat to an ally in the region. If anything, Burma’s neighbors have agreed to either live with the status quo or actively support it. ASEAN countries have bent over backwards to maintain their position of non-interference in domestic affairs of member states. China is as close to a patron as Burma has, but even that relationship is more about geographic convenience that real strategic importance. That said, a stepped up U.S. campaign to change Burma would certainly only raise the profile of the country in China’s eyes.
There may not be a push factor, but there is definitely a pull to do something. There is strong bipartisan agreement on Burma. It is an easy one, after all. A democratically elected government was never seated due to military intervention. There is no grey area on this one. A tenable plan to change Burma would have broad support across the political spectrum. The problem is that the strategy that most agree on is to continue the sanctions and tough talk.
And that is why Burma is a true test of Obama’s foreign policy. The Administration has clearly stated its interest in talking to enemies and friends alike. Engagement is a key element of the Obama Doctrine (and as far as I can tell the only one elaborated so far). So is the Obama Administration going to open up an official dialogue with the Burmese junta? Is there anything to talk about? How does a policy of engagement handle a test case where the only positive outcome is to replace the sitting government that you are engaging?
A former Bush Administration official recently wrote a piece for the Far Eastern Economic Review defending the Bush policies. Usually I don’t pay a lot of attention to former officials doing legacy control, but this article struck me. You can sense the frustration of dealing with Burma. The article claims some success, but it is hard to see where as Aung San Suu Kyi is on the verge of being permanently moved from house arrest to prison and there is no sign of the junta losing control of the country. The bottom line is that, while Burma should have been a candidate for action under Bush’s freedom agenda, it never rose to the top of the agenda. The question is whether Obama’s engagement doctrine will place Burma any higher on the to-do list. Somehow I doubt it. I hope I’m wrong. whatever it is zac brown band mp3
Related posts: