Quid pro quo diplomacy in US-Myanmar relations

By Nehginpao Kipgen

What triggers former foes to become friends and then listen to each other regarding their mutual interests? This is one puzzling political question scientists tend to ask themselves and is part of what we can see being explored in the bilateral relations between the United States and Myanmar.

Until a year ago, Myanmar faced sanctions and its former military generals were denied visas to the U.S. The dual-track policy of the Obama administration, which began in 2009, has gradually mended the once strained relations.

President Thein Sein’s visit to the White House on Monday was a testament to improved relations. It was the first head of state visit to Washington in 47 years. The former military ruler General Ne Win last visited Washington in 1966.

Thein Sein’s visit comes less than a year after President Obama’s visit to Myanmar last November, the first sitting U.S. president to have visited the country. The primary reason behind the White House’s invitation to the Myanmar president was to show its support for the ongoing democratic reforms and to discuss possible ways of how Washington can help.

What changed their bilateral relations? There are a number of factors, but the most crucial include the release of political prisoners, among them Aung San Suu Kyi, the accommodation of National League for Democracy and its elected representatives in the parliament, and the cessation of violence with most ethnic armed groups.

U.S.-Myanmar relations in the past few years have been largely based on a quid pro quo or tit for tat strategy. Some analysts also refer to this as action for action or a give and take strategy. The Myanmar government has responded meticulously to U.S. demands for rapprochement. A good example is on the issue of political prisoners.

On Oct. 11, 2011, the Myanmar government released 220 political prisoners. In response, then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a three-day visit to Myanmar, which was the top U.S. diplomat’s first visit since John Foster Dulles in 1955.

In January and February 2012, on the anniversary of the country’s Independence Day and Union Day, the Myanmar government released more than 600 political prisoners, including prominent student leaders of the 1988 democracy uprising and ethnic minority leaders.

In response, the U.S. government decided to resume diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level. The U.S.-Myanmar diplomatic representation was downgraded to charge d'affaires in the aftermath of the 1988 democracy uprising and the subsequent nullification of the 1990 general election results.

Another significant U.S. response was the suspension of investment sanctions on July 11 and import bans on Sept. 26, 2012. Those initiatives allowed international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to re-establish their links with Myanmar.

Just ahead of President Thein Sein’s visit to Washington, the Myanmar government released at least 20 political prisoners on May 17. This is one reason why rights activists and democracy campaigners have criticized the Thein Sein government for using prisoners as pawns for public relations purposes.

There are mutual benefits in any bilateral relationship. No country would establish diplomatic relations with other nations unless it has some kind of interest, either implicitly or explicitly. Such interest could range from economic reasons to politics or pertain to global strategic calculations.

What are the U.S. interests in Myanmar and vice-versa? The interests of the United States can be summed up as economic, political and strategic. The permanent lifting of sanctions enables U.S. companies to invest in Myanmar, which in turn benefits both countries economically.

Politically, the U.S. wants to maintain its global leadership status as a champion of democracy and human rights. By inviting Thein Sein to the White House, the Obama administration shows its support for the reform initiatives of the Myanmar government and a commitment to help.

Strategically, Washington wants to reassert its presence in the region because it intends to build closer ties with Southeast Asian nations. By strengthening ties with Myanmar, Washington is also attempting to compete and contain China, which is Myanmar’s biggest investor.

Myanmar interests in the United States can be broadly discussed under the headings of economics and politics. Normalizing relations with the U.S. will not only attract investment companies; it will also boost bilateral trade, both in terms of imports and exports. It will also help Myanmar secure loans and other financial assistance from international institutions associated with the United States.

Politically, the Myanmar government, still dominated by former military generals, wants the support and recognition of the U.S., especially on the eve of assuming the chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2014. Moreover, President Thein Sein wants to prove to the military hardliners in Myanmar, who are skeptical of the reforms, that he has the support of the international community.

The Myanmar government will gradually seek the support of the U.S. government in developing its security infrastructure, rule of law, education, health, and poverty reduction. Another important agenda of Thein Sein’s trip was to convince the U.S. government to lift the remaining sanctions that target individuals and companies.

Thein Sein’s trip to Washington is a triumph of quid pro quo diplomacy pursued by both nations. Though uncertainties still remain in Myanmar, his visit in 47 years shows Washington’s approval of the ongoing reform process.

If hardliners and moderates within the Myanmar military see confidence on its democracy roadmap, provided that there is continued support from the international community, Thein Sein’s visit to Washington could possibly pave the way for amending the 2008 constitution.

Amending or rewriting the existing constitution is not only important but also a necessity in order for true democracy to develop. Whether the Thein Sein government can convince Washington to officially call the country “Myanmar’’ rather than “Burma’’ is another issue to address.

Nehginpao Kipgen is general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum. His research focuses on the politics of South and Southeast Asia, with an emphasis on Burma/Myanmar.