Burma Bottom Lines for America

From Tim Heinemann on Burma.  As most know he is heavily engaged in Burma activities.  Agree or disagree with him (and he certainly makes some controversial statements) he is at least offering come concrete actions.

I do like his final statement:

 Morality, Mass and Unity of Effort are the keys to American success.

V/R

Dave

David S. Maxwell

Associate Director

Center for Security Studies &

Security Studies Program

Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service

Georgetown University

Office: 202-687-3834

Cell: 703-300-8263

email: dsm62@georgetown.edu

AKO: david.maxwell@us.army.mil

Alt email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

SSP Web Site:  css.georgetown.edu

Associate Director News Blog: http://maxoki161.blogspot.com/

Georgetown Security Studies Review:http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/

From: Heinemann Timothy <tsh5252@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:29 PM
Subject: Corrected Copy // Burma Bottom Lines for America

Bottom line:  America absolutely cannot afford to mess up in Burma.  Get it wrong elsewhere, but not here, given Burma's primacy concerning strategic balance of power in the Indian Ocean.

Our track record in post-conflict regions since Vietnam indicates we have problems "finishing" in terms of consolidating and securing long-term gains.  Consider where we are now in:

· Vietnam -  Under China's shadow 

· El Salvador -  Dominated by gangs 

· Panama -  China expanding control here

· Somalia -   Lawless with Piracy 

· Balkans - No real allegiances here

· Iraq -  A mess 

· Vietnam - A nightmare

So where exactly are our big "Wins" then?  

What are the total costs and impacts for we have not accomplished?   

America's approach in Burma cannot afford to be a matter of a political agenda or partisan politics.   It must be a fully vetted and integrated American Agenda demonstrative of the enduring interests of the combined elements of national power.  Burma's permanent strategic criticality demands extraordinary measures be now considered, given how we have erred so badly in too many other places around the world.  Are we really on track here?  

It is easy to get ensnarled in all the intrigues and complexities of Burma, where “tribalism” abounds in the form of ethnicities, Burman power elites, politics, religions, war lords, organized crime, corporate capitalism, NGO communities of self-interest, nation state agendas and so on.  They will all try to prosper thusly with Burma as their favorite Cash Cow and new cause célèbre.  Given all we have learned to date in post-conflict regions around the world from Vietnam to Afghanistan, can we honestly say we now have it right in coming together as a full team today in Burma?  

What will it take organizationally for America to “get it right” in Burma?  

1.     US Government charters and empowers four separate oversight bodies to provide honest brokerage on how American elements of national power are integrated for the attainment of enduring strategic effects and for the good of all the diverse peoples of Burma.   A single government oversight body is corruptible and cannot likely succeed.   There should instead be one from Government, one from the For-profit sector, one from the Non-profit sector and one from Academia.    If this is not properly done, we are prone to neglect born of individual agendas that lack synergy.  We will miss accomplishing what matters most in the end, as has been the case for us in many regions.  

Integrating these four collaborative perspectives can help provide needed "rudder" to integrity guiding what we collectively attempt in Burma.  This is inherently an American way of "doing business" drawing openly and honestly from all sources and perspectives.   What all is at stake in not doing Quality Assurance in Strategy and Quality Control in Effects and Outcomes well?   Can we live with the consequences of getting this wrong?

2.       US Government incentivizes the American Private Sector to collaborate in the attainment of synergies linked to strategic end states.  The American Private Sector, if incentivized, can have enduring staying power to further US interests.   Incentives may be in the form of tax breaks, entitlements, special funding and so forth to compel broad collaboration between for-profits and non-profits with government that otherwise may not take place.   Consider what has and has not happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, in this regard.  There can also be disincentives that are punitive in nature - negative forcing functions to compel better collaboration.  Success here will be based on actually taking care of all of the diverse peoples of Burma and winning enduring allegiances.

      

Theme:   It is the “space in between” individual interests that deserves  protection, promotion and incentivization.   This takes extraordinary measures to compel this unnatural focus.  It is critical to orient on America's private sector’s enduring staying power in this region.  We must get this totally right for a change in helping harness Yankee Ingenuity’s full power in overcoming many disadvantages in this region.  This is best done in close “Whole-of-Nation” collaboration for integrated effects.  Our track record has proven this will not happen on its own.  Incentives are key to getting it righter / better than we have done to date.  

What are the enduring consequences if we don’t do this well?

3.      US Government must link Security Sector Reform to Balanced Economic Empowerment of Ethnics otherwise there will be endless conflict and instability.   This can be attempted by focusing Burmans and Non-Burmans on Special Development Zones whereby all sides prosper in common cause. This provides opportunity for America to demonstrate leadership in enabling success in these zones.   Proving what “Right, Righter or Better looks like” here is a manageable mission in scope and scale.  This can prevent us from scattering our fire at the wood line by, instead, concentrating our fire with full mass, precision and persistence.  Otherwise we will likely waste effort with dispersed American power as we so often seem to do.   

      

Theme:   Aim small and deliver best quality results.   These will infect others by providing models well worth emulating.  We will not accomplish this if we allow power, passion and purpose to be dispersed.   The future of Burma is all about "Control of Land and of the Fruits of the Land" in this country which has the potential to become the economic powerhouse in Southeast Asia.  This potential all hangs on balanced security between Burmans and Non-Burman ethnics. 

Are peace and stability possible at all if this is not squarely faced as top priority?

4.    US Government in collaboration with American private sector wages a strategic communications campaign to promote America’s engagement and development “good news” stories.    It is not enough to do good things / smart things.  It is all about waging and winning the War of Messages about what right, righter, better look like.   Future Super Power stature is at issue here.  If we get dribbled around by China, then we should watch for signs following.  This is a moral showdown.  We need to draw a line in the sand in Myanmar as center stage for how America's model of responsible development trumps China's exploitative model.  

This is an "In your face" strategic posturing of American Power at its best, if that is, in fact, what we are truly focused on and organized to deliver.  Best to integrate what we can offer, which will put us mid-field, and then tell the story in order to score.    If we had done this stellarly elsewhere, then this would not be an issue now.

What are the broader global implications of not demonstrating the best that America has to offer in Burma?  Can we afford to miss this opportunity in the critically important Indian Ocean region?

Comment:  In the process of all this, primacy should be placed on overcoming decades of disadvantage forced upon brutalized Non-Burman ethnic minorities by both past totalitarian regimes and present repressive practices ongoing openly and quietly in the shadows around Burma.  Burman elites in power are now leveraging international resources to accomplish the incremental dominance and "Burmanization" of ethnics once and for all in the name of "Progress".   Decades of Burman crimes against humanity perpetrated against ethnics are being white washed.    

Is America to become part of this invisible genocide?   Where is American honest brokerage for what is happening?  

Ethnics by virtue of population size, ancestral land rights, land dominance in natural resources and international trade routes, by their proven solidarity as battlefield champions for the Pro-Democracy Movement in Burma for decades, and by their present armed capacity, merit respect, equal stature and equitable balance of power.   

No good can possibly come from taking anything less than full and complete measures to assure this unfair imbalance is corrected.  If morality and honor matter, there should be a "Zero Tolerance" imperative by both US Government and by American private sector leaders in terms of taking anything other than personal ownership of this matter and delivering results.  This is best done in one coherent American team effort for a change.

Peace and stability in this region depends on this.  The validity of America's Super Power stature stands or fails on the world's stage in Burma.   

Opportunity is at hand today in Burma.   Morality, Mass and Unity of Effort are the keys to American success.

Tim Heinemann

Worldwide Impact Now (WIN)

A 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization

www.worldwide-impact-now.org

tsh5252@hotmail.com

Myanmar today is guide for NK of tomorrow

It is interesting that China's The People's Daily would make a similar argument as the US for north Korea to follow the "Burma Model."  But the author makes similar mistakes we make in the west.  The north is likely not interested in what is best for any other country, the region or the international community.  Although it is likely that the north trusts China more than the US I would say that they do not trust China that much more.  I think these statements could have been written in the west.

Applying the same ideology to North Korea, we would find that an open North Korea would be more beneficial to China,
…
The significance of North Korea's openness is not less than that of Myanmar. The economic revival of the Korean Peninsula will not only serve as a boost to the development of Northeast Asia, but also stimulate the prosperity of Russia's far-east as well. No one is willing to spoil this opportunity by using a nuclear bomb.

This statement also confirms the north fears that it will be the economic and geopolitical battleground contested by the major powers.  (Confirms the Korean proverb of being a shrimp among whales).

For sure, North Korea with an open society, and the involvement of the US, South Korea and Japan will bring about troubles and problems for China. But these fears will not be conducive to China's progress when dealing with these powers. 

I just do not think the argument by the Chinese for the north adopting a "Burma Model" will have any more influence on the Kim Family Regime that a similar argument being made by the US.

V/R

Dave

Myanmar today is guide for NK of tomorrow

Global Times | 2013-4-17 21:18:01  By Ding Gang

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/775630.shtml#.UW-_KCt378U

The sanctions put on Myanmar by Western countries caused at least two phenomena: Myanmar's national economy was suffocated, and its dependence on China became stronger.

These phenomena turned out to be the decisive reason why Myanmar carried out reform and opening-up afterward in exchange for the sanctions being lifted.

During the sanction period, China provided extensive aid and helped develop infrastructure such as hydroelectric stations, some of which were finally approved by the Myanmese government though seeing some opposition.

These projects have benefited the people of Myanmar. For example, the Yeywa power station, which was built on Chinese concessional loans, has relieved the high pressure caused by the growing demand for electricity in Yangon.

However, Myanmar is still alert to its northern neighbor. The former military junta, though realizing the importance of keeping balance with China in terms of economy and politics, was left with no choice under the Western sanctions.

Myanmar's decision to open up, on the one hand, will accommodate the requirements from the West for more support; on the other hand, it will add weight to its attempt to balance an over-dependence on China.

The above two purposes directly contributed to the incident of the Myitsone dam. The stranded project played a significant role in lifting Western sanctions, and as a result, more capital from the US and Europe may come in, elbowing China out to an unfair position.

However, this unexpected loss will not change the fact that a reformed and open-minded Myanmar will increasingly stabilize economic trade with China.

They will not become adversaries as expected by some.

The revival of Myanmar will enliven the whole of Southeast Asia, promoting the development of India and Bangladesh, and expanding the radius of Sino-ASEAN cooperation to the south.

Applying the same ideology to North Korea, we would find that an open North Korea would be more beneficial to China, even though problems like Myitsone might occur.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/775630.shtml#.UW-_KCt378U

Guest Column: Gen. John Wickham: US must engage North Korea in talks with an eye toward a peace treaty

With all due respect to GEN Wickham the north is not going to be swayed by the Burma model because it has not yet played out and they are convinced that when it does play out the Burmese junta will end up like Qaddafi and Saddam.  That said I am all for hard nosed diplomacy and engagement (based on the foundation of a strong ROK/US military alliance) but we absolutely have to be realistic about how north Korea has cheated and broken every previous agreement (and will likely do so again and again).  I fear that a peace agreement will be only one sided and as soon as it removes US forces from the Peninsula and South Korea takes the "peace dividend" from military readiness we will see a very bad outcome.  If we could reach a realistic peace agreement it would have to include maintenance of the ROK/US military Alliance or we would see an eventual attack on the ROK (and in a seeming paradox, it would be more likely to occur then than it is ever likely to occur without a peace agreement).

V/R
Dave

Guest Column: Gen. John Wickham: US must engage North Korea in talks with an eye toward a peace treaty

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/guest-column-gen-john-wickham-us-must-engage-north-korea/article_37e2315c-dd42-5982-a5e3-15829a03ed8d.html

Recent threats by North Korean leaders to attack America with nuclear weapons raise alarm. North Korea, despite impoverishment, can inflict great harm, and persists with hostile actions as well as unnerving rhetoric. Youthful leader Kim Jong Un appears in full control, but evidence suggests the military calls the shots.

We believe North Korea has six nuclear weapons, the makings of several more, plus reproduction potential. Moreover, they have exploded weapons to assure yield and tested missiles that with further engineering could be fitted with nuclear weapons to reach America.

Would they be crazy enough to attack? No, I do not believe they would given risk of major retaliation, but their threats must be taken seriously because they have dangerous weapons and behaved recklessly in the past.

Moreover, North Korean actions have raised prospects for nuclear proliferation. South Korea abandoned development of nuclear weapons when Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger persuaded former President Park Chung-hee in 1974 to accept protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. During my tour as commander of all forces in South Korea from 1979 to 1982, I verified that nuclear programs had stopped even though the North Koreans were avidly pursuing them.

A recent poll in South Korea reveals that two-thirds of citizens believe they should acquire nuclear weapons due to ominous behavior of North Korea, and because of political statements by President Obama and officials such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Sam Nunn that call for the United States to pursue a global goal of zero nuclear weapons. Such a policy would take away the U.S. nuclear umbrella. A few legislators in the Japanese parliament have spoken about acquiring nuclear weapons. So unless change occurs in the situation with North Korea, nuclear proliferation could emerge with dangerous implications.

For years we have tried to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program. We have urged the Chinese, who retain an alliance with North Korea, to join this persuasive effort. During several trips to China, including one as U.S. Army chief of staff, I was told by political and military leaders that they valued their relationship with North Korea but, frankly, the relationship was difficult and North Koreans did not take kindly to advice.

Obviously, our policy of trying to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program has failed. Given recent statements by North Korean officials, no basis exists for any optimism about persuading them to give up nuclear weapons because they are convinced the weapons guarantee security and national independence.

Our policy for decades has been to impose severe sanctions and to isolate the country in hope that suffering will force leaders to abandon hostility and abide fully with the United Nations Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty they signed years ago. We persist with this tough policy and conservative voices argue we must not reward bad behavior by easing sanctions or negotiating bi-laterally.

However, I believe our policy now must be revised.

(Continued at the link below)

A wider war looms in Myanmar

I do not think people expected this after we initiated our reengagement with Burma.  And of course the excerpt below is perhaps the crux of the problem and illustrates one of the conundrums we face: do we support our interests; e.g., international stability of the nation-state system and respect sovereignty or do we stand up for a fundamental US value; e.g., the right to self-determination of a people.  

There are two fundamentally opposed and seemingly incompatible views on how Myanmar's decades-long ethnic quagmire should be resolved. The KIA and other ethnic groups want autonomy within a federal union, while the government wants to uphold the present 2008 Constitution, which lays the foundations for a centralized system. 

The question is can there be compromise and a political resolution to the differences between the ethnic groups and the Burmese government?  

V/R

Dave

A wider war looms in Myanmar By Bertil Lintner  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/OA12Ae01.html CHIANG MAI - Recent weeks have seen some of the heaviest fighting in Myanmar's decades-long civil war with government forces launching determined attacks against the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), an ethnic guerrilla force in the far north of the country.  For the first time ever, the government has used helicopter gunships and modern, sophisticated attack aircraft against the ethnic rebels, an escalation that has earned condemnation from human-rights groups and undermined President Thein Sein's credibility as a national peacemaker.  Most of the fighting is taking place around the KIA's headquarters at the border town of Laiza near China. The government seems determined to crush the Kachin resistance and gain control over the area now administered by the rebels.  The ongoing offensive may cripple the KIA militarily, but it will likely not defeat the rebel resistance. Observers fear that the outcome will be intense ethnic hatred, making it even more difficult to establish a lasting peace. Many Kachin now feel that there is no place for them in Myanmar.  "We know that it is wrong to feel that way, but we can't help it," says a Kachin women in the state capital Myitkyina. Adding insult to injury, the airstrikes against the Kachin, the vast majority of whom are Christian, began in earnest on Christmas Eve. "This we will never forget or forgive," said a Kachin community worker.  The Kachins have become even more antagonized because of pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi's refusal to intervene in the crisis. Despite several appeals to the former Nobel Peace Prize laureate to act in a war in her own country, Suu Kyi has steadfastly refused to take a stand. On January 6, she told Agence France-Presse that she would not step in to help end the worsening conflict without official approval.  (Continued at the link below) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/OA12Ae01.html

Obama’s Historic Visit to Myanmar and the Shadow of North Korea

Excerpt:

In fact, more dangerous than the long-shot allegation of a Burmese nuclear weapons program, is the cash they provided to North Korea through their illicit trade relationship. In the end, North Korea may have simply been milking the Burmese for funds for their own nuclear weapons program.

This is an excellent description of how the Kim Family Regime operates and why we should be paying close attention to all of north Korea's illicit trade activities.

V/R

Dave

Obama’s Historic Visit to Myanmar and the Shadow of North Korea

By Melissa Hanham

http://38north.org/2013/01/mhanham010813/

As Air Force One touched down for the US’s first state visit to Myanmar, newly re-elected President Obama already had one victory in hand. Hours before his arrival, Burmese President Thein Sein announced that he had approved the adoption of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol, a measure which will likely also be approved in parliament. The move appeared extraordinary for two reasons. Just two years ago, Myanmar was alleged to be building a nuclear weapons program with the aid of North Korea, and Thein Sein was a member of the ruling military junta which brutally crushed opposition and thumbed its nose at the West.

The Additional Protocol grants the IAEA rights to expanded access to both information and sites. The goal is to increase confidence about declared, and possibly undeclared, nuclear activities. Thus, any “addition” to the Additional Protocol is a good one, but the victory in this case was hollow. Myanmar was about as close to a nuclear weapons program as Dr. (Bunsen) Honeydew and Beaker from The Muppet Show. In fact, more dangerous than the long-shot allegation of a Burmese nuclear weapons program, is the cash they provided to North Korea through their illicit trade relationship. In the end, North Korea may have simply been milking the Burmese for funds for their own nuclear weapons program.

Like most of the countries that bought into the “atoms for peace” agenda, Myanmar—then known as the Union of Burma—became attracted to the idea of a nuclear program in the 1950s and joined the IAEA in 1957. During its political and economic turmoil little progress was made toward this end, though it did reach out to Russia for a 10-15 megawatt research reactor to be used for radioisotope production. However, the deal fell through when the Russians realized that Burma’s safety culture was only slightly worse off than their total inability to pay.[1]

The story of North Korea and Myanmar’s alleged procurement activities is a strange one. The two countries suspended their diplomatic relationship in 1983 after North Korea attempted to assassinate South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan during a visit to Burma’s then-capital city Rangoon (now known as Yangon) killing prominent South Korean and Burmese citizens.[2] However, some dissidents claim that the two have acted as military procurement partners since the 1990s.[3] Officially, diplomatic relations were re-established in 2007, and around this time North Korea and Myanmar developed what appeared to be a cozy military-to-military relationship.

(Continued at the link below)

http://38north.org/2013/01/mhanham010813/

Chinese Methods Facing Pressure (in Burma)

China's "soft power" has not evolved to "smart power."

“The reason why Chinese enterprises often become a target of criticism in [Myanmar] is that they lack a clear understanding of the national situation, especially the complicated interest pattern in the country,” commented Bi Shihong, a professor of the Institute of International Studies at Yunnan University. 

“Chinese enterprises haven’t given enough attention to other interest groups besides the [Myanmar] government and its local partners. And they haven’t communicated well with the local NGOs and communities. [They] should pay more attention to these challenges when investing in Myanmar.

V/R

Dave

Chinese Methods Facing Pressure

By WILLIAM BOOT / THE IRRAWADDY| January 1, 2013 |

http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/22719

The Monywa copper mine in Sagaing Regioin (Photo: JPaing / The Irrawaddy)

They are Myanmar’s biggest investors, but wherever their money goes, controversy and protests follow. Now the Chinese are facing growing competition for big contracts from the Japanese and South Koreans and, perhaps, soon the United States as well.

Chinese state or state-linked firms have focused on tapping into Myanmar’s natural resources—gas, hydro-energy, copper and timber—and hauling it off to China. But none of it has happened without allegations of land theft, displacement or environmental damage.

Observers say that China’s growing commercial influence in Myanmar was one of the factors which pushed the former junta generals to finally reform and open the country up to other investors. It is certainly true that one of the first major acts of the Thein Sein presidency was to stop Chinese construction of the controversial hydroelectric dam at Myitsone on the Ayeyarwady River.

Not only would most of the electricity generated by the project be pumped to China’s neighboring Yunnan Province, there would be massive relocation of communities and damage to fisheries and the downstream environment, numerous NGOs have said.

“Over the past two decades Burma’s leaders have become increasingly uncomfortable with their dependence on China for trade, aid and arms transfers,” said Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

“While their desire to reduce that dependence may not be one of the central drivers of the current reform process, it’s clear that their move to broaden the country’s foreign relations will ultimately erode China’s political influence and economic interests,” said Mr Storey in a commentary for the Singapore-based think-tank.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/22719