Activism and Awareness

Why does Myanmar need China?

(Image via China Digital Times)

Protests led by pro-democracy activists in Myanmar erupted in bloodshed and chaos last week as the military junta ordered riot police to crush the demonstrations. Buddhist monks who helped lead the protests have been bludgeoned, tortured and killed, according to some reports. It is the largest protest since the popular uprising in 1988, and some groups are referring to it as “Darfur in Slow Motion,” a tragic tagline borrowed from the genocide in Sudan, which is called “Rwanda in Slow Motion.”

According to the BBC:

On the worst day of violence, 27 September, the junta said nine people had been killed, but the death toll is thought to be far higher.

There have since been reports of thousands of arrests. Monks are said to have been rounded up and held in make-shift detention compounds to be transported to prison camps in the north.

The international community has called on China, specifically, to honor human rights in Burma and exert pressure on the military rulers to halt the violent crackdown.

• “China’s crucial role in Burma crisis“
  By Jonathan Marcus
  Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News, New York

The US and the EU have long imposed a variety of sanctions against Burma’s military regime but, paradoxically, this means that they have relatively few levers to pull to influence Rangoon.

The countries that matter more to Burma are India and Russia; both of whom have trading relations with the military regime.

Russia even plans to sell Burma a nuclear research reactor.

But it is Burma’s biggest neighbour, China, that plays the most crucial role, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council it can help to limit the relative isolation that the Rangoon regime faces.

Both China and Russia, for that matter, vetoed a UN Security Council resolution last January that was critical of Burma’s rulers.

China has key strategic interests in the stability of Burma and accordingly strong ties with Rangoon….

Indeed, over time, as US and European ties to Burma have declined, those of China, Russia and India have increased.

China, then, is very much the key player; but Beijing faces conflicting pressures.

It has to match its energy and strategic interests – access to the Indian Ocean for example – with its desire for stability and its concern for its own reputation abroad, especially with the Beijing Olympics fast approaching.

Wednesday’s informal Security Council meeting served in part to gauge the Beijing government’s current position.

China’s UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, reaffirmed China’s predictable position that this crisis was not a threat to international peace and that sanctions would not be helpful.

Formal action is one thing. But might China’s concern with regional stability encourage Beijing to whisper some tough words in the Burmese leadership’s ear?

That is clearly what Western diplomats are hoping for.

In the short-term, sanctions may not have a great impact on Burma’s rulers.

But efforts are underway to impress upon them that there could be long-term consequences if the crisis spirals out of control.

Mother Jones was more critical in its coverage of China’s relationship with Burma’s oppressive regime:

In addition to the prominence of the clergy and the international attention, perhaps the most critical difference between now and ’88 is the role of China—Burma’s largest trading partner and, according to human-rights advocates, the military regime’s best friends. “China has provided the weapons and money to make this massacre happen while using its veto to paralyze any response from the UN Security Council,” says Jeremy Woodrum, co-founder of the US Campaign for Burma, which has advocated for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics next year.

Yet in the face of international demands to put pressure on the Burmese regime, China has insisted that its policy is non-interference. “China has remained silent on human rights in Burma,” says Matthew Smith with EarthRights International, an NGO with offices in Thailand and the United States. “Applying pressure on Burma would raise questions about its own record that China is not prepared to answer. And the country has an increasing demand for natural resources such as natural gas and timber, which the junta generously provides as long as China does not disrupt the brutal status quo.”

According to retired Indian army Maj. Gen Dipankar Banerjee, director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi, if human rights groups get traction with the argument that China “continues to support a dictatorial regime in its neighborhood and they can connect that to the 2008 Olympics, that will scare the shit out of Beijing.”

On September 30, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao urged Myanmar to seek a peaceful resolution to the protests, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Web site, reported Bloomberg.

Wen’s remarks came after nations, including the U.S, and the European Union pressed China, Myanmar’s closest ally, to use its influence.

“China hopes that all parties concerned in Myanmar show restraint, resume stability through peaceful means as soon as possible, promote domestic reconciliation and achieve democracy and development,” Wen said. “China is very concerned about the situation in Myanmar.”

For more on China’s stance on Myanmar, read Bernt Berger’s article, “Why China Has it Wrong in Myanmar,” in the Asia Times Online:

China’s stance on Myanmar is based on several misjudgments about the internal situation under the military regime and about Beijing’s own international role. In his recent speech to the United Nations Security Council, Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya admitted to problems in Myanmar. Yet he also expressed Beijing’s belief that these problems did not constitute a threat to international peace and security and that in the current situation new Western-led sanctions against the regime were not useful….

Although China is not the only country engaged in Myanmar and should not carry sole responsibility for the emerging crisis, it is a member of the UN Security Council and thereby indirectly accountable for any actions that are, or are not, taken. In view of a regime that unscrupulously mistreats its citizens and spurns with impunity all standards of civility, Beijing clearly lacks a sense of urgency.

See the following from China Digital Times for an excellent compilation of related stories and other analysis:

• “China’s Role in Burma’s Crisis Under Global Scrutiny“
  China Digital Times
  September 29, 2007

======

(Image via Avaaz.org)

TAKE ACTION:

If you would like to sign a petition urging China “to oppose a violent crackdown on the demonstrators, and to support genuine reconciliation and democracy in Burma,” click here.

The petition is sponsored by Avaaz.org, an action campaign co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and MoveOn.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

© 2007 ResponsibleChina.com: Environmental sustainability, corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship in China..