Myanmar hosted US President Barack Obama this week in Nay Pyi Taw for the ASEAN and East Asia Summit. Obama, who visited the former 'paraiah State' for the second time in three years, said that the reforms in Myanmar were real but incomplete.
Analysis
Myanmar hosted US President Barack Obama this week in Nay Pyi Taw for the ASEAN and East Asia Summit. Obama, who visited the former ’paraiah State’ for the second time in three years, said that the reforms in Myanmar were real but incomplete. What could have otherwise been a shot-in-the-arm for President Obama, in the light of the US ending its ’isolationist policy’ towards Myanmar five years ago, is a mixed bag at best, as the reforms have come to be disputed. This has presented a challenge to the US and its allies in forging a formidable Asia-Pacific partnership.
President Obama landed in Nay Pyi Taw from Beijing, where he attended the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting and where Beijing also overtook Washington in playing a larger role in the APEC. From Myanmar, the US President headed for Brisbane in Australia, for the G-20 summit. Commentators blame it on the timing, saying President Obama would not have liked to visit Myanmar at a time when the nation’s civil strife had challenged the reforms underway in the former military-State.
Policy of engagement
Nearly after two decades of sanctions, the US has cautiously moved towards a policy of engagement with Burma (’Myanmar’ for much of the rest of the world) since March 2009, when the then US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton sent Stephen Blake to Myanmar. Since then, visits by top US State Department officials have been a regular feature.
The release of political prisoners and peace accord with armed ethnic groups in Myanmar were the bedrock of the economic and political reforms in the country. The US has come under criticism for going too far on its commitments towards the former dictatorial State.
Washington seems to have pursued Myanmar with a two-fold motive, becoming a leading investor in the country and rebalancing China’s influence. Intensified engagement with the US has affected relations of the junta-ruled government with China and that has cost Myanmar, but the US has failed to capitalise on the resultant void. The ensuing Muslim-centric humanitarian crisis in Rakhine State has caught world attention. The US failed to make any impact on the Thein Sein government for improving the communal situation in Myanmar. The army too has continued to attack bases of ethnic rebels even after ceasefire agreements had been signed.
President Obama’s reforms agenda seems to have been caught between strong winds. Myanmar is seen as as ab American ’Pivot to Asia’ but also seems to be fast slipping away from America’s broader design for the Asia- Pacific region. A weakened President Obama would have to take on China’s might in the region. To this end, he is also set to announce his policy towards Asia-Pacific while in Australia.
Political reforms and presidential polls
Myanmar would go in for presidential elections in 2015. The US would like to have Opposition leader and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi at the helm of affairs in Myanmar. Her contesting elections will depend on Parliament amending Article 477 of the Constitution. Parliament is scheduled to take up the work later in the week, and there are slim chances of it getting passed. This could leave the US, hard-pressed for options.
Prior to Obama’s, a meeting was held at President Thein Sein’s residence on 31 October, to which all political party leaders were invited. The meeting is said to have reviewed the political reforms in the country before the US President’s visit. Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed disappointment at the outcome of the meeting, saying that the reforms were unsatisfactory.All this was after the President Obama had spoken to President Thein Sein and promised support for the reforms.
Assessing the reforms
The contentious nature of the reforms has not stopped the world from coming closer to Myanmar. As the chair of ASEAN for the first time and host of the East Asia Summit for the second time, Myanmar has been able to extract commitments from leaders across the globe.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot committed to closer economic ties with Myanmar during his visit this week. Japan has also promised $250 billion loan for the country’s infrastructure development and the Dawei deep-sea port.
The US, which was to be a key to Myanmar’s opening to the world, has however been cautious and has taken positions on nature of reforms initiated by Myanmar. It has also been Myanmar’s most scathing critic on the latter’s treatment to the Muslims in Rakhine state.
The reforms and that too for a country emerging from the shadows of military rule need time. The US disillusionment with Myanmar is a result of its expectations from the nation, which might not have been realistic under the circumstances. However, it has come to accept that it will take time for democracy to come of age in Myanmar. Until then, the US can put pressure on the government to resolve the Rohingya-Muslim issue peacefully.
However, for now the situation in Myanmar has become a gamble for US interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
(The writer is a Research Assistant at the Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata)
Nepal: Continuing crisis in writing a new Constitution
Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury
Nepal’s political trajectory since last decade is remarkable. The country has been passing through a series of transitional phases in her march towards democracy and rule of law. In this context, the latest phase of 2006-07 has become very crucial with the promulgation of the Interim Constitution and the start of the Peace Process.
The 12-Point Understanding of November 2005 between the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and the then rebel Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN-M) was instrumental in leading the people’s movement of 2006, restoring the dissolved Parliament, eliminating direct royal rule and forming an interim government. Another landmark was the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) between the interim government of Nepal and CPN-M, which was concluded in November 2006.
The CPA formally ended the Maoist armed conflict by terminating military action and arms mobilisation by both Maoist and government. It kept combatants in cantonments and/or camps and called upon both parties ro commit themselves to upholding uphold human rights, international human rights laws, and civil liberties.
The CPA also had several other provisions for monitoring the management of arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M). This followed the all-party government with participation of CPN-M in cabinet which paved the road for Constituent Assembly elections. All these have made a new history for Nepal. However, the political leaders of Nepal have very little success in adopting country’s unanimously acceptable Constitution. Why has it been so? How much time will it take to adopt a constitution acceptable to all? Is political class in Nepal losing its credibility? Are fringe groups like Janajatis, Dalits, Madhesis and so on re-occupying the space?
Looking back
The first Constituent Assembly (CA) election was held on 10 April 2008 after two failed attempts. The election gave victory to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) as the largest party in the CA. Comprising 601 members from 25 political parties, the CA officially started its journey on 28 May 2008 with the mandate of drafting a democratic and inclusive Constitution within the stipulated pwriod of two years.
However, the CA failed to produce the new Constitution within the stipulated time and it caused much controversy and chaos within Nepal. On 28 May 2010, the CA passed the 8th Amendment Bill to the Interim Constitution to extend tenure of the CA by one year with a two-thirds majority. The Bill amended the existing two-year term with three years for adopting an inclusive Constitution.
But the CA has failed to do so and was ultimately dissolved with a number of contentious issues like the forms of government, the electoral system, name, number and the boundaries of federal provinces, protection of preferential rights, the independence of the judiciary and arrangements for the transitional period after the promulgation of the new Constitution. However, to the experts in Nepal, federalism has become the most contentious issue since the formation of the first CA. How the central State will enter the federal arrangement is a crucial question.
No comments:
Post a Comment