November 19, 2012

Priscilla Clapp, who served as chief of mission in Burma from 1999 to 2002, provides context to President Obama’s historic trip to Burma. 

A USIP adviser, Clapp is also the author of two USIP Special Reports on Burma, "Building Democracy in Burma," published in July 2007, and "Burma's Long Road to Democracy," published in November 2007.

USIP is engaged with the Asia Society and Blue Moon Fund in a Track II dialogue with Burma's first think tank, the Myanmar Development Resource Institute, in efforts to provide expertise and resources for economic, legal and political reform.

What are the expectations surrounding President Obama's trip to Burma?

President Obama is visiting Burma and Thailand this week in connection with his annual attendance at the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and East Asia Summits, which are being held in Cambodia this year. This will be the president’s fourth attendance at this annual event, which has brought him to Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam in past years. 

His visit to Burma aims to show strong U.S. support and encouragement for the dramatic democratic reform process that has been underway in Burma over the past 18 months.  He is expected to hold frank discussions with the leadership about our remaining human rights concerns, namely the political prisoners who continue to languish in jail, the unfinished peace process with ethnic minorities, particularly the Kachin, and the distressing communal violence in the Rakhine State.

I would also expect him to offer strong and wide-ranging U.S. support in consolidating and institutionalizing the political and economic reforms now underway, especially in the area of rule of law, capacity building, development of a vibrant civil society and rebuilding bilateral economic relations through investment and trade.

What is the importance of Burma for the U.S. in the region?

Burma’s reform process has had the effect of transforming the country from an isolated, inward-looking, pariah state into an active participant in regional and international institutions.  The United States welcomes this enthusiastically and believes that Burma can be a beacon of hope in the region and beyond -- a model for intelligent sustainable political and economic development -- if the reform process continues to move forward as it has for the past 18 months.  This is, of course, a tall order, but we are not alone.  Many in the international community share our hope for Burma’s future. While there is still a very long way to go, ultimately, the consolidation of democratic governance in Burma will enhance ASEAN’s growing importance as an emerging political and economic power in the region and beyond.

There are those who have expressed skepticism that this trip is too soon. Burma’s reform process is still ongoing. There are still ethnic clashes ongoing. Quite a few issues have not been resolved. How would you respond to the critics?

Yes, there are still widespread problems in Burma and many hurdles to be overcome.  No political transition as dramatic as what we have seen in Burma takes place without some degree of social disruption and instability, as we are seeing in the Rakhine State, nor can it be expected to resolve the failures of past policies overnight.  Burma is woefully underdeveloped, both politically and economically, many of its people live a hand-to-mouth existence, and the vestiges of 50 years of heavy-handed, unenlightened military dictatorship will linger for years.  They are embedded in the entire society.

This does not mean, however, that the United States should sit back and wait for all these problems to be solved, before engaging fully and demonstrating our strong support for the path Burma’s new leadership has chosen.  We wish to be a full partner in consolidating the reforms now underway and helping the Burmese people overcome their long years of deprivation. 

Furthermore, democracy and respect for human rights have been the central tenets of U.S. policy toward Burma for nearly 25 years.  Certainly no one questions this.  Therefore, it is fitting that the U.S. should welcome the Burmese government’s efforts to meet these concerns.  This will be the theme of the president’s visit and I’m sure the Burmese people will welcome him enthusiastically and rejoice in his show of support for democratic reform.

Is the administration giving up key leverage by moving to the final stage of the normalization process so quickly, rather than continue down the path of the action-for-action process?

On the contrary, we should see President Obama’s “engagement” policy as a form of continuing leverage, now that the Burmese government is embarked on a path toward democracy.  The sanctions approach we have used in the past represents a highly negative form of leverage that does not offer further encouragement to good behavior, rather it risks sending the wrong message.  If the political progress in Burma falters or reverses in the future, we already know it is quite easy to reinstitute punishing measures, as necessary.  But now is the time for positive reinforcement in the form of engagement.

How do you expect President Obama to approach the Rohingya issue with Burmese leaders?

I believe he is likely to reinforce the messages we have already been sending, namely, that the government should move more forcefully to apprehend the instigators of the violence on both sides, because there is evidence that small groups of extremists on both sides have been igniting the violence.  While the U.S. undoubtedly appreciates Naypyitaw’s effort to get at the root causes of the strife with its commission of inquiry, it would be counterproductive to allow radicals on both sides to expand the violence to the point where it could threaten the reform process itself.