CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Hillary Clinton to Myanmar

by Joshua Kurlantzick
November 18, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama announces that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Myanmar, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Bali.

U.S. President Barack Obama announces that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Myanmar, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Bali (Jason Reed/Courtesy Reuters).

In what is surely the biggest news in U.S.-Myanmar relations in fifty years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that she will be traveling to Myanmar next month. On the same day, Aung San Suu Kyi announced she will be re-entering politics, setting the stage for her and her party, the National League for Democracy, to contest the next elections, which are believed to be coming in 2015. As the New York Times reported, “The twin events underscored the remarkable and sudden pace of change in Myanmar, which has stunned observers inside and outside the country.”

Clinton’s trip, though it caps off a year of serious reforms in Myanmar, is still something of a gamble. The new president, Thein Sein, does indeed seem to be a reformer, and possibly Myanmar’s de Klerk or Gorbachev. He has presided over an opening of the media environment, privatization of many companies,  a relaxation on political parties, a new dialogue with Suu Kyi, the freeing of significant numbers of Burma’s thousands of political prisoners,and a push to convince exiles who have fled the country to return. Still, many doubts remain about how much power Thein Sein himself wields, and whether the generals who formally retired after the elections last November will allow reform to continue.

In a piece last week for The New Republic, I outlined these challenges.

Indeed, it remains unclear whether the former senior military leadership, which has placed hard-liners throughout the top levels of the government, will allow reform to be consolidated if it costs them the wealth that they have (illicitly) gained over time. They may also achieve certain objectives — a new strategic relationship with the U.S. in order to balance their dependence on China; hosting the 2014 ASEAN Summit, greater aid and investment from the West — and then turn back the reforms. This has happened before in the mid-1990s and again in the early 2000s, where periods of détente were followed by periods of crackdown.

Still, there’s no doubt the level of optimism now is even higher than at those times. Thein Sein seems to have more power than previous reformers in the government, and Suu Kyi is now fully on board – and since she remains the most popular politician in Myanmar, her influence still matters enormously.

On Monday we’ll address what role Hillary Clinton can play on her trip.

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by Don Jameson

    Dear Josh: These are all good points and in dealing with Burma it is always wise to be cautious. But I don’t think it is correct to say that Thein Sein has more power than previous reformers. Khin Nyunt was one of the most powerful men in the junta but he was unseated in the midst of his reform efforts, although we do not know if that was the reason. I could be that Thein Sein is being given so much leeway precisely because he has little personal power and thus could be quickly reeled in if behind the scenes power-brokers think that is necessary. Nevertheless, there is no reasonable alternative for the US and Western nations but to encourage and nurture this new reform effort to the extent possible while retaining due reserve about what may happen in the longer term.

  • Posted by Dom Nardi

    While there were “reforms” during the mid-1990s and early-2000s, it’s clear that there’s never been anything approaching the pace and scope of what we’re seeing now. There might have been secret meetings between Suu Kyi and the junta, but the sheer public acceptance of Suu Kyi’s political role and symbolism is utterly revolutionary. Also, we’ve never had a situation with anything resembling checks and balances. We’re actually seeing real, vigorous debate between the chambers of the Hluttaw over policy, which means it should be harder to unite the elite against Suu Kyi. So, overall while you’re right to be cautious, there do seem to be deeper forces driving the current round of reforms.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required