The Great Game Over Burma | The Irrawaddy

The Great Game Over Burma | The Irrawaddy
 AUNG ZAW / The Irrawaddy, June 10, 2015

China’s President Xi Jinping, right, and Burmese President Thein Sein attend an official welcoming ceremony as Thein Sein arrives for the Boao Forum, in Sanya, Hainan province, on April 5, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi began a five-day visit to China on Wednesday, the first time the National League for Democracy chairwoman has made an official trip to Burma’s northern neighbor.

In this April 11, 2013 story, The Irrawaddy looks at the changing dynamics of Burma’s relationship with China, and the wider world.

The recent political opening in Burma surprised many neighboring countries, including China. The government’s reforms have no doubt received welcome applause, but for Burma’s traditional friends and foes, they have also created room for new competition in the country. The rules of the game have changed quickly in Burma, and the world is watching to see how international relations, particularly with China, shift in turn.

Since Burma regained independence from the British in 1948, leaders and diplomats at the Foreign Affairs Ministry have devoted most of their time, energy and resources to improving ties with China. We have seen rocky relations as well as honeymoon periods between both countries.

In the past, China had openly supported Burma’s banned Communist Party. At points, the East Asian superpower even dispatched troops to the northern territory of Kachin State—forcing Burma to set rounds of border demarcation meetings in the 1950s and 1960s. Burma also saw anti-China riots in 1967, as Beijing stirred up disturbances by encouraging Chinese agents to support Communist cells in the country during the Cultural Revolution period.

Although both countries signed a treaty of friendship and mutual non-aggression based on five principles of peaceful coexistence, China has sometimes breached these core principles to test the so-called paukphaw relationship, while Burma has avoided antagonizing its northern neighbor.

Though many Burmese political observers dislike Gen. Ne Win, who came to power through a coup in 1962 and ruled Burma with an iron fist until his regime was ousted in 1988, some give him credit for playing a “neutral” foreign policy during the Cold War, which they say saved Burma from becoming the puppet of any giant power in the region or the West. For the Chinese Communist Party, Burma served as a buffer zone to deter proxies of the West along with India and the Soviet Union.

Certainly, however, in the back of their minds, Burma’s leaders have always feared China. Burma’s late Prime Minister U Nu, who held numerous meetings with Chinese leaders to settle several disputes, once publicly expressed this fear in a statement after the Chinese Communist Party assumed power in 1949. “Our tiny nation cannot have the effrontery to quarrel with any power,” he said. “And least among these, could Burma afford to quarrel with new China?”

But the situation is changing now. Last weekend, Burma’s President Thein Sein visited China, where he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. During his three-day visit for the Boao Forum, a summit of government and business leaders, Thein Sein played relatively safe but firmly stressed that Burma would practice an independent and active foreign policy while still adhering to the five principles of peaceful coexistence. He said Burma would focus more on developing ties with other countries in the Southeast Asian region. He also urged China to invest responsibly in Burma and to earn the trust of local Burmese people.

As Burma’s leaders continue to forge closer relations with the West and other Southeast Asian nations, the Chinese, like everyone else, are preparing to adapt.

Recently, the outgoing Chinese ambassador publicly met democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi in Naypyidaw. Chinese diplomats have acknowledged previous meetings between them. To handle Burma going forward, China has appointed a veteran diplomat in Asian affairs, Yang Houlan, who served in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea. His appointment is reminiscent of the past. In 1963, a year after Ne Win took power, China appointed Geng Biao as vice foreign minister to Burma. Geng Biao was a senior diplomat who had served missions in Europe soon after the formation of the People’s Republic of China.

In the face of rising Western influence, it is likely that China will employ “soft power” to win back the hearts and minds of the Burmese people. During a previous visit, Thein Sein confessed a fondness for Chinese television dramas. “Since childhood, I’ve been watching Chinese television,” the president told China Radio International.

On the political front, Yang Houlan’s appointment as ambassador and China’s involvement in ceasefire talks between Kachin rebels and the Burmese government are signs that Beijing is serious about settling Burma’s lingering ethnic conflicts, which have threatened border stability as well as Chinese gas pipelines and a railway project in the country. Kachin military leader Gen. Gun Maw, who is now involved in ceasefire dialogues with the Burmese government, told The Irrawaddy that Kachin leaders asked international observers including the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Nations to observe the peace talks, but that the Chinese did not want any outsiders (i.e. Westerners) getting involved. Instead, China invited the Burmese government and Kachin leaders to hold a series of meetings on Chinese soil.

A stable and prosperous Burma will no doubt benefit everyone. However, Burma’s improved relations with the West, and particularly with the United States, will complicate relations with China. The more Burma improves ties with the West, the more Western influence in the country is expected to rise.

Burma has seen growing anti-China sentiment at home. Most ordinary people in the country were repulsed by Beijing’s support for the previous brutal regime, and many continue to protest against China’s extraction of natural resources with little regard for the environment and local populations. Some critics say China has only given its support to exploit Burma’s natural resources and gain strategic access to the Indian Ocean.

China is Burma’s largest investor, channeling between US$14 billion and $20 billion into the country since 1988. Energy-hungry China has poured money into hydropower projects in the country’s ethnic regions, and its three major oil corporations have a strong foothold. Many Burmese worry that Chinese investments and aid programs are like a Trojan horse. However, given the government’s suspension of the China-funded Myitsone dam project and public protests over the controversial Letpadaung copper mine, it seems likely that civil society groups will target many more Chinese-backed projects in the future and that these investments will become political time bombs.

The fact is that Burma no longer needs to hide behind China. Nevertheless, pundits argue that Beijing will not let go easily. When former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Burma for the first time in November 2011, Chinese leaders played it coy. The Global Times newspaper, a mouthpiece for the Chinese government, wrote during Clinton’s visit that China did not resist Burma’s attempts to improve relations with the West but would not accept “seeing its interests stomped on.” The message was clear: China would not tolerate Burma becoming an ally of the United States.

In October 2011, Burma announced its decision to suspend construction of the Myitsone dam in Kachin State, a project that had provoked strong public opposition. China was bewildered by the announcement, which came just five months after Thein Sein’s first official visit to Beijing, where he signed nine cooperation agreements including a $765 million credit package and a comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership.

But the question remained, would Burma turn against China? The answer is simple: no. Burma doesn’t yet have that luxury.

It will be interesting to watch how Burma handles the delicate balancing act between China and the rest of the world, maintaining its old alliance while proving it is not a satellite state. Burma’s generals are well versed in the art of pitting international powers against one another. But if Burma falters at the game this time, the country’s leaders will no doubt face accusations of playing with fire.

Just before her trip to Burma in 2011, Clinton, who announced the US policy of a pivot toward Asia, received a counterbalancing message from Naypyidaw: Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, commander in chief of Burma’s armed forces, flew to China to meet with then Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping. The military chief signed a defense cooperation agreement, and the two sides talked of enhancing their comprehensive strategic partnership.

At home, Thein Sein told Clinton that Burma would continue its relationship with China while strengthening ties with other countries. He pointedly called Beijing a strong, geopolitically important partner that had encouraged Burma to improve relations with the West. Ironically, China secretly hosted a rare meeting between Burma and US officials in Beijing just four years earlier, in 2007.

In September 2012, before making his first official visit to the United States, Thein Sein traveled to China. Ne Win, the former dictator, likewise received Chinese leaders in Rangoon before making trips to the West, and they urged him not to make political commitments to the United States.

Washington is also being careful not to upset China. During his historic visit to Burma in November last year, President Barack Obama said in a speech that the United States welcomed China’s peaceful rise. And when asked whether US policies in Burma centered on relations with China, US Ambassador Derek Mitchell told The Irrawaddy that his country’s increasing engagement was “about Burma.”

“It’s always been about Burma,” he said. “There’s a misunderstanding in China, and even among some commentators, that everything we do in Asia is about containing China or encircling China, but that’s simply not the case. Our policy toward Burma has been about Burma for 20 years, 25 years, before China was so-called rising or re-emerging. Our policy toward Burma is evolving because Burma itself is evolving.”

Burma and the United States both understand they must not agitate China. But almost everyone else in Burma, except for those embedded with the Chinese, seem more than ready to welcome the West. They know it is the best way to counter Chinese influence.

Though it has sparked ongoing debate in Naypyidaw among top leaders and opposition members, Burma’s bid to escape China’s shadow is obvious. Last year, Min Aung Hlaing visited China’s historical adversary Vietnam before going to Beijing. In addition to visiting China soon after his appointment to the presidency, Thein Sein went to India, indicating a desire to diversify Burma’s portfolio of strategic partners in the region. His former boss Snr-Gen Than Shwe did the same, making two state visits—to China and India—before leaving his throne.

Burma also seeks to expand defense ties with its neighbors. In the past, Burmese leaders allegedly allowed China’s listening posts and a radar facility on Burma’s Great Coco Island, reportedly to monitor regional military activities, especially air and naval movements in the Bay of Bengal, and to conduct surveillance of India’s strategically important tri-service facilities at Port Blair o n South Andaman Island. But in March, Burma and India conducted joint naval exercises and patrols in the Bay of Bengal, while India also reportedly ran a training program for Burma’s armed forces, including exercises for pilots of the Russian-built Mi-35 helicopter gunships.

In February, Burma also sent its two frigates, UMS 561 and UMS 562, to the Thai island of Phuket for the first time in 18 years. Thanasak Patimaprakorn, supreme commander of the Thai armed forces, said in Bangkok that the visit of the Burmese ships was intended to celebrate 65 years of diplomatic ties between both countries, with expectations for closer military ties going forward.

Since improving relations with the West, Burma has been invited by the United States to observe the annual Cobra Gold military exercise in Thailand. In the near future, the United States will likely provide non-lethal training to Burma’s army officers. And last month, Australia announced it was lifting restrictions on military engagement with Burma in recognition of the country’s democratic reforms.

Burma will probably bolster relations with Japan as well. Ties between both countries date back to the World War II era, and Japan’s interests run deep in Burma. Not wanting to miss the train now, Tokyo recently decided to resume aid in Burma, and more Japanese companies and NGOs will soon play a counterbalancing role against Chinese influence.

As a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), Burma could also assume a proactive role in the regional grouping, as it did during the golden days of the 1950s. Ironically, Asean allowed Burma to join in 1997 because it wanted to pull the pariah state from China’s sphere of influence, but Burma’s reliance on its northern neighbor deepened. Now 15 years later, Burma must act with urgency to develop a foreign relations strategy for the world—not just China—as it integrates more with Asean, India and the rest of Asia.

Of course, Burma must get its house in order first, paying serious attention on the domestic front to its northern territory, where the national government has never been able to establish its law and order. (In 2010, Burma could not hold elections in the Wa region, and soon afterward fierce fighting broke out in Kachin State.)

But as the country continues opening up, Burma will test its independent and active foreign policy when it hosts Asean foreign ministers in 2014 at a summit in the country. Everyone will watch to see how the former pariah state exerts its emerging international status to placate neighbors and new friends from the West.

Will Myanmar’s reforms continue after 2015? | New Mandala

Will Myanmar’s reforms continue after 2015? | New Mandala

TREVOR WILSON, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

 3 NOVEMBER 2014

As Myanmar prepares for its first general election since its political reforms began under President Thein Sein in 2011, observers are wondering about the prospects for continued political, social and economic policies after 2015. Whatever the actual results of the elections, domestically, the impacts on political and social change beyond 2015 should be extensive, and the institutional and psychological effects on Myanmar will be equally profound.

Not surprisingly, the extent of uncertainty about the near-term future, and especially about the political complexion of a post-2015 government worries some people. Nothing about the elections is yet decided, for example: the date (possibly November 2015); the parties (with amalgamations and realignments still occurring); the candidates (Aung San Suu Kyi will stand for the elections, but under the present constitution cannot be a candidate for president; President Thein Sein originally said he would not re-contest, but may be having second thoughts); and the policies (official campaigning will not commence until just before the elections). It cannot be assumed that many more details about policies will emerge before the elections as parties and candidates concentrate on their electoral preparations.

To some extent, the trajectory and direction of current reforms can be expected to continue. The main reason for this is the widespread expectations that have been generated around the promise of political and policy change. Of course, the current reform agenda still contains much unfinished business – educational reform, for example, is just starting, with the passage only in September 2014 of the new university law. Media reforms and procedures governing political activities (protests, strikes, etc) are still being refined. Nevertheless, most issues have already attracted extensive public debate, with active participation from opposition parties, including (since April 2012) the National League for Democracy (NLD), so to a considerable extent the views of different parties on many issues are already known, so the risk of unexpected developments should be low.

In other important areas, such as rule of law and judicial system reform, however, change has not yet really begun. Indeed, public discourse over what is needed or what is feasible has not really advanced far at all. Myanmar’s politicians are perhaps being cautious about committing themselves too specifically too early on sensitive or complicated issues, and we may not see significant developments between now and the elections. Yet it seems clear from the amount of public manifestation we have already witnessed – much more than ever before in modern Burmese history – that the people are hungry for more change.

Indeed, in the past three years, Myanmar has benefited from more discourse about public policy issues than ever before. In most key sectors, major reviews of policies and priorities occurred during 2012–13. Such issues have attracted active participation from opposition parties, in the parliament and through the media, and through workshops and regular consultations, with more contestation of ideas than has ever been permitted in the past. This is not to say that priorities and policies have been adequately discussed in all cases, or that the present opposition parties would necessarily be prepared to accept all these programs proceeding after 2015. But it is probably unlikely that the proposals outlined in all of these plans would be radically overturned. In these circumstances, it would be surprising if most, if not all, the momentum towards reform were not maintained.

On the other hand, there are plenty of indicators already in place directly affecting the nature of the government agenda beyond 2015, and these allow some predictions as to what might be expected, no matter the type of government. Many examples can be found where policy and program priorities have been already set for beyond 2015. Most of these plans are likely to have bipartisan support (a new concept for Myanmar?) – at least in general terms, if not in the specifics. While some new plans might superficially resemble the centralised planning Myanmar engaged in in the past, since they have been drawn up in the reform period they should reflect current expectations and aspirations. Many of the new plans have already been promised international funding for a 4-5 year period, so the incentives are strongly for maintaining such medium-term programs.

Examples of some of the long-term plans already approved are:

• The first post-2011 Five-Year Plan (2011–16) (targeted towards ‘People Centred Development’, announced in September 2013 by Minister for National Planning & Economic Development, Dr Kan Zaw;
• The long-term National Comprehensive Development Plan (2011–13) (With four pillars of reforms – political, economic, public administration and private sector development, the country is speeding up to reach its goals within the time period,” announced in 2013 by Minister for National Planning, Dr Kan Zaw);
• Basic Framework for Economic & Social Development (2012), Approved by the National Planning Commission;
• Various sectoral plans such as: the Health Workforce Strategic Plan (2012–17), Tourism Master Plan (2013–20), Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR) (2014–20), a National Strategic Plan For Women’s Advancement (2013–2022); a Myanmar National Spatial Development Plan (2012), etc.

In addition, and importantly, in the many areas where international assistance is required to ensure sufficient capacity, a number of international agencies have already promised funding for some fundamental reforms over a longer term extending beyond 2015, such as:

• The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has developed a comprehensive rule of law program (2013–15) under its Democratic Governance mandate, in conjunction with Myanmar Government agencies and the non-government sector. The Coordinating Committee on the UNDP’s Rule of Law Centres is chaired by Daw Aung Sung Suu Kyi. The program aims specifically to strengthen rule of law and access to justice over the long-term.
• The World Bank has approved a multi-year (2015–17) Ayeyarwady Integrated River Basin Management Project to be implemented by the Water Resources Department to be funded by a loan of USD100 million.
• The Inle Lake Conservation 5-Year Action Plan (2015–2016 to 2019–2020) led by the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, in collaboration with Shan State Government and with technical support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

It would be unlikely that any new Myanmar Government after 2015 would object to these programs whose funding is already guaranteed and whose design had already been open for debate.

At another level, after the elections there will also be continuity in Myanmar’s formal integration into the ASEAN Economic Community from 2015. This means that many elements of Myanmar’s integration into the regional economy can be foreseen, and are on a reasonably predictable path for the next few years at least. This is not to say that beyond 2015 Myanmar will not continue to experience many domestic economic policies of its own, but external policies – such as trade and investment related policies –will continue to be aligned with agreed ASEAN standards.

No assessment of future trends in Myanmar can ignore the ongoing serious sources of internal conflict and tension, which in some cases have intensified since 2011 and for which solutions are not necessarily yet in sight. These include communal conflict between Buddhist and Muslims, the unresolved Rohingya problem, and the instances of running insurgencies with the Kachin and some Shan groups, which have not been amenable to improvement through the Myanmar Government’s peace process for negotiations with all ethnic groups. Such problems remain major political risks for Myanmar for the medium-term, and will affect attitudes to Myanmar inside and outside the country. However, although their continuation significantly complicates Myanmar’s political transition, it does not necessarily mean reform will stop.

The single potentially most worrying element of political risk is the possibility that the broad political “understanding” between the current government and the army on the one hand and all the opposition groups on the other might collapse. This scenario is especially fraught if it extends to the army being so frustrated that they are tempted to stage a military coup. At the moment, this “understanding” is only sustained by personal commitments on the part of President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi in particular. However, it enables the sort of unprecedented “reconciliation” meeting between political leader that was convened on 30–31 October 2014, at the instigation of Thein Sein, and that can be crucial for avoidance of outright conflict.

Broadly, the period after 2015 will be critical in bringing about the next, arguably urgent, stages of political reform, if Myanmar is to achieve the democratic consolidation it now needs. This will include embedding a form of practical federalism, with real decentralisation of government authority, real contestation of public policies, and real participation of regional populations. But it should also encompass a gradual withdrawal of the army from all but national security responsibilities.

Trevor Wilson is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Political and Social Change at the Australian National University. He previously served as Australian Ambassador to Myanmar.

Abolishing Burma’s feared border force: PR or reform? | Asian Correspondent

Abolishing Burma’s feared border force: PR or reform?
Francis Wade Jul 15, 2013

Surprise news arrived on Sunday with a statement from President Thein Sein’s office announcing the disbanding of NaSaKa, the feared security force that has manned Burma’s border with Bangladesh (and previously the Chinese and Thai borders), and attracted fierce criticism for its treatment of civilians in western Burma. It was always seen as symbolic of the Burmese military’s evil – a force that acts with total impunity and indifference towards the suffering of those it is meant to ‘protect’. Formed of a toxic marriage between the police, army, customs and immigration offices, it has long been unclear to whom it answers, and likely deliberately so.

So the announcement appears a positive step. A quick Google search of the word will give an idea of why it’s held in such fear in Arakan state, and why its departure would bring much relief: razed villages, mass rapes and extrajudicial killings are included in its repertoire. It’s the kind of shadowy group with a malleable remit that can induce, to great effect for a central government whose control of the peripheries has always been shaky, perpetual terror among civilians.

But as with any ‘development’ in Burma, there is equal cause for concern. The timing of the announcement, coinciding with Thein Sein’s trip to the UK, is clearly tactical. The UK government has been quite explicit with its feelings about Naypyidaw’s treatment of the Rohingya, who along with Arakanese have felt quite brutally the agenda of NaSaKa.

“Disbanding the NaSaKa is a good way to soften the blows he [Thein Sein] will receive on that, without really having to do anything substantial to improve the situation of the Rohingya,” says David Mathieson from Human Rights Watch.

The fear is that it could just be a name change – that the personnel could regroup under a different banner. Burma is no stranger to this – see the Border Guard Forces in the country’s east, for example, who are merely members of formerly government-aligned militias brought into the ‘legal fold’, with little done to reform their bad ways.

What’s also apparent with the NaSaKa incident is some face-saving on the part of the government. Thein Htey, the general recently sanctioned by the US for coordinating ongoing weapons deals with North Korea, had been the former Minister for Border Affairs, ostensibly the NaSaKa boss. “It’s nothing more than removing a target organization that became too controversial and a PR liability,” says Burmese academic Maung Zarni. He suggested it might also be a way to divert attention from a press bill just approved by the Lower House that does little to break with past censorship laws, and effectively bans criticism of the military-drafted 2008 constitution.

And in turn, it works very well for the UK, which recently announced it would begin military engagement with Burma. The abolishment of NaSaKa takes away some of the controversy surrounding the engagement, which is probably more to do with geostrategic concerns, but still cloaked in human rights chat.

And again, it offers the pretense of a reform effort in the Burmese military that is not actually happening. Those NaSaKa personnel won’t be retiring from active duty, but will probably be reassigned. And even if they’re withdrawn from Arakan state and placed elsewhere, the same police and military that have made life so miserable for Arakanese and Rohingya will remain, guided by the same mentality towards civilians that really should be the target of reform. “In the absence of accountability for the crimes committed by Nasaka soldiers, the utility of their disbandment is highly limited,” says Matthew Smith, executive director of Fortify Rights International. “There is nothing to prevent the next security force from simply replicating Nasaka’s abusive ways, particularly if it comprises the same soldiers.”

Is China wooing Burma to maintain its projects? | Asian Correspondent

Is China wooing Burma to maintain its projects? | Asian Correspondent
Zin Linn, Jun 25, 2013

President of  Burma Thein Sein received a Chinese delegation led by Member of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Mr. Yang Jiechi at the Credentials Hall of the Presidential Palace in Nay-Pyi-Taw on Monday, the state-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper said. Yang arrived in Nay-Pyi-Taw, the country’s new capital, on Sunday for a two-day visit at the invitation of the Thein Sein government.

According to the Chinese State Councilor, the two countries are traditionally friendly neighbors and Sino-Myanmar relations and bilateral cooperation were underway. He acknowledged great steps made by consecutive leaders cementing bilateral relations and mutual friendship. Yang Jiechi highlighted the President’s efforts for steps forward in bilateral friendship and cooperation in culture.

President U Thein Sein received a Chinese delegation led by Member of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Mr. Yang Jiechi at the Credentials Hall of the Presidential Palace in Nay-Pyi-Taw on 24 June 2013. (Photo: http://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/)

Yang also acknowledged peace talks between the Burmese government and the KIA group held in Myit-kyi-na, the capital of Kachin state, saying China was pleased about it. Yang said he looked forward to seeing a ceasefire agreement as early as possible to build lasting peace and stability along the China- Burma borderline.  China will continue playing a positive role in these relations, he said.

Moreover, he said  his country always respects the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Burma. He also guaranteed to work together for development of both nations’ border-regions and economic development.

Yang expressed hopes for the implementation of the Kyauk-pyu Industrial Zone Project and said China seeks to play a part in the tasks of ensuring development of the southwest part of  Burma. He also made an offer to assist Burma in its XXVII SEA Games, the New Light of Myanmar said.

President Thein Sein said that the people of the two neighboring states have a good relationship, considering that they share a 2000 kilometer-long border. There is a history of bilateral cooperation between the two nations and completion of mutual comprehensive strategic partnership had started during his trip to China in 2011, Thein Sein said.

The country had seen extensive reform processes after his government took office and it was necessary to take lessons from China’s experiences of stability and economic growth within a 30-year time frame. He expressed thanks for the Chinese contribution to disbursement of loans for development of the agriculture sector.

He expressed his country’s welcome towards China’s investment which should assure to create good business enterprise environment and make certain the smooth launching of the two countries’ cooperation projects.

Regarding efforts in seeking peace and stability in the nation, President Thein Sein said his government would carry on driving the peace process to be aware of peace in the Kachin state and guarantee a peaceful borderline involving the two countries.

The President mentioned his thanks to Kyaukpyu Industrial Zone Project as a regional development. He also expressed thanks for the Chinese offer for opening and closing ceremonies of SEA Games and for assisting in Burma’s ASEAN Chairmanship in 2014.  In addition, he showed gratitude for donation of three Buddha tooth relics to Burma for public obeisance in Yangon and Mandalay.

Next, they held comprehensive discussions on matters related to development of the sectors of health, ensuring peace and stability in border regions of the two countries and cementing bilateral comprehensive strategic partnership, the state-run newspaper said.

Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi also had talks with Burma Vice President Nyan Tun and met the House Speaker Thura Shwe Mann during his visit. He exchanged words widely with Burma parliamentarians, members of political parties and different officials on promoting the two countries’ relations.

According to the Arakan Human Rights and Development Organization, China is planning to construct a major railway-line to link Yunnan Province’s capital of Kunming with the Kyaukphru deep-sea port and special industrial economic zone. The rail line is expected to be completed in 2015 and will provide China’s land-locked southwestern region with a trade outlet to markets in South and Southeast Asia, via Burma’s ports. A disregard of human rights for local stakeholders related to Burmese-Chinese managed development projects on Ramree Island in Arakan/Rakhine state has already been documented, AHRDO said.

China dominates the construction sector in Burma, including numerous hydropower projects and a deep-water sea port project in Kyauk-phru in Rakhine State. The most important Chinese project is a gas and oil pipeline across Burma from Kyaukphru to Ruili, on the China border. The 771-kilometer-long pipeline will provide a shortcut to carry crude oil from Africa and the Middle East into China instead of the sea route via Malacca Strait. The natural gas will come from fields off Burma’s west coast.

Afterward, the 771-kilometer-long Chinese pipeline project has been criticized by local inhabitants with reference to unfair land grabbing, controversial compensation and environmental disaster. Chinese companies should abide by the international norms doing development projects with respect to the voice of the people who live in the province.

According to analysts, criticism of the development projects has been swelling in Burma as pro-democracy and environmental activists have started using their citizens’ rights under the new government, which is calling itself a reformist and working to become a democratic administration.

However, President Thein Sein government has suspended a controversial $3.6 billion Myitsone dam hydroelectric power project in September 2011 since the Chinese-financed project has faced objections from various social strata nationwide, according to the media reports.

Clinton Concludes Landmark Burma Trip

---

By BA KAUNG Friday, December 2, 2011

---

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concluded a landmark visit to Burma on Friday, and left behind several possibilities for a normalization in long-strained relations between the United States and the isolated Southeast Asian country.

During her two-day visit which brought her to Rangoon and Naypyidaw, Clinton met with Burmese President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, both of whom described her visit as “historic.”

After a formal meeting with Clinton at her home in Rangoon on Friday morning, Suu Kyi said she is happy with the way the US is engaging with Burma, describing the Western superpower's policy as one that aspires to promote the process of democratization.

Speaking at a joint press briefing from the veranda of her Rangoon home with Clinton, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate said, “We are so happy that Secretary Clinton had a very good meeting in Naypyidaw [with President Thein Sein] and we are happy with the way in which the United States is engaging with us. It is true engagement that we hope will promote the process of democratization.”

Read more Clinton Concludes Landmark Burma Trip