As  Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the avatar of democracy spends her last day in Washington on her 17 day U S tour, I am very worried about US policy options towards Burma. Although there is deep bipartisan support for her efforts to bring democracy to Burma, the visit could become politicized in the heat of the presidential election campaign as the two parties are running almost neck to neck and Burma could just be a small porn in the big chess game of American politics? We hope that, Americans would listen carefully to what Daw Aung San Suu Kyi says as her suffering at the hands of a repressive military regimes has been great and her leadership of the fledgling democracy movement has been so exceptional, we hope and pray that she could become a force for resolving conflicts well beyond the borders of Burma.  

            Her visit raises a host of interesting issues, for U.S. foreign policy makers. The pivot will be US-China relations with Burma as a medium which will have a profound effect on the ethnic nationalities of Burma and the other Asian countries. The helpful punitive actions in promoting democracy and respect for human rights, and how to use foreign aid and foreign investment to promote equality, democracy together with the U.S. interests is of immense value to the people of Burma and that of the world.[1]

            China, was and still is the Burmese Generals’ best friend during the 23 years of harsh and tyrannical military rule, following the uprising in 1988 that catapulted Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to worldwide fame as an icon of democracy. But, China was not prepared for the sharp course of change under going now, and harbours an understandable concerns about seeing another thriving democracy at his back door. This is a challenge to the U.S. State Department, to convince their Chinese counterparts that American friendship with Burma is not detrimental to the Chinese interests. The rest of Asia particularly the ASEAN community will be pleased to see its transition to democracy as they want to modernize their economy.[2]

                At home, Daw Suu Kyi’s short trip to Bangkok to an economic summit, attracted so much attention and triumphal visit to a number of countries in Europe, during which she personally received in Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 1991, and now after 15 years under house arrest, Daw Suu is receiving a rapturous welcome in to Washington and  travelling extensively for almost two weeks to over half a dozen cities receiving accolades, including a Congressional medal, from a number of institutions across the US, while at UN Headquarters in New York, Ban Ki-Moon praised her as a global symbol of human rights and have great expectations and hope that she will lead this path of reconciliation and greater participatory democracy and development of her country. All these will naturally arouse the envy of the old man Than Shwe and the hard liners of the Tatmadaw who still wields full power behind the Burmese throne and can easily upturn the events as Daw Suu has often indicated. Hence the US and the West must take great care not to put all the eggs in the basket for the Burmese Generals are still very tricky, crafty and treacherous as “Lying the very concept of Truth,” is still their hall mark e.g. former Colonel Aung Min, a minister in President Thein Sein's office, made a press conference at the UN, the other day that justifying the hypothesis that the Tatmadaw shoots back only when they are fired upon, tries to paint the picture as if it Kachin were the bad guys.[3] If that hypothesis carries water, then the Tatmadaw need not use howitzer or air power to fight the Kachin, when everyone knows that launching full-scale war, increasing troop numbers, intensifying military operations and conducting genocide against innocent civilians while at the same time engaging in hollow talks with the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) is exactly what they are doing [4] How can one trust the government with such white lies? They always say one thing and did another.

American Internal Politics link to Burma Policy

            The Obama administration’s policy of “principled engagement” (replacing the Bush administration’s hard line policy) has convinced that engagement helped or that the turn can be amply explained by internal factors unrelated to the sanctions. But it is a fact that the US Administration is still very much focussed on "Action for Action" in Burma, a reflection of traditional US "conditionality" policies based on performance against benchmarks, a strategy practiced before the rapprochement of Daw Suu and Thein Sein.[5]

            We noted that the US policy towards Burma is remarkably and unobtrusively locked into the internal US political process. When former presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush, advocated the policy of regime change, with little or no help to the opposition (both the pro democracy and the ethnic nationalities) it was ineffective. However when Obama's policy of

            “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent,    know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are          willing to unclench your fist." [6]

 approached towards Burma has proven that it is not only the most effective foreign policy in East Asia but on the other hand the Burmese Generals have realised their folly of being on the wrong side of history.

            The policy of this “pragmatic engagement"- dialogue at high levels and continuation of some sanctions has admirable worked. One must recollect that it was only in August this year, Obama signed legislation continuing the sanctions against all Burma’s imports for another year on the basis that the country was a specific threat to US security and national interests - similar to language used to justify sanctions against North Korea was now lifted with the visit of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. [7]

                We note that it is significant that US President Barack Obama personally contacted Suu Kyi to gain her approval to ensure that Secretary of State Clinton's visit in early December 2011 created no negative internal political backlash. In fact for years, the US has hoped Daw Suu Kyi would pursue an important and productive liberalizing role in Burmese society. Now, as a politician and no longer the almost mythical figure of democracy in Burma, Daw Suu Kyi needs the support of the quasi military administration, composed largely of her former jailers (military officials), as much as it needs her moral authority as 25%  of the parliamentary seats are reserved for still-active military officials. But if she is to rise beyond her present status as a minority member of the legislature to an executive position after the 2015 polls, it would require the support of the military to amend the constitution, which now effectively precludes her from holding presidential or vice presidential positions because of the foreign allegiance of her two sons.[8] (Regarding this Aung Min has bluff that they will change). Besides she cannot allow the Tatmadaw to be a state within a state independent of the civilian control, as written in the Nargis Constitution of 2008, and carry on the war in Kachin state despite the President’s order to cease fire
How Far is Burma’s Glasnost?

            Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to US  has been accepted by the world that Burma reforms is a fait acconpli with some skepticism but one cannot count all the chickens because some eggs are still to be hatched. Isn't the media supposed to be a force that keeps the politicians accountable? In the West one knew it by just turning on the TV or even visiting most news websites, yet the regime fails to introduce the much-heralded media law. They want to hide something and the regime did not seem to comprehend that the media is the Fourth Estate and not for the State. In addition Parliament fails to approve any of the 24 new bills introduced during the fourth session (July-September).If I were to highlight some of them

(1)   Despite efforts by some opposition MPs, regime officials and USDP MPs continue to block fundamental legislative reforms, including the repeal of existing oppressive laws and the adoption of progressive legislation.

(2)   Local Parliaments remain on the sidelines of Burma’s politics. Ten of the 14 Division and State Parliaments have not convened since March.

(3)   Military-appointed MPs continue to sit in Parliament without actively contributing to the proceedings.

(4)   While the situation worsens in Kachin and Arakan States, Parliament fails to adequately debate those crises. Instead, the regime uses Parliament as a platform to spread Naypyidaw’s propaganda.

(5)   Parliament approves the Foreign Investment Law. However, President Thein Sein bows to pressure from local business leaders and decides to return the draft to Parliament.

(6)   Parliament forms a commission to investigate land confiscation complaints but does not challenge laws that justify arbitrary land confiscation.

Even though Daw Suu Kyi and fellow NLD MPs elected, their impact is limited to three proposals and all were rejected.[9]

            These are some of the practical steps of the Burmese Glasnost not at all promising. Not that I am predicting Daw Suu Kyi to be somewhat like Boris Yeltsin of Soviet Russia to dismantle the existing system but that the US must decipher its foreign policy in such a way that will help Daw Suu Kyi and her colleagues to fulfill the historical task of her father who founded modern Burma way back in 1947 at the little village of PangLong in Shan State. The Real Genuine Union of Burma (ppfrSefaomjynfaxmifffpk ) where everybody would be treated equal as embodied in the universal declaration of human rights and the Non- Myanmar (ethnic nationalities) will not be treated as a second citizens or forcibly assimilated into the Myanmar society as what they are doing now, like changing the country’s name and national flag without the consensus of the people, proving beyond doubt that dictators can do what they like. The woes of Burma today are deeply rooted in the inadequate constitutional drafting since 1947 which has to be rushed through to completion to get independence from Britain without reflecting the spirit of Panglong. Even though the ethnic homelands were recognized as constituent states, power was concentrated in the central government. This third constitution is the worst.

            The struggle for democracy, and ethnic rights are just two sides of a coin and cannot separated from one another. The US Foreign Policy on Burma must heal these gaps, if she and the international community want to see a stable Burma. But the country’s fundamental problem is not just about leadership, policy failure, dysfunctional institutions, rights abuses or fractured opposition movements, it is confronted with nothing less than a full-scale pathological process of internal colonization, this time by its own Myanmar dominated military. This is an evolutionary process which was set in motion since the coup of 1962 decisively established one-party military rule, where the Myanmar military and the State cannot be separated.  Indeed Burma has evolved into a dual-colony in which the population of more than 50 million citizens is being herded into a political space via the Orwellian “7-steps road map for democracy.”[10] 

            The US will have to help Daw Suu Kyi not to allow the hard liners backed by its 400,000-strong military to continue making decisions with massive societal and ecological consequences for the whole population; only this time their decisions are going to be made by the Nargis Constitutionally mandated, and in accord with the laws of the land.   Further, this small group of men subscribe to an irredeemably myopic and toxic version of ethno-nationalism which refashions Burma along the old feudal lines where the majority “Myanmar and Buddhists,” rough ride shod over the Non Myanmar ethnic nationalities.

US must show a clear Road Map

                 It seems that the Obama Administration and Daw Suu Kyi are really talking seriously about how to take the country forward on its reform goals, on its peace goals, on its investment goals, on its opening goals, and working – what we can do to support that....."Nobody in Burma is anti-business but we oppose investment in Burma today because our real malady is not economic but political..... Profits from business enterprises will merely go towards enriching a small, already very privileged elite.” The President Obama has now effectively removed those blunter, poorly targeted sanctions against the economy generally while supporting, even seeking to strengthen "smart" sanctions against targeted individuals and organizations.

            Responding to the favorable turn of events in Burma, multilateral and bilateral donors, international NGOs and foreign investors are descending on the country in droves. The government is being overwhelmed with conflicting advice. Policy decisions essential to economic progress are being delayed by the chaos. Good decisions made are not being implemented effectively because of the limited capacity of the bureaucracy. Hence, it remains to be seen whether U.S. assistance will be part of the problem or part of the solution. It also appears that adulation that Daw Suu Kyi receive during her visit could make it harder for her to make the political compromises in Burma that will be required to keep the democratic transition on track.

Tom Malinowski, the Washington director for Human Rights Watch, says Aung San Suu Kyi has been promoting a more measured response.  

            “She has supported a gradual lifting of sanctions against Burma. So have we. The   question is how that process is sequenced and how it’s used to create incentives for more            reform in Burma," he said. 

The U.S. must continue to press Burma's government for peaceful reconciliation with disenfranchised Non-Myanmar  ethnic nationalities, the release of all the remaining political prisoners and, most of all, real limits on the power of the military.

             “It’s not at all clear whether the military is going to cede the strong power it still has          over most aspects of life in Burma. That is the real test and we have not yet seen whether         Burma will meet that test," [11]

Lieberman cautioned against what he views as overly optimistic headlines lauding Suu Kyi's U.S. visit as a harbinger of immediate change on the ground in Burma. He said that kind of change cannot come solely from Thein Sein or Suu Kyi. It's important to keep in mind that the military still has a tremendous amount of control,

             "Suu Kyi is stunning, strong, articulate, mesmerizing. But she is also 67. She'll be 70          when the next national election comes around in 2015,. So that's a factor as well. I think    it will come down to whether a younger generation will get behind what she stands for,          and will they be able to follow through " he said

Will the younger generation -- challenge Suu Kyi honestly and directly when they disagree with her or Ar-narde (tm;emw,f) and respect for the elder still remain is still to be seen. Because the Burmese leadership has been isolated for so long and is so unpredictable, Washington and its partners need to lay out this clear road map to Burma's government and launch a new aid package, to be coordinated with the EU, Australia, and Japan.[12]The other day at Queens College in New York she said

            “I came today to thank you all and to ask all of you to stay with us until we have      completed the journey to democracy, and we get to the point when we too can help     others, Burma can once again become the country it was way back before the military   regime took over, a country of hope.”[13]

This shows that that she and President Thein Sein had unanimously agreed that half a century of military has done nothing good for the country or the people of Burma. US must help Burma to work for the welfare of the people, who have borne so much suffering for such a long time, and that the country  is Asia's second-poorest country on a per capita basis, trailing only Afghanistan.[14] 

            So far Daw Suu Kyi, the internationally acclaimed human rights champion, has made only brief comments by emphasizing the need for establishing a proper citizenship law to address the problem in Western and Northern Burma. Why little has been done to resolve the conflict if there is a possibility of a permanent solution. The main culprit is the Tatmadaw but instead blame has been targeted squarely at both the government and the pro democracy groups as the international community is promoting various national interests in this fledgling democracy, sectarian violence such as this has not been given serious attention, especially by the Western powers. The sensitivity of the issue has silenced many from discussing it publicly as the e root of the problem begins with the nomenclature itself. This is just one classic example of how challenging will be the Burmese problem.

            More than many other governments, Burmese leader craves international prestige, perhaps because the country was isolated for so long. Realistically, Burma's senior generals are unlikely to allow reforms to be consolidated, if they believe change will result in their prosecution. The country's political situation is so unstable that the United States and its partners should allow the generals to retire permanently and cut its ties to any political parties. If Washington and its partners are convinced that progress toward peace, free elections, Burma must permanently dismantling any nuclear and missile programs, and ending ethnic grievances insurgencies cannot be reversed.[15]

            Last but not the least is that there is room for considerable U.S.-China cooperation in addressing Burma’s internal conflicts for personally I construe that China does not consider Burma "core interest" or a formal ally like North Korea, yet Burma's instability spilling over China's borders, like narcotic drugs and refugees which Beijing is unable to control this new normalization policy of the US is not designed to replace Chinese's influence over Burma. Now it is time to see how the US will balance its policy toward Burma during the ongoing fragile political transition, as this remains an ethnically divided nation where repressive measures are still applied and ordinary people do not feel they are free. So from my humble opinion, I would like to advice that apart from trade, security and forging alliances, the US should not forget to work with civil society groups—rather than thugs and butchers—and advance democracy and human rights in my beloved country of Burma not dominated by the Mahar Myanmar race only.

On Feb 3^rd next year, the sullen, bull dog face General Than Shwe, one of the five worst dictators of Asia, will be an Octogenarian. But unlike his predecessor Ne Win, he was a wily political manipulator and took great care that he and his family will not be in disgrace after his demise. By 2010 he knew that with the conditions prevailing then, he foresaw that Burma somewhat like a Ceausescu-style uprising in the wake of the Arab Spring. After half a century of running the country, he realised that the army is fatigue, couple with its damaged pride and embarrassment in falling far behind its neighbors. Besides being a pariah state in the community of nations, the army tarnished image of brutally repressing, the students, workers and the entire people of Burma, even including the Buddhist monk is beyond redemption and knew very well that he could not rely on the guns any more.

             Besides China’s increasingly dominant role in the country’s economy was a key factor in prompting the reforms to allow the government to court closer relations with the United States, Europe, and Japan. Hence to safeguard his inner circle’s perquisites once safely in retirement, he needed a graceful exit and diffuse the power. This is the sole raison d’être for relinquishing power even though he is still very healthy and is the power behind the throne.

            Smart from the Bengali/Rohingya crises where he master minded in mechanizing the sectarian strife, in order to get the support of the entire people of Burma including the 8888 generation, he sees to it that the army came out with flying colours while the Burmese Diaspora leaders flocking back to the country painting the picture that reforms are working well. The Generals have effectively preyed on this ethno-religious conservatism of the public at large, most specifically in times of political and legitimating crises. 

            Burmese officials frequently cited the Indonesia model where the military gradually gave up the protected seats it had in the Parliament following the 1998 toppling of President Suharto, and it is expected the military planned to gradually cede its grip on 25 percent of the seats in Parliament as is now mandated in the Nargis Constitution. As a matter of fact members of Parliament do not always vote as a bloc and end up sometimes supporting the opposition as many did on a recent proposal e.g. requiring that parliamentarians should declare their assets

            The reforms are being driven by President U Thein Sein with strong support from a small core of reform-minded colleagues. Several officials opposing reforms or seen as foot dragging have lost their jobs in recent months. Thein Sein was uniquely courageous and bold in driving the reform agenda, but whether the broader political elite serves as a silent reservoir of support for the handful of committed reformers or is simply sitting on the fence is still to be seen.

            No doubt, the next big opportunity to promote reform will be in national elections in 2015 and the important time to build support for reform and institutionalize the changes is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD is endeavouring to build confidence within the military to allow amendments to address the limits on democracy in the constitution and not to panic, if the opposition wins the majority in Parliament. The pro democracy group stressed the need to build confidence rather than seek retribution against their former jailers. Even if the NLD won all the seats in the 2015 election Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can never become the President because Than Shwe has carefully crafted the constitution that bars her from embracing the presidency because her two sons hold British citizenship.
            The latest Constitutional Court resignations amid constitutional crisis will be a barometer of how the military respond to the judges’ resignation and the calls for amendments to the 2008 Nargis Constitution, will be but an important test of the country’s nascent political reform process. So far most of the reforms have focused more on the political system than the economy, although officials recognize that popular expectations are running high and that economic development is critical to maintain political and popular momentum for the country’s political transition, and that is why they are so eager for foreign investment and other economic assistance. Meeting these high expectations will involve improving the lives of the estimated 26% of the country’s population that live below the poverty line, improving access to health and education services, upgrading the supply of electricity, and ending the state’s monopoly on telecommunications and huge economic undertakings.

            Business cutthroat from Europe, Japan, and the United States are packing airplanes into Burma doing a hefty business that have violated human rights or hindered political reform or the peace process with ethnics. But does it herald for the prospects for real change, the rule of law, the expansion and consolidation of human rights, and the quality of public life? It must be remembered that the country still lacks basic infrastructure, including reliable electricity and ports, rule of law, an educated and trained workforce and strong property rights.

            But the most crucial aspect is its policy of engaging the ethnic nationalities on individual or group-wise basis, a sly “divide and rule policy”, to lessen their collective bargaining position, which is the central demand of the ethnic nationalities. And to top is the rejection of the Panglong Agreement of 1947, that is taken as a core treaty between the Myanmar and the non-Myanmar to form the Genuine Union of Burma. This is clearly a Myanmarnization policy that the country was a monolithic whole with the Myanmar lording over the non Myanmar since time immemorial, save during the British colonial period and not what Bogyoke Aung San, the founder of the modern Union of Burma, has envisage that it was born out of the concordat of the Panglong Conference of 1947 where different nations belonging to the ethnic nationalities willingly join the Union on equal basis with the more numerous Myanmar.

            Thein Sein insistence that negotiation process would take place only on the basis of 2008 Nargis Constitution, which is designed to give the military a near complete monopoly in the political decision-making process has crushed all hope of a peaceful and amicable political solution. Hence, the international community, especially the US,EU and Japan should took note that if they really want to help Burma on the road to democracy and development the Myanmar must treat the non Myanmar (ethnic nationalities) on equal terms.

            The UNFC (United Nationalities Federal Council) formed in Feb. 2011, will be meeting in Chiang Mai today  where it can be construed that, that the successive military regimes, including the quasi military regime is still untrustworthy and lack of historical responsibility to right all the wrongs that have accumulated all these years. The ethnic nationalities are ready to be part of the federal union, if their rights of self-determination, equality and democracy aspirations could be fulfilled. But they don’t see any hope in the 2008 Nargis Constitution and if the regime did not respect Panglong Agreement, which has been the sole legal bond between the Myanmar and the non Myanmar, they might as well continue to fight. They saw signs that there is a tendency that the regime would insist that the ethnic nationalities to forget the Panglong Agreement and should be satisfied with some piecemeal handout, under the rubric Nargis Constitution. This explicitly would mean the total capitulation of all the ethnic nationalities, forsaking their national identities and sovereignties accorded to them by their forefathers and they construe that instead of this Balkanization will be a better option.

            If the quasi military administration genuinely wants a better change or reconciliation and not reconsolidation, it needs to release all ethnic political prisoners, immediate ceasefire with the Kachin and make a comprehensive peace call to all armed and unarmed political oppositions. It won’t do the regime any good by just clinging to its fraud ridden and manipulated, Nargis Constitution, as if it is being carved into the stones, which all have to abide without question. After all, Burma has come across 1948 and 1974 Socialist Constitutions and this Nargis Constitution won’t be the last one either.

            There is also a growing anxiety that the status of non-Myanmar peoples could be undermined before the 2015 general election by a national census of how nationality and ethnic identity will be dealt with in National Registration Cards. A sense is thus developing of an expanding outreach by a centralised, Myanmar-majority state before ethnic rights have been effectively guaranteed in the new political system.  Such concerns are compounded by government officials and Tatmadaw commanders wielding personal power in the states and regions, while the first-past-the post electoral system means that Myanmar majority parties are likely to remain dominant in national politics after the 2015 general election without countrywide unanimity for such control. Support is therefore growing for an electoral system based on proportional representation. How such changes might be brought about, however, is not clear.

            In the meantime major economic projects are under way, including the oil and gas pipelines to China, the Kaledan Gateway project with India and the Dawei Development project with Thailand. But this is only the beginning: China wants to open up the country to the sub-Asian region via a north-south corridor,(Wu Bangguo,  Chairman of the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress has arrived in Naypyidaw ) while Japan is interested in another from east to west. Special economic zones, too, are being mooted that are expected to lead to more land expropriation, and this is deepening concerns about the future of the many displaced persons, refugees and migrant workers in the ethnic borderlands. Huge economic and humanitarian challenges remain and how these issues which will be all detrimental to the ethnic nationalities will be resolved is not spell out yet.

            In summary, Burma is now at a sensitive stage in its political transition. Encouraging prospects for the future have undoubtedly emerged. But reform is still at a very early stage, and there should be no underestimation of the difficult challenges that lie ahead. Myanmar and non Myanmar conflict is the key to solving Burma’s problem. The biggest losers from the “New Burma” are the victims of the Tatmadaw comprising all of the people who have been raped, assaulted, murdered, robbed, extorted, forced to labor, imprisoned, and tortured. Almost everyone in Burma is a victim of the regime directly or through immediate family members as well as in others, including through having had to suffer enforced relocation, poverty, malnutrition, inadequate medical care, and the denial of education. In this sense then the entire country has lost through being refused justice. In recent years, though, the bulk of the regime’s victims who have suffered the worst forms of abuse have been members of the country’s ethnic nationalities.

            Their victimhood is now compounded, because in the New Burma there is no chance that they (or their families) will ever receive justice. Has Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD made a political calculation that justice must be sacrificed, that there should not be an international investigation into the regime’s crimes against humanity, or a tribunal for them, much less the ability to bring a case to a local court? The NLD talks about establishing the rule of law in Burma, but since it will take years to address the problems with the  Nargis Constitution, which grants the generals and their foot soldiers immunity from prosecution, any possible investigations are probably at least a decade if not two decades away, one can ask where is the NLD justice?

            She often ignored the ethnic nationality plight for years as she focused almost exclusively on the nation’s political prisoners. Not that she didn’t know how bad the Tatmadaw was treating the ethnic groups or she was afraid to talk about the subject, fearing a reaction from the regime, so she censored herself; perhaps she may construe that the ethnic nationalities have are their own fault as many Myanmar believe, she doesn’t want to upset her supporters who harbour the Mahar Myanmar mentality

            But it is to be admitted that the Myanmar ethnic as a whole remains illiberal as the Bengali/Rohingya crisis demonstrates and potently ethno-nationalist and deeply troubling is how popular, everyday forms of racism and the state’s fascism seem to be mutually reinforcing. This serves the generals’ interest very well. They have fully grasped the atavistic fears and instincts that drive great fault lines into the heart of society and politics. The dominant Myanmar worldview continues to rest on an enervating combination of pre-colonial feudalism, religious mysticism, belief in racial purity and statist militarism, which a potent and poisonous combination.

            The next week visits to the United States by President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi will be an important test of whether Washington is prepared to be the partner that Burma needs right now to pull itself out of the morass of its past. But Washington’s balancing act should not be confined to even-handed treatment of Burma’s two most important leading figures, it should ensure the plight of the persecuted and the marginalized ethnic nationalities of Burma in line with the International values. Its commercial interests should not outweigh its commitment to the marginalized ethnic nationalities, just like what China has done to the Kachin refugees, driving them into the arms of Burmese army only because she wants economic development, (oil pipe line and railway) did not augurs well.  President Obama has already demonstrated that he is capable of managing a careful, nuanced approach to Burma, a country that has long resisted international efforts to address rampant rights abuses and other symptoms of dysfunctional rule. It should take more proactive role in efforts to address the contentious issue of equal rights between Myanmar and non Myanmar in Burma, perhaps by steering Burma towards a political model that better accommodates the country’s cultural diversity.

            Burmese Generals are strongly focused on sustaining their nation’s territorial integrity and have relied on the military as the institution to hold the country together. That situation must change for reform and reconciliation to take place. Ethnic groups want respect, autonomy, and the ability to make decisions locally, while deferring to the national government on issues such as foreign policy and national security. Two years ago, the notion of “federalism” was anathema and considered a dirty word. But as of today government officials have begun to talk openly about the concept, although they leave it undefined. Land-grabbing, failure to compensate locals for land and resources, and similar abuses continue to be reported in the non Myanmar ethnic areas who lives in the country’s oil and gas, mineral, and forestry wealth are located. Failure to address resource sharing would likely derail efforts to move from ceasefires to political settlement. This is important because economic growth—namely, creating jobs and opportunities—is a key factor for sustained peace and stability in areas controlled by ethnic non-Myanmar.

            We will have to recollect that Burma is the second largest country in terms of land mass in Southeast Asia. It is the fifth most populous with a population of roughly 55 million and is located at the crossroads of China, India, and Southeast Asia. It is also one of the poorest countries on the planet situated in the midst of a vibrant Southeast Asian region, has an opportunity to develop quickly through implementing basic reforms and trading and integrating with its neighbors and the global economy. The government’s recent political and social reforms, if they prove to be sustainable and successful, could potentially make the country a model for other nations in the transition to democracy. But economic growth depends on political stability. And this stability in coming to terms with the ethnic nationalities. If stability is enhanced by comprehensive political reform and the implementing of basic economic reforms, its gross domestic product could expand by more than 10 percent next year. The most important barriers to growth include political instability, corruption, and the lack of transparency, lack of education, a dearth of training, and poor infrastructure.

            The United States should be aware that there are important, perhaps even historic, opportunities to promote and support reform. It needs also to be aware of substantial threats to reform and transparency. Developing a policy to navigate through these opportunities and challenges will require thoughtful consideration and intense focus.

            If the Tatmadaw continues to support the transition to civilian rule and really adhere to ceasefires in ethnic dominated areas,(skirmishes with the cease fire groups Shan, Karen has often broken out) the United States should consider Burma to join the annual Cobra gold  joint military exercises. More immediately, the United States and ASEAN should engage the Tatmadaw in such forums as the annual Shangri-la Dialogue and the biannual ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting-Plus.

            Now with the coming of two prominent Burmese to America, the crafty Senior General Than Shwe would be laughing in his sleeves as he relax and enjoy his Asian-style elderly dictator retirement for President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Daw Suu , the 8888 generations and the vociferous Burmese Diaspora are all falling nicely into his jigsaw puzzles. There is not fear of being overthrown, or tried at the International Criminal Court. His family is protected. All is well. Tatmadaw commanders and soldiers, are now off the hook. The generals and officers, whether they retain their uniforms or not, will also cement their position as the new upper-class elite of Burma a noveau riche, as they become the part-owners and signatories to the new development deals. Not only will they not be charged for their crimes, they are being given preferred positions as the Gold Rush, otherwise known as the initial stage of astronomical corruption for the country, commences. To them we can also add all the regime cronies and fixers, such as Tayza, Myanmar Egress, etc., Burmese and international consultants, and corrupt ethnic leaders and “pro-democracy” politicians, who are also well-positioned for the start of the nation’s new road to peoples degradation.