Round The Word

New Delhi, 11 October 2007

By M D Nalapat

(Holds UNESCO Peace Chair, Prof, Geopolitics, Manipal Academy of

Higher Education, Ex-Resident Editor, Times of India, Delhi)

Nine years ago, New Delhi completed the process of abandoning a policy towards the ruling group in Myanmar that followed the line of the western powers, who are seeking openly to topple the regime by isolation and diplomatic pressure. Since then, there has been a considerable improvement in relations between the two Governments, and the two countries are on their way to becoming strategic partners.

This friendship has not been to the liking of the US and the European Union. Over the past weeks, there has been a rising drumbeat of editorial criticism from both sides of the Atlantic about the cooperation between the Manmohan Singh Government and the generals in Myanmar.

After considerable behind-the-scenes US-EU pressure, there have been statements from China and India about the need for the generals to go slow on the crackdown on pro-democracy activists. However, neither they nor ASEAN is likely to adopt the US-EU policy of isolation and sanctions, which has more than a trace of hypocrisy in it.

As can be seen from any political map, Myanmar is not the only military dictatorship in the region. Both Bangladesh as well as Pakistan is ruled by generals who have assumed office through coups against elected Governments. Why the people of Myanmar alone deserve freedom from military rule and not those of Pakistan and Bangladesh is a question that western capitals need to answer, for they back the military in Dacca and Islamabad as strongly as they oppose the Myanmar generals.

While the people of Myanmar should be given the Government of their choice, why such a preference is not made with any visible emphasis in the case of, for example, the 1.3 billion people of China or the Myanmar-sized population of Saudi Arabia remains not only obscure, but also seems an exercise in hypocrisy.

The reality is that the reason for western protest is not a commitment towards democracy but the business-driven desire to change a Junta that (unlike those installed in Islamabad, Dacca or elsewhere) treats Chinese interests as a much higher priority than it does those of countries volubly seeking its overthrow.

Were the generals in that country to follow Muammar Gaddafy in genuflecting before the US and the EU, the shrillness of tone in the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's demands that the UN Security Council take strong action may fall by several decibels, and would most likely be replaced by praise of the Tatmadaw, the military.

Why such a transparent focus on a country’s self-interest is morally repugnant when practiced by New Delhi ( as numerous editorial contributors in the US and Europe have been pointing out) but not in the case of India's fellow-democracies farther to the west needs more explanation than such writers seem willing or able to give.

Unlike the NATO powers, India shares a border with Myanmar of over a thousand kilometers. Moreover, the country is New Delhi's only land bridge to the rest of ASEAN. In order to enhance the volume of regional cooperation (still low enough to be derided by the same editorial writers), road-rail access is critical.

The reason why India is pursuing towards Myanmar the same policy that is being carried out in the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh --- working with the regime in office --- preferable though a democratic replacement would be.

For both the US as well as the EU, there are clearly generals and there are generals, as there are people hungering for democracy (in Myanmar) just as there are in China and in other authoritarian structures,  a fact that is ignored by those formulating and commenting on policy in the NATO states.

Indeed, the generals in Myanmar have been far more accommodative of Indian interests than those ensconced in Dacca and Islamabad, both capitals of countries that provide safe haven to hundreds of extremists waging a low-intensity war against India, the world's most populous democracy.

The Pakistan army, in particular, has long nurtured Wahabbi fanatics, and continues to do so, while the Bangladesh army is unwilling to admit that their country has become infested with "Al Qaeda" elements. In contrast, after the earlier policy of isolation was replaced by vigorous engagement nine years ago, the Tatmadaw has blocked Indian-born extremists from using their territory to launch attacks against their home country, and has sought to check the abundant flow of armaments from China's Yunnan province to the hands of anti-India extremists.

And yes, access to the country's oil and gas resources is another reason for New Delhi's refusal to take the advice of the NATO powers --- to stop all contact with the regime in Myanmar --- seriously.

At present, and unusually for any part of the world, Chinese companies are far ahead of western entities such as Chevron and Total in gaining control of hydrocarbon reserves, a factor that some suspect may influence US-EU policy.

New Delhi would like to carve for itself a larger slice of the pie, even while continuing to maintain close links with the democracy movement, several thousand of whose activists have made India their home for decades. Unlike the west, that is selective about which countries it sees as ready for democracy, Indian policy recognizes both the desirability of that system as well as the double standard involved in a Churchillian application of Jeffersonian ideals.

Who can forget that for Winston Churchill, freedom stopped at skin colour. Only those of European extraction were deemed fit to be free. The rest --- including India --- were seen by Churchill as eternal slaves. Such a double standard is no longer acceptable. India needs Myanmar, and needs good relations with it.---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)