U.S. pushed India on democracy; India was firm about engaging the junta.
Long before U.S. President Barack Obama publicly asked India to use its influence to do more for a return to democracy in Myanmar, U.S. officials were quietly, but unsuccessfully, pushing New Delhi to take a tougher line against the military junta.
At each push, Indian officials told the U.S. that while New Delhi also wanted to see a democratic government in Yangon, it believed this could be better done by engaging with the junta rather than cutting off ties with it. Moreover, India had its own important geopolitical reasons to develop ties with the military regime.
More than 40 U.S. Embassy cables classified from New Delhi and Yangon, spread over the period from 2003 to 2009 and accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks, confirm the reality that in diplomacy, national ideals are no competition to that thing called “strategic interest.”
India had no problem dumping old friend Aung San Suu Kyi (‘ASSK') to romance Myanmar's generals. The cables reflect U.S. frustration over the years at New Delhi's flat-out refusal to toe its line on Myanmar because of India's own concerns about growing Chinese influence in that country and safe havens in Myanmar for insurgents operating in north-eastern India.
In the cables, the U.S. comes out all for democracy in Myanmar – and for “ASSK.” But significantly, in the same time frame it was working behind the scenes to arrange an agreement between Pakistan's military ruler Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto in order to give the military leader a democratic look.
Imperative for several reasons
One notable conversation between Ted Osius, Political Counselor at the New Delhi Embassy, and Mohan Kumar, MEA Joint Secretary dealing with Myanmar, is reported in a cable sent on February 20, 2007 (97303: confidential).
Mr. Kumar told the American diplomat that engagement with the Myanmar junta was an imperative for India for several reasons.
“The ULFA guys hiding in Burma are screwing the hell out of us!” he said, noting that “Burma is the only one helping us” to tackle the northeastern insurgency. “Tell Bangladesh to co-operate and I am happy to say bye bye Myanmar.”
India was also trying to deal with the insurgency by creating economic opportunities in the northeastern region, and Myanmar was crucial for this, too.
“Bangladesh's stubbornness in allowing access to transit routes for trade leaves us with Burma as the only alternative to connect the northeast to ASEAN markets,” and provide an economic incentive for the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) to lay down arms.
Mr. Kumar commented that the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China maintained close ties with Myanmar but did not face the same pressure from the U.S. to refrain from engaging with it. “Do you want us to connect through China?” he asked. Tit for tat, he asked Mr. Osius why the U.S. was not pushing for democracy in Pakistan. “Why not pick on Musharraf? Where is democracy there?”
He compared India's policy in Myanmar with the U.S. policy in Pakistan. “Maybe Myanmar is our Pakistan,” he is quoted as saying in a dubious, though memorable, formulation.
But Mr. Kumar also allowed that India had not given up on democracy altogether, stating that the government “continues to push them at every opportunity.”
One such opportunity apparently presented itself during an October 2004 visit of Senior General Than Shwe. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Joint Secretary Mitra Vasishtha told Political Counselor Geoffrey Pyatt on November 2, 2004 (22299: confidential) that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had raised the issue of democracy with the General “in a much more intense way than could be expressed in the media,” despite the potential for a negative fallout on the bilateral relationship.
She said New Delhi had battled for the inclusion of a paragraph in the joint statement that expressed India's support for “national reconciliation and an early transition to democracy in Myanmar,” and described it as a “coup for India.”
Ms. Vasishtha told the American diplomat that New Delhi decided to proceed with the visit even after the ouster of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt because India did not view his replacement as an indication of “which way the dust would fall” on democracy. Rather, it was an “internal struggle,” she remarked, speculating that the junta might be somewhat fragile.
As evidence, the Joint Secretary offered the interesting observation that “Than Shwe travelled with the wives of two other powerful generals, Thura Shwe Man and Soe Win, who she mused may have been used as ‘hostages' to ensure tranquillity among the generals in Rangoon during Than Shwe's absence.”
Reflecting the Indian worry about China's influence in Myanmar, Ms. Vasishtha commented that “what you hear about the PLA [the Chinese People's Liberation Army] in Burma is only the tip of the iceberg.” She added that U.S. intelligence must surely know this. She said China took Myanmar for granted and this was why Myanmar wanted to engage with India.
Confirming a $20 million Indian grant to the junta for the development of energy and gas infrastructure, Ms. Vasishtha said the funds would be given “only if they do certain things.” She projected this as part of New Delhi's people-to-people strategy to encourage democracy.
Ms. Vasishtha was of the view that the world had made democracy in Myanmar synonymous with Ms. Suu Kyi, and predicted this could “backfire.” She described the Nobel laureate as someone whose “day has come and gone.”
A cable sent on March 30, 2005 by the U.S. Embassy in Yangon (29750: confidential) is headlined “All Smiles: Indian Foreign Minister's Visit to Burma.” It is an account of Natwar Singh's March 24-27 trip.
“FM Singh knows Aung San Suu Kyi personally and, according to the Indian Embassy, ‘holds her in high esteem'. However, Singh made no reference to her or the democratic opposition during his four-day visit, an Indian pattern of engagement with the regime that sticks to platitudes and doesn't rock the boat.”
The cable noted: “FM Singh achieved his dual objectives of maintaining dialogue with Burma at the political level and pushing for certain development projects of benefit to Mizoram, including the Kaladan multi-modal transport project (Rakhine State) and a GOI-funded road project to improve access to a border-trade crossing opened in January 2004 (Chin State).”
The author of the cable, Embassy Chief of Mission Carmen Martinez, commented that India's “pragmatic” approach was “a severe blow to the leaders of Burma's beleaguered democratic opposition, most of whom draw their inspiration from India's historic struggle for independence and democracy.”
At one point, the Americans tried to push New Delhi to make a public declaration of its ban on arms sales to Myanmar, in a cable sent on November 7, 2007 (129067: confidential). Joint Secretary T.S. Tirumurti acknowledged that a Myanmar request for military equipment had been turned down, but when Political Counselor Osius suggested the government go public with this, he offered no response.
Instead, he noted that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had sent a letter to the junta's acting Prime Minister to give UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari “maximum broad-based access” to leaders in Burmese society, reminding the regime that national reconciliation must be “broad-based.”
India did once give a glimmer of hope to the U.S. on Myanmar. Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Blake cabled on December 15, 2005 (47761: confidential), noting a shift from “months of wishy-washy Indian posturing on Burma” in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's public call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Dr. Singh made the appeal on his return from the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur, where he also said after a meeting with Myanmar Foreign Minister Soe Win that India “favors national reconciliation and the movement towards democracy, respect for fundamental human rights and allowing political activities to flourish.”
Mr. Blake commented that this is a “strong departure” from New Delhi's “recent tactic of downplaying democracy concerns with the GOB [Government of Burma] in return for greater cooperation in energy and counter-insurgency operations near the shared border, and signals a greater Indian willingness to put public pressure on Burma's military junta.” He described this as a “welcome development.”
But when Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in 2008, it was India's influence with the junta that the U.S. fell back on (dealt with in cable 153452: confidential, sent on May 12, 2008) in order to reach international aid to the country. It is now known that very little of that aid actually reached the victims of the cyclone.
Keywords: Cable153452, cable47761, cable129067, cable29750, cable22299, cable97303, The India Cables, WikiLeaks, Cablegate, India-Myanmar ties, ASEAN, Pranab Mukherjee, Aung San Suu Kyi
We do believe India rather than China, learning long coexistence of the two neighboring countries for centuries. Its confused seeing the nature of democracy and the flow of the western powers.Yet, we need to be strong ever to stand our side.
U.S and other western nations always give importance to ther interests ,not for democracy. They are supporting autocratic rulers across middle east and Africa. If they had supported democracy in middle east,it would not have been the situation there now. But India should not study from their path. India should support the democratic movement in Burma with full heart,because Aung-sui is following the way of Mahathma Gandhi.
Thank you Rich Mookerdum for enlightening us with the history of Burma, without which Westerner's intentions can be easily misunderstood. They conveniently change their statements, their stances according to their benefit. I too have started to doubt their morality.
Those who live in American glass houses shouldn't throw stones. As interesting as this article is, it does not tell us anything we didn't already largely know, and the most efficacious way for us to react is to simply ignore American sententious rhetoric.
It is in India's strategic interest to have a fiendly Myanmar.I see no reason why the Americans should have an interest in India's relations with that country.Chinese influence in Myanmar is greater than the Indian and the Americans don't seem to worry about that.The only fault I can find in the present Indian policy is its policy of trying to please all parties;-at least verbally if not in practise.Lets be clear about our strategic interests and follow them without fear or favour.
Its completely natural for the U.S. to push India to force democaracy in Burma, because U.S wants to counter China in this region. But in this obsession U.S. forgets that democracy can't be forced anywhere, but democracy is such a beautiful thing, that other nations should be inticed to embrace it. And the way to do that is to support autocracies in the right manner, getting people to people contact with those countries, promoting indutrialisation, and making people of those countries more empowered and politically active. By forcing things U.S. would only end up in making another Iraq or Afghanistan. And if U.S wants democracy to spread, it should first stop spreading autocracies worldwide, for example killing democracy in Burma in 1962, and in Afghanistan during cold war.
Double standards from the Americans. While they propped up a military govt led by Musharraf in Pak, they were not too keen on the Burmese junta. Also complete lack of action against the anti-India terror camps festering in Pak while they wanted the Pak govt to eradicate the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Pak soil..
We would be happy if 'The Hindu' releases some secret news of corruption by politicians,if possible against PM or Sonia.But these diplomatic things are very confidential and not good for India if get released.
Cable clearly reveals US hypocrisy. One way they enjoyed foreign relation with all the autocratic regimes across the world such in Gulf and in other way teaching us the democratic morals .These cables also make one thing clear ,while being tilting towards US our complete subjugation of foreign policy is not true.This is proved by our engagement with junta against US will. In international matters, ideals are needed to be outweighed by strategic interest,which is unanimously larger public interest of country.
I applaud the Hindu on getting access to these vital cables that are an eye-opener to the real world of international diplomacy and politics. It also shows that the MEA is not the inept bureaucracy that is often shown to be fumbling at its best. Please, redact the names of MEA officials and their designations to protect the officers from harming their career or damaging international relations. As it is, India's neighbnours view us with suspicion, we don't need to hand the Chinese and the Pakistanis more ammunition to turn people against India.
Also - the problem in this article is that it does not question the US's conflation of 'strong statements' for Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy with any actual measures to improve the situation in Myanmar. For 20 years the US has been making strong statements, imposing sanctions, and getting nowhere, other than to cede Myanmar to Chinese influence. Perhaps India's policy has its drawbacks, but simply following US policy would achieve nothing, other than to push the country even more deeply in China's arms. What is missing is a real discussion about how positive change can come to Myanmar, and how various governments can (realistically) help make this happen.
The last line of this article states: 'It is now known that very little of that aid actually reached the victims of the cyclone.' This is entirely untrue. Whilst money for aid handed directly over to the Myanmar authorities may or may not have reached the victims of the cyclone, all aid that was directly through the United Nations and international and national NGOs was delivered directly to the intended recipients. All Western governments channeled all their aid through the UN and NGOs such as Save the Children and Oxfam. The Myanmar government after initial hesitation and following intense diplomatic pressure allowed full access to affected areas for two full years. This included daily UN WFP helicopter flights into the delta for the first year. It also included hundreds of foreign staff and thousands of Myanmar staff working in the affected areas. Government authorities were in no way involved in this aid distribution. Hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance has been spent and the government even allowed an impartial monitoring exercise on the social impact of this aid to be conducted by a team of foreign NGOs and international organizations. The entire two year effort is a unsung example of the international cooperation that is possible in Myanmar. Whilst anti-government propaganda may have its place, it should not denigrate the successes that sometimes take place - they are the examples on which we have to build.
Congratulations to the Hindu, Finally the treasure trove of 5000 Indian cables are going to see light, Hope its not too late for them to have an IMPACT to generate Public Outrage, I plead Hindu to Retract Names Mentioned in the cables only when it Concerns National Security , hope Hindus shows some courage and doesn't hide Politicians Names when they are Mentioned.
Hypocrisy thy name is the West.It's a bit rich of Western nations, led by the United States, to be critical of any country, including India, for having ties with Burma. Don't you love it when Western diplomats get on their shaky pedestals to lecture Asians about the joys of democracy and human rights? Well, the Burmese are sick and tired of this moral posturing because we know what freedom is all about. After all, Burma was once more democratic than certain Western nations, notably the US. When the Burmese voted in the 1960 free elections, the *Niggers* or African-Americans, were denied that right. Burma was so democratic that we had Communists who renounced violence -- in parliament. But it was too much for the Cold War warriors. Here are some inconvenient truths:General Ne Win, who toppled the democratically-elected government of U Nu in March 1962, was coddled by Western leaders until his overthrow in 1988. Instead of condemnation, the Western democracies swiftly recognised the regime and the Burmese dictator would be feted by heads of state in Western capitals. When the Burmese strongman was toasting President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House in 1966, U Nu and his entire Cabinet were languishing in prison. So, save the sermonising, Uncle Sam.Ne Win's communist regime nationalised the entire economy in 1964 and tens of thousands of *capitalists* were jailed, including the youngest and oldest members of my family. Why was the West silent when tens of thousands of Indians, who had lived in Burma for generations, stripped of their assets had to flee the country penniless? In 1988 we, the people toppled the most repressive regime in Burma's modern history, which was ironically propped up by Western nations. After a bloody struggle Burma again has embraced free enterprise, thanks to the millions of Burmese who rose up with bare hands to end the almost-totalitarian 26-year Marxist socialist revolution (1962-1988) that had pauperised them. The Burmese today are better off than the piles and piles of dead Iraqis and Afghans. America is known to support tyrannical regimes and appease non-democratic leaders all over, yet the US still fancies itself as an upholder of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. What rhetoric, and how insincere.It's a shame the US was siding with the rogue army officers and former communists in Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy. These thugs made our lives hell during the revolution which is now clearly missing from the million-plus Western narratives about my country. The foreign policy of the West is quite telling: grovel to China and stand up to nano-states like Burma. Such hypocrisy is not lost on the Burmese. Grovels, even the most elegant grovels, are not an edifying spectacle.And sadly, Western media coverage of Burma has mostly been disgraceful, biased, ignorant, and abusive. For the Burmese, the forgotten past is a long memory. Salving the conscience by speaking out today was Western hypocrisy at its finest. We live in interesting times. People all over have come to realise that Western governments lie. Their politics, intelligence, and media can no longer be trusted. Thank god, we now live in an era where gun-boat diplomacy no longer works.Those who wish to make Burma strong, democratic and prosperous ought to have a better understanding of it. And, thank you India for strongly supporting the Burmese people. We never forget our friends.
The Hindu seems to be gullible in buying into the myth that US wants to promote democracy in Myanmar and other countries with autocratic regimes...The US opposition to the Myanmarese generals is simply because they do not toe the US line- not because they are autocratic! In other words,it is also for 'strategic reasons'. Funny to see their holier than thou attitude.
Please Email the Editor