By The Diplomat
As Hillary Clinton begins her historic trip to Burma, The Diplomat speaks with leading China analyst Elizabeth Economy about how Beijing sees things.
The Diplomat speaks with Elizabeth Economy, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, about U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Burma.
With Secretary Clinton’s historic visit to Burma, how much is about the U.S. “pivot” to the Pacific? Does the move correspond directly to an attempt to balance off China in the region?
I think that this visit has very little to do with China and everything to do with an historic commitment on the part of the United States to encourage repressive, authoritarian states to move toward democracy and better protection of human rights. The Burmese government has taken steps toward political change, and Secretary Clinton’s visit is a means of helping the United States understand the precise nature of this change and how best it can encourage and help this process of political reform. The timing certainly accords with a firmer and more explicit U.S. commitment to economic growth and security in the Asia Pacific, but the visit wouldn’t have occurred without very clear signals of change from both the Burmese government and leading opposition figures, such as Aung San Suu Kyi.
How do you believe Chinese government officials look at the U.S. visit to Burma? Do they feel it’s directed towards them?
Opinion in China over Secretary Clinton’s visit to Burma is divided. Some clearly realize that it isn’t about China, but rather about attempting to ascertain the depth and breadth of the Burmese leadership’s commitment to political and economic change, as well as an opportunity to assess whether the time is drawing near for the U.S. to lift its economic sanctions.
Others, of course, view the visit as part of a broader effort on the part of the United States to encircle China and isolate it from its neighbors. Some of these conspiracy -focused analysts also see the United States behind Burmese President Thein Sein’s decision to stay the construction of the Chinese-supported Myitsone Dam. That view, of course, ignores the significant opposition to the dam within the population of Burma.
Finally, there’s also concern expressed in some Chinese media that China’s effort to secure trade routes to the Indian Ocean and fuel routes to the Middle East and Africa may be jeopardized by growing ties between Burma and the United States. Of course, if China’s engagement with Burma is genuinely the “win-win” proposition that it proclaims it is, there shouldn’t be any real cause for concern.
What do you feel the United States must show from the trip in order for it be a success? Does the U.S. have a specific agenda? What would Burma need to gain from the visit in order to judge such a visit a success?
In terms of a tangible outcome from the Secretary’s visit, I think that both sides are very much hoping for the same thing, namely a positive appraisal by Secretary Clinton of the reform steps that Burma has taken to date, and a pledge on both sides to work toward further opening, both within Burma and between Washington and Rangoon.
Secretary Clinton needs to return to the United States with the ability to convince the U.S. Congress that further change is coming on the political front if there’s going to be any significant shift in the bilateral relationship. Some progress on understanding the relationship between North Korea and Burma/Myanmar would also be very useful.
Photo Credit: US State Department
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Yang zi
The ironic thing is, US intervention in Burma probably better for China. For one thing, northern minorities will be treated better, these minorities have traditional relationship with China. Good racial relationship in Burma gives a better chance for the oil pipeline to work. Oil pipeline is a convienince in peace time, not reliable in war time. Because modern missiles can take it in one shot.
Haav
As usual, a lot of ‘diplomatic speak’ in Ms. Economy’s comments.
ari
Any country which flirts with and invite Washington’s involvement and step into the middle of great powers game will get burnt. Washington uses countries and people and discard them when its usefulness to their great game strategies no longer exist. Nyipidaw (sic) or Rangoon had better be careful and not antagonize its neighbours.
Elizabeth Economy (sounds like a very fictitious name or person), like the Diplomat, is a U.S. funded NGO set up with the purpose of defaming China and Chinese. No doubt about that. Elizabeth Economy’s comments are generally crock and trying to smooth Ms Clinton – the de facto President of the U.S. – efforts to entice Myanmar away from Beijing’s orbit – as it it were ever in Beijing’s orbit in the first place.
Jason Miks
Thank you for your comments. However, it is simply not true that The Diplomat either is, or receives any funding from, a U.S. NGO. The Diplomat is a privately owned magazine, with its head office in Tokyo.
Also, the suggestion that Elizabeth Economy is a fictitious person is, frankly, exceedingly silly as any basic Google search will demonstrate. We would not usually publish such baseless statements, however, in the interests of open discussion and to reassure our many serious readers and commenters, we decided to publish this and respond.
The Editor
Liang1a
Jason Miks wrote:
December 2, 2011 at 2:09 am
Thank you for your comments. However, it is simply not true that The Diplomat either is, or receives any funding from, a U.S. NGO. The Diplomat is a privately owned magazine, with its head office in Tokyo.
——————————-
I don’t know if Diplomat received any funding from any organization with some particular political agenda, but an American organization located in Tokyo probably speaks a lot about its nature. I doubt if it can be impartial. But that is nothing extraordinary. In fact, it is “normal” just as encircling China is “normal.” It is something to be expected. And since most of its articles are anti-Chinese it reveals where the heart of Diplomat lies.
ari
Your reply is similarly appreciated. While the fact that the Diplomat is based in Tokyo or that it does not receive funds directly from the U.S. government or its sympathetic allies, I note it does not negate the perception it is. It is common knowledge that a great majority of the NGOs especially e-papers or magazines of political activists are financed directly or indirctly by the Washington. Nevertheless, your assurance is welcomed and I look forward to reading an unbias and respectable tabloid reminiscent of the Economist and the Guradian in its earlier days. Not to mention the outstanding Far East Economic Review which was bought over by Washington leaning Mr Murdoch, and quietly closed to remove competition from its Asian Wall Street Journal. If the Diplomat can play the role of the FEER as a beacon and catalyst for East Asia’s development of “rise”, I will cheer you. I am geatly interested in you taking a East Asian centric bias or “East Asia firster” position seeing as you are based in the Far East. There is a visible gap in such reporting here. However, this is only my view. You probably will not appreciate it.
As for Elizabeth Economy, the name speaks for itself. Most readers, myself included find it quaint to come across name as “Economy”. Most of us would take a double take. Is she for real or just a virtual personality? Afterall, anything is possible in virtual land. It’s borderless and lawless unless scruples and ethical conducts is seen to self regulates its active paricipants. My 2-cents worth.
Yang zi
In principle, I don’t recommend critising a publication for been biased. Because it is a publication’s freedom to be biased. It is not a tv station, which uses public air waves or is a major distribution channel. It is not a news site either. Bias is not all bad because it is a flavor.
just like Global Times, The-Diplomat is finding a niche in publishing controversial articles. It is a clever move and all power to it.
While I think the editors have different opinions from
mine, I don’t question their integrity, I don’t think they will make up a person.
nirvana
(Pavlov reflex or laziness?)
I have noticed that a number of bloggers instinctively put labels on anybody with an opposite opinion, and whenever they run out of arguments. Ok, they are trained to behave like this.
But, displaying the laziness of not using Google, then, stubbornly arguing “Most readers, myself included find it quaint to come across name as Economy. Most of us would take a double take. Is she for real or just a virtual personality? Afterall, anything is possible in virtual land” is pathetic!
Here are some Google results:
“Elisabeth Economy”:
http://www.cfr.org/experts/japan-china-taiwan/elizabeth-c-economy/b21
“John Economy”
http://www.whitepages.com/name/John-Economy
“Peter Economy”
http://www.petereconomy.com/Welcome.html
Haav
Elizabeth Economy has been a well-known “China expert” in the US for a long time. Anybody who has some familiarity with US-China policy discussions would have heard of her. Carelessly displaying your ignorance is not a smart thing to do.
Passerby
I don’t know what reality Elizabeth Economy is living by saying what she said. She’s an expert on US-China relations, what expert? She sounds exactly like a spokeswoman for the US State department reading from a prepared script of talking points. Not surprisingly, she was an ex-senior official of the State department.
Most Chinese get this, every time the US has done something to encircle China, the prepared script by the State department always adds a point of saying that it’s not for encircling China.
Frankie Fook-lun Leung
It is totally inconceivable that the Clinton visit has nothing to do with China. I am not a conspiracy-inspired commentator. China see the USA asserting herself over ASEAN countries as another way of counteracting China’s potential leadership in S E Asia. The more the ASEAN countries, Burma included, become friendly with the USA and the more USA gets involved in S E Asian affairs, the more China feels uncomfortable because China’s costs of fraternizing with these S E Asian countries proportionally increase. Not exactly what China likes.
Liang1a
Chinese people are unhappy with Burma and consider it a shabby friend. But then that is the nature of the world. In the end, the US will not be able to do anything to help Burma. Why would the US do anything to help it? All the US want to do is to deny Burma’s friendship to the Chinese. But the US is very good at creating great expectations. So Burma will keep running around chasing a promise that is always just around the corner. But decades will go by and nothing real would have been given to Burma. In the end Burma will be as poor as ever. Which will serve the faithless Burmese just right.
The Burmese should open their eyes and look at the S.E. Asian countries. One thing they will notice is that the prosperity of an Asian country is proportional to the percentage of ethnic Chinese. Singapore has the largest percentage of ethnich Chinse and Singapore is the richest country in S. E. Asia. The next richest is Malaysia with the second largest percentage of ethnic Chinese. The next is Thailand which has the third largest percentage of ethnic Chinese. And so on. The only way for Burma to increase its wealth is to forge a strong bond with China. Chasing after the US will only result in its impoverishment forever.
nirvana
Observation:
“the prosperity of an Asian country is proportional to the percentage of ethnic Chinese”.
Explanation:
“The only way for Burma to increase its wealth is to forge a strong bond with China.”
What a non-scientific reasoning! As if somebody has made an experiment of putting different % of ethnic Chinese in different Asian countries and observe the outcome: the generated prosperity is proportional to the % of ethnic Chinese. A more plausible explanation is that the ease to get rich through trades attracts these Chinese. A high concentration of Chinese does not necessarily lead to prosperity (there is a counter-example: mainland China),
Another fallacy from this logic is that a strong bond with mainland China is a pre-requisite to a high concentration of ethnic Chinese. Counter examples abound.
Liang1a
nirvana wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Observation:
“the prosperity of an Asian country is proportional to the percentage of ethnic Chinese”.
Explanation:
“The only way for Burma to increase its wealth is to forge a strong bond with China.”
What a non-scientific reasoning! As if somebody has made an experiment of putting different % of ethnic Chinese in different Asian countries and observe the outcome: the generated prosperity is proportional to the % of ethnic Chinese. A more plausible explanation is that the ease to get rich through trades attracts these Chinese. A high concentration of Chinese does not necessarily lead to prosperity (there is a counter-example: mainland China),
Another fallacy from this logic is that a strong bond with mainland China is a pre-requisite to a high concentration of ethnic Chinese. Counter examples abound.
————————————————
There are many reasons why a larger proportion of ethnic Chinese have led to greater degree of prosperity in a country. China is an exception due to its large population and starting from a very low base. I have also said many times that communism is wrong. The combination of communist idealogy and pragmatic economic policies also have created a cynical society. Changes must be made to make China democratic, capitalistic while implementing a new set of morality based on humanist understanding. But the high level of intellect, the willingness to take risks and the drive to work hard to achieve success, the respect for scholarship and knowledge, etc. all combine to explain why the Chinese are more successful than their Asian counterparts. Therefore, it is no mere coincidence that the higher the percentage of ethnic-Chinese in a S. E. Asian country the higher the level of economic development. Even in the US the increasing proportion of Chinese has contributed to the American economy. Some 1/3 of all scientists and engineers in the US are ethnic Chinese. And China will develop rapidly once the CCP realizes that independent growth will lead ultimately to full development. Already China is second largest economy in the world based on the nominal value of exchange and actually equalling America in terms of purchasing power parity value. As China’s internal economy develops, it will achieve some 90 trillion yuan and $30 trillion of GNP by 2020 (3 yuan per dollar). Ultimately, China will achieve $100 trillion of GNP by 2040 with 300 trillion yuan and 3 yuan per dollar. This will then prove the ultimately truth that the higher the proportion of Chinese the greater the prosperity of a nation.
A strong bond with China obviously will make the immigration policies more welcoming for ethnic Chinese. That should be obvious. Also a strong bond with China will make the local peoples more respectful of the ethnic Chinese thus encouraging more Chinese to come in and settle down to stimulate the local economies. When Indonesia went on a murderous rampage in 1997 the Chinese left which resulted in economic collapse of Indonesia. If Indonesia now forge stronger ties with China then the ethnic Chinese will have more rights and protection which will encourage them to return. As it is, ethnic Chinese who left in 1997 are in no hurry to return to Indonesia as they have settled nicely in other countries such as the US, Australia, Singapore, and mainland China.
Yang zi
As if my declaration worth anything, I declare Liang1a the enemy of China. Chinese overseas have experienced persecution due to prejudice, Liang1a is adding gas to the fire.
nirvana
His discourse is at the borderline of Aryanism and the “superior race”.
the southeastasian
Seccond Observation: “Chinese people are unhappy with Burma and consider it a shabby friend… All the US want to do is to deny Burma’s friendship to the Chinese…The Burmese should open their eyes and look at the S.E. Asian countries. One thing they will notice is that the prosperity of an Asian country is proportional to the percentage of ethnic Chinese….The only way for Burma to increase its wealth is to forge a strong bond with China”
I eYour commnents scare the Burmese for the invasion of Chinese by “a strong bond with China”. With your observation of a proportional ratio prosperity of a country/ its % ethnic Chinese, the ordinary Chinese should seriously think about what is going wrong with the CCP.
Liang1a
the southeastasian wrote:
December 2, 2011 at 4:46 am
Seccond Observation: “Chinese people are unhappy with Burma and consider it a shabby friend… All the US want to do is to deny Burma’s friendship to the Chinese…The Burmese should open their eyes and look at the S.E. Asian countries. One thing they will notice is that the prosperity of an Asian country is proportional to the percentage of ethnic Chinese….The only way for Burma to increase its wealth is to forge a strong bond with China”
I eYour commnents scare the Burmese for the invasion of Chinese by “a strong bond with China”. With your observation of a proportional ratio prosperity of a country/ its % ethnic Chinese, the ordinary Chinese should seriously think about what is going wrong with the CCP.
——————————
See my response to nirvana.
Mishmael
I completely disagree with this expert. Of course the Burma trip is all about China, and everyone knows it. If pretending like the US had any meaningful interests in Burma beyond something to do with China makes it politically easier to swallow, then sure I can understand. But to claim that the US is there without any reference to China is absurd.
The interview also goes on to discuss how China should have “nothing to fear” if it is actually interested in “win-win” engagement with Burma. What this neat tidbit ignores is the fact the the US has demonstrated in the past the capability and the willingness to jeopardize legitimately win-win relationships for its own interests. Who is to say the US will not use whatever influence it possesses to derail the China-Burma relationship at a later date for leverage?
The person being interviewed also makes the case that the generals running Burma will gain “no advantage” by alienating China. This is not exactly true either. The expert seems to neglect the factors of time, namely that for short-term interests, the Burmese generals have many reasons for which the China relationship can be sacrificed. If the US manages to convince the generals that they accept their permanent leadership, who knows then maybe the China relationship will be degraded even in the long-term.
The expert also does what many commentators are doing nowadays, by adopting a scolding, infuriatingly smug assessment of the failures of Chinese foreign policy. Obviously Chinese foreign policy is deeply flawed, but its failure was not entirely self-inflicted either. The thinly-veiled ultimatums at China which are flying about with such enthusiasm are not only unhelpful since they ignore China’s growing interests, they also contribute to an atmosphere of ill-will which will cause greater tension in East Asia in the future, which I am beginning to believe was the intention all along.
Watcher
I guess what you are saying is that it is US fault that China is being assertive and scaring its neighboors into the arms of the US.
Chinese media present it as everyone else being stupid and easily tricked by the US. Only the Chinese propaganda machinery can see through this. Laughable!
nirvana
When China claims that its intention is peaceful and that it does not intend to challenge the US, that its military modernization is all defensive while insinuating that the SCS is its “core interest”, while showing off its forward deployed weapons, and concealing its long-range undersea deterrent development, what do you expect from the US in terms of sophistry? China has met its match!
This is certainly not good for the region. We are definitely entering a new Cold War era. ASEAN will have to take side although they definitely don’t want to.
Yang zi
@nirvana, I give you permission to use the word “cool war”. I coined this phrase 2 years ago and it is perfect to describe the situation.
Btw, my theory was cool war is a win-win for both China and US.
I also give perminssion to anyone who want to use this phrase.
Yang zi
Myanmar is a different case. It has a tradition of discriminate against Chinese. 1967 riots against Chinese was covertly supported by the government.
It can be said that burmanese have relatively stronger tendency to be paranoid. Burmanese are concerned about Chinese in Burma, not the China interest.
Chinese settled in Burma before its independence. Chinese-Burmanese should have the same right as other Burma citizens. Current problem is related to kokang people in Burma. Kokangs are han Chinese and they have been moving Mandalay lately, among them may be Chinese from yunnan province, who got
Burma IDs issued by kokang or Shan state authority, probably with a fee. I think this the real reason Burma
army attacked kokang in 2009, to stop it issuing IDs for Yunnan Chinese.
Immigration is always a problem for any country. I don’t blame for burmese for been concerned, on the other hand, northern Burma is not actually Burma, it was just lumped to burma by British. Northern minorities should be respected by Burma. In this regard, China should do the same