Shan Herald Agency for News (S.H.A.N.)

During US President Obama’s  Asian tour from 13th  to 19th  of November most attention will be given on issues regarding North Korea, Iran, the economy, climate change, energy, human rights, Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to Jeffrey Bader, senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council.

While Obama Asian trip covers a wide range of issues, the main thrust will be on how to correct the trade imbalance between the U.S. and China.

According to an interview with Reuters this week, Obama was said to describe China as a "vital partner, as well as a competitor."

He went on to warn of the  "enormous strains" in relations between the world's two most powerful nations if economic imbalances between them were not corrected.

Consequently, many people see these imbalances, which are excessive US consumption and borrowing, facilitated by China's aggressive export strategy and purchases of U.S. debt,  a major cause of the boom and subsequent bust in the global economy.

Obama is scheduled to spend time in Shanghai and Beijing from 15th to 18th , whereas his stops in Tokyo, Singapore and Seoul will be just only one day each.  

Apart from the economy and trade, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, climate change, energy and human rights issues will also be discussed, during Obama’s trip.

But particular interest will be focused on the first-ever meeting  with leaders of the 10 nations that make up ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, on the sideline of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Singapore, on 15th November.

Accordingly, high officials from  Burma are due to attend the ASEAN-US meeting.
The summit is expected to include one of the highest-level meetings between a US president and top Burmese junta leaders. The US. has for years imposed strict economic sanctions on the military regime for its widespread human-rights abuses and  the West in general has shunned to sit down at the same table with the junta.

But lately, the Obama administration  started to pursue a double-track policy of deeper engagement and sanctions to try to spur reform in Burma.  Earlier this month, the most senior US diplomat visited Burma in 14 years and met both Burmese Prime Minister General Thein Sein and the jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Meanwhile, yesterday U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke with VOA in Manila in advance before joining President Obama in Singapore for multi-lateral meetings that could include US interaction with Burmese junta leaders.

Clinton pointed out that the elections planned in Burma next year would not be seen as legitimate unless the military government engages in tripartite dialogue with the country's opposition and ethnic groups, following up with the creation of an atmosphere for free, fair and credible elections. 

The  preposition of  "free, fair and credible elections" clearly stated by  Hillary Clinton, time and again,  is exactly what needs to be done to end the ongoing crisis in Burma.

The only problem is the planned 2010 elections by the Burmese junta is not  likely to be free, fair or credible.

It is not going to be free, for the junta is not known for its transparency and honesty, but for  manipulation of voting results and cooking up figures to suit its plan and ego.

The rigging of 2008 constitutional referendum, which was said to be approved by more than 90 percent, is the case in point and there is little or no guarantee that the junta will restrain from repeating it again in the forthcoming elections.

Fairness is one word, which has never been taken seriously by the junta and is known to do anything to win, by hook or by crook. It has now already started to mobilise its political machinery to empower Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), the junta’s own political party. Reports also indicated that the  campaigning of regime’s party has already gained momentum. In contrast, the NLD and others are not even given allowance to organise their parties freely, let alone campaigning for elections.

The junta also doesn't really care much about credibility, when its hold on power is at stake.  In other words, if the junta has to choose between the possibility of losing political power and conducting credible election according to international norms,  it will definitely opt for clinging on to power, in  every possible way.

Credibility of an election would also mean having a real democratic constitution and not its 2008 military supremacy one, which is to be the centre point of 2010 election. Again, the junta will not yield to the amendment of its self-drawn constitution, which should include equality,  all-inclusiveness, rights of self-determination and democracy, among others, according to the people's aspiration.

Until the junta makes an about turn stance from its present position, there is little or no hope that the election will be "free, fair and credible", as called for by  Clinton.

On Friday, at a "town hall meeting" with Filipino students and reporters, Clinton said that Burmese military leaders who have ruled the country since 1962 are "on the wrong side of history" but said bringing change to the country could be a slow process lasting years.

To sum up, the US position is to push for a tripartite dialogue, coupled with free, fair and credible elections, where as the junta is determined to go on with its self-drawn, military supremacy constitution and manipulated elections, with semblance of few democratic-trappings, to secure its hold on power.

It is indeed a yawning policy gap between the US and the junta and this needs to be narrowed, as pointed out by David I. Steinberg, Professor of Georgetown University, in his recent article “US, Myanmar Moving to Thaw Ties”.

He writes: “Two factors dictated policy. First, internal US political realities prevented too sudden a policy shift because Burma is a "boutique issue," meaning that other, more important foreign and domestic crises require expenditure of greater administration political capital. Second, a major swing in US policies must be prompted by some significant amelioration of harsh junta rule in Burma. The US president can justify a policy shift, but only in response to significant Burmese reforms.”

Under such circumstances, finding lasting solution and ending the ongoing crisis would depend much on the junta’s political will and bold, far-reaching accommodation, encompassing all stakeholders. The ball is now squarely in junta’s court and the narrowing of policy gap could only happen, if a positive step is taken in the right direction that would pave way for a genuine democratisation process.

#Ends…………