论文部分内容阅读
Myanmar’s gripping parliamentary by-elections in April resulted in a landslide victory for the National League for Democracy (NLD), the major opposition party in the country. A total of 150 candidates from 17 parties and seven independent candidates competed for 45 seats. The NLD, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, secured 43 of the 45 seats available. Aung San Suu Kyi won a seat in Myanmar’s lower house.
The by-elections were no doubt an important signal that Myanmar’s political transition is progressing. The West also sees the NLD’s victory as evidence that Myanmar is truly under political transformation. While the United States offered to relax some sanctions on Myanmar, France said it would urge the EU to ease bans. At the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Cambodia on April 3, ASEAN leaders openly called on Western countries to lift sanctions on Myanmar.
But Washington still has doubts about Myanmar’s progress. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Myanmar’s reform process has a long way to go and the future is neither clear nor certain. Because the recent reform was dominated by the military that has ruled Myanmar for decades and the new Constitution sets aside 25 percent of the seats in the country’s parliament for the military, there have always been concerns about Myanmar’s political transformation in the West.
An incremental approach
Myanmar’s political transformation is an independent choice of its people. In the first place, it is characterized by incremental progress. The process shows people in Myanmar have gradually deepened their understanding of democracy and Myanmar’s national conditions.
After getting rid of British colonial rule in 1948, the ethnic groups of Myanmar founded a unified federalist state. Myanmar’s first Constitution adopted many Western democratic principles. It gave some ethnic groups the right for independence 10 years after the founding of the union.
But long-time colonial rule had deprived Myanmar of a strong political leadership. As a result of complicated political conflicts, Myanmar was confronted with the risk of breaking up a decade after independence. In 1962, Ne Win seized power in a coup. The corruption of the Ne Win military regime, intensified ethnic conflicts as well as failure to choose a proper development path eventually plunged the rich Southeast Asian country into poverty. This led to a pro-democracy movement in the late 1980s. After a new military regime came to power, the Constitution of the Ne Win era was abolished.
Western media showed great interest in the fight between the new military regime and pro-democracy activists. But the real problem in Myanmar was how to restore its constitutional rule. The 1990 elections were held at a time when Myanmar did not have an effective Constitution. In a sense, the military government’s refusal to hand over power following the elections reflected the chaos caused by the absence of a Constitution.
A new Constitution, however, did not materialize until nearly two decades later. The 2008 Constitution not only enshrined Western democratic norms, including the separation of powers, a market economy and a bicameral legislature, but also exhibited distinctive characteristics. For instance, it allocates a quarter of the seats in the parliament to the military with the purpose of safeguarding national unity with the help of the military. Though widely denounced by Western countries, the arrangement was accepted by pro-democracy parties in Myanmar. Many parties participated in the elections under the new Constitution in 2010, and Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD, which did not contest in the 2010 elections, took part in the by-elections this year.
Pro-democracy parties have realized there should be an orderly and incremental approach to democracy in Myanmar. The new Constitution has ensured people’s right to participate in elections. The fact that three quarters of the seats in the parliament are directly elected makes democratic politics possible, because only a constitutional amendment requires a 75-percent majority in the parliament. Under the new Constitution, pro-democracy parties will be able to participate in government affairs or even gain majority in the parliament.
China-Myanmar relations
The United States has been reluctant to fully recognize the progress in Myanmar. Actually, its real purpose is to force Myanmar to make political transformation under Washington’s scrutiny in a bid to reap geopolitical benefits.
The United States has always been guided by pragmatism in its foreign policy. Its political relations with other countries are based on these countries’ attitudes toward the United States and whether their policies are in line with Washington’s international strategic interests.
Washington has long been critical of Myanmar’s political transition. While showing hardly any interest in Myanmar’s reform, it got excited when Myanmar decided to cease its cooperation with China on the Myitsone hydropower station project last year. Washington had hoped that Myanmar’s democratic transition could cause a rift between China and Myanmar, only to be disappointed. But it continues to mount pressure on Myanmar for possible long-term gains.
China and Myanmar enjoy a profound friendly relationship dating back to the 1950s when the two countries agreed on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. These principles—mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence—have since become basic norms in international relations. Political respect has laid a solid foundation for sound relations between the two neighbors.
Moreover, the ongoing political transformation is not a tactic adopted by Myanmar’s new leaders to persuade the West to lift sanctions but a result of the country’s “roadmap to democracy.” China has given steady support to the roadmap since it was formulated in 2003. The two countries have established a strategic partnership, maintained frequent high-level contacts and forged close economic ties. There is reason to believe the bilateral relationship will be strengthened as Myanmar embraces greater economic openness and improves its legal system.
Also, with its political transformation, Myanmar is making headway in national reconciliation. Progress in resolving ethnic conflicts, which have not only hindered Myanmar’s development, but also harmed stability in areas along the China-Myanmar border, will contribute to a better relationship between the two countries.
While making its diplomacy more open and more diversified, Myanmar’s political transformation will not weaken its relationship with China. On the contrary, with the opening up of Myanmar, China-Myanmar relations will receive a further boost.
The by-elections were no doubt an important signal that Myanmar’s political transition is progressing. The West also sees the NLD’s victory as evidence that Myanmar is truly under political transformation. While the United States offered to relax some sanctions on Myanmar, France said it would urge the EU to ease bans. At the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Cambodia on April 3, ASEAN leaders openly called on Western countries to lift sanctions on Myanmar.
But Washington still has doubts about Myanmar’s progress. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Myanmar’s reform process has a long way to go and the future is neither clear nor certain. Because the recent reform was dominated by the military that has ruled Myanmar for decades and the new Constitution sets aside 25 percent of the seats in the country’s parliament for the military, there have always been concerns about Myanmar’s political transformation in the West.
An incremental approach
Myanmar’s political transformation is an independent choice of its people. In the first place, it is characterized by incremental progress. The process shows people in Myanmar have gradually deepened their understanding of democracy and Myanmar’s national conditions.
After getting rid of British colonial rule in 1948, the ethnic groups of Myanmar founded a unified federalist state. Myanmar’s first Constitution adopted many Western democratic principles. It gave some ethnic groups the right for independence 10 years after the founding of the union.
But long-time colonial rule had deprived Myanmar of a strong political leadership. As a result of complicated political conflicts, Myanmar was confronted with the risk of breaking up a decade after independence. In 1962, Ne Win seized power in a coup. The corruption of the Ne Win military regime, intensified ethnic conflicts as well as failure to choose a proper development path eventually plunged the rich Southeast Asian country into poverty. This led to a pro-democracy movement in the late 1980s. After a new military regime came to power, the Constitution of the Ne Win era was abolished.
Western media showed great interest in the fight between the new military regime and pro-democracy activists. But the real problem in Myanmar was how to restore its constitutional rule. The 1990 elections were held at a time when Myanmar did not have an effective Constitution. In a sense, the military government’s refusal to hand over power following the elections reflected the chaos caused by the absence of a Constitution.
A new Constitution, however, did not materialize until nearly two decades later. The 2008 Constitution not only enshrined Western democratic norms, including the separation of powers, a market economy and a bicameral legislature, but also exhibited distinctive characteristics. For instance, it allocates a quarter of the seats in the parliament to the military with the purpose of safeguarding national unity with the help of the military. Though widely denounced by Western countries, the arrangement was accepted by pro-democracy parties in Myanmar. Many parties participated in the elections under the new Constitution in 2010, and Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD, which did not contest in the 2010 elections, took part in the by-elections this year.
Pro-democracy parties have realized there should be an orderly and incremental approach to democracy in Myanmar. The new Constitution has ensured people’s right to participate in elections. The fact that three quarters of the seats in the parliament are directly elected makes democratic politics possible, because only a constitutional amendment requires a 75-percent majority in the parliament. Under the new Constitution, pro-democracy parties will be able to participate in government affairs or even gain majority in the parliament.
China-Myanmar relations
The United States has been reluctant to fully recognize the progress in Myanmar. Actually, its real purpose is to force Myanmar to make political transformation under Washington’s scrutiny in a bid to reap geopolitical benefits.
The United States has always been guided by pragmatism in its foreign policy. Its political relations with other countries are based on these countries’ attitudes toward the United States and whether their policies are in line with Washington’s international strategic interests.
Washington has long been critical of Myanmar’s political transition. While showing hardly any interest in Myanmar’s reform, it got excited when Myanmar decided to cease its cooperation with China on the Myitsone hydropower station project last year. Washington had hoped that Myanmar’s democratic transition could cause a rift between China and Myanmar, only to be disappointed. But it continues to mount pressure on Myanmar for possible long-term gains.
China and Myanmar enjoy a profound friendly relationship dating back to the 1950s when the two countries agreed on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. These principles—mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence—have since become basic norms in international relations. Political respect has laid a solid foundation for sound relations between the two neighbors.
Moreover, the ongoing political transformation is not a tactic adopted by Myanmar’s new leaders to persuade the West to lift sanctions but a result of the country’s “roadmap to democracy.” China has given steady support to the roadmap since it was formulated in 2003. The two countries have established a strategic partnership, maintained frequent high-level contacts and forged close economic ties. There is reason to believe the bilateral relationship will be strengthened as Myanmar embraces greater economic openness and improves its legal system.
Also, with its political transformation, Myanmar is making headway in national reconciliation. Progress in resolving ethnic conflicts, which have not only hindered Myanmar’s development, but also harmed stability in areas along the China-Myanmar border, will contribute to a better relationship between the two countries.
While making its diplomacy more open and more diversified, Myanmar’s political transformation will not weaken its relationship with China. On the contrary, with the opening up of Myanmar, China-Myanmar relations will receive a further boost.