The U.S. Navy shadowing a North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying weapons bound for Burma is the stuff of potboiler thrillers. Yet for two of the world’s most reclusive and repressive states, the only unique feature of these events is the fact that anyone is taking notice. For several years, Burma’s ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Kim Jong Il’s government in North Korea have been slowly strengthening their diplomatic and military ties, largely beneath the international radar.
- Extracted from Kay Seok and David Scott Mathieson, “Allies in Paranoia and Repression”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 3 July 2009. The authors are the North Korea and Burma researchers respectively for Human Rights Watch.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Susie Wong // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm
The United States has been providing public goods to maintain the international regime of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), promoting trade, and subsidizing the defense requirements of the whole international regime. In the case of Burma, the NPT issue must go together with Burma’s state building issue. The divergence between Burma and Thailand started in 1962 when each developed different economic ideology of how to build their nations. Thailand benefits from U.S. aid during the Vietnam War and the entire period of the Cold War. South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, received assistance as countries under the U.S. Sphere of Influence during the Cold War. This assistance has provided economic foundation for export-led growth model. Burma did not receive any assistance during that period. As such, international community cannot impose the form of polity on Burma without taking into consideration of its economic base. Cornering Burma to the basement of fear is the wrong policy in this context. What we should do is to work together to move Burma forward for peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific Region. With trade and economic assistance, we will move Burma from the basement of fear to the window of opportunity.
2 Colum Graham // Jul 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm
This article seems to be a bit sensationalistic, and I think conveys a much bigger drama than is realistically occuring. Also, the authors display a superficial understanding of the region by making veiled accusations of inaction by China.
If Myanmar did manage to acquire a nuclear weapon, they don’t have any sort of strategic advantage that North Korea has (for instance, with Seoul) — and I feel that rather than insure regime survival, it would give the UNSC pretty good reason to go and knock out whatever facilities (and the regime) they were building in the name of defending international peace – because Myanmar would have potentially broken the SE Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty.. causing a threat to regional stability. I’m sure they’d use the we’re building nuclear energy line – but they have no real case for that.
But yes, the “China should do” bit at the end doesn’t do much for this articles credibility because it’s not possibly in China’s interest to have a nuclear armed Myanmar as it destabalizes Southeast Asia, a key region of support.
In regards to sensationalism in the article itself, an example that I can question:
including a few across the inter-Korea border that have since been discovered and sealed by South Korea.
I believe the North has admitted to making 22 (I think?) tunnels around the start of the sunshine policy dialogue. Sure none of them have been discovered, but I doubt many, if any, crossed the DMZ. The four discovered that did cross the border were made well over 20 (probably 30) years ago now. Maybe there are still North Korean moles trying to go under the border, but until recently there were much easier ways to cross over (KIZ tours etc). I’m not sure what this has to do with bunker construction in Myanmar other than to add dramatic effect for the article.
….stuff of potboiler thrillers indeed.
3 Susie Wong // Jul 5, 2009 at 2:23 pm
After finishing reading the article, I felt I was reading more of an article about international security than about human rights issue. So I decided to google to find out about “Human Rights Watch” organization. Part of its mission said, ” by focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes,” yet I wonder why “Human Rights Watch” didn’t touch on Lese Majeste cases in Thailand. I mean why ” Human Rights Watch” only pays attention to Aung San Suu Kyi but not “Da Torpedo” when both women are fighting for the same cause.
4 Totila // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The first commenter’s claim that Burma did not “receive any assistance” from the USA after 1962 is simply not true. The Greenbook of USA Overseas Loans and Claims lists total economic assistance from the US to Burma as 212.3 million USD [historical dollars] for the years 1962 until 2003. There was a period of no funding between 1989 and 1994 but small amounts are listed after. Thailand’s figure for the same period for economic assistance is much more at 1104.9 million USD. If the years 1962-1989 are redacted from the total the 5 to 1 ratio becomes closer to 4 to 1. If military assistance is added to the numbers (and Burma did get 46.9 million USD in that period) the numbers dramatically favor Thailand, but as said, they are not zero and the commenter’s point was….
Information is available, via USAID at:
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html
5 Susie Wong // Jul 6, 2009 at 11:30 am
In order to answer my own question #3, I further investigate about “Human Rights Watch”.
I found out many interesting things, i.e. one can read Human Rights Watch’s reports in Japanese language. Its new research methodology is interesting, “Human Rights Watch has begun using statistical research, satellite photography, and bomb-data analysis, among other new methodologies”. In addition, I am stunned by its global reach capacity: Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Central Asia, Africa, Asia, Americas, and the United States. Furthermore, I am absorbing by the issues that Human Rights Watch are interested in: Arms, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. Also, its operation is fascinating, “Human Rights Watch meets with governments, the United Nations,…to press for changes in policy”. Its network is intriguing: Berlin, Geneva, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, London, Paris, Toronto, New York.
What is the implication for the Asia-Pacific Region? I wonder.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.