Can, Thailand, Influence, Burma?

In an update to my previous posts - here and here - on what influence that Thailand has over Burma, Irrawaddy reports:

Thailand has more economic muscle than China to influence the military regime in Burma to moderate its repressive policies, according to some regional analysts.

The Bangkok government through state-owned agencies such as PTT and EGAT—the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand—is the biggest purchaser of Burmese gas, contributing between US$1 billion to 2 billion a year to the regime.

Although some observers might argue that Thailand is thus dependent on Burma, other analysts argue that it’s really the other way round.

Because of the pipeline set up, the Burmese military government has no option but to keep selling the gas to Thailand—or see its much-needed income dry up.

“A pipeline imposes what we call in economics a ‘monopsony,’ a one-only buyer that likewise one might suppose enjoys some power over the seller,” explained Dr. Sean Turnell, an economist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and editor of Burma Economic Watch.

“Short of going the full measure of turning the gas off, Burma has few options with respect to its pipelines into Thailand. After all, it can’t deliver the gas some place else,” he told The Irrawaddy.

COMMENT: I don't expect any real action by the Thai government though, but it is nice to see that people are talking about the influence that the Thai government has over Burma. Now, we can quibble over exactly what the Thai government should do and what will work, but the Defence Minister's position that nothing "would happen unless China, India and Russia exert serious pressure on the junta" without mentioning that Thailand could exert pressure on Burma too.

I didn't get time to post at the time, but on September 17, 2007, just before the protests in Burma really gathered steam, The Nation published an editorial criticising India's policy in Burma:

New Delhi's support of the regime in Rangoon severely damages its international credibility

It was amazing to witness how India chose to respond to questions on its relations with Burma. When visiting Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in town last week, he was immediately taken to task on the issue. Questions from the floor by American and British diplomats as well as journalists focused exclusively on relations between India and Burma. After all, India, the world's largest democracy, is actively supporting one of the world's most famous rogue states, which continues to oppress its people.

Confronted with uncompromising and undiplomatic questions, Mukherjee simply recited the textbook answer that one of India's cardinal principles is not to interfere with the domestic affairs of another country. When he was asked how India could back a regime with one of the world's worst human-rights records, he responded with a deadpan expression that it is essentially the job of the people in the country to decide what government they want.

It is very disappointing that India has chosen to maintain this strange policy of support concerning the military junta in Burma. Certainly, one realises that India, which shares a border with Burma in Nagaland in eastern India, would have to accommodate the leaders in Rangoon to a certain degree on issues of common concern along the border, especially insurgents. But nobody would have expected India to kowtow to Burma in such a way.

India's policy towards Burma is a shame. The Burmese people have already decided that they do not want their government and India is doing nothing. The Indian foreign minister's answers help explain why India will remain aloof in the scheme of things in Asia, especially when it comes to institutional building.

No wonder that when India is compared with China, China prevails. Even though China is also a supporter of Burma, the reasons its leaders give for relations with Burma have been more circumspect and sensible. Following growing international pressure, including that from UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, China has begun to assert pressure on Burma in discreet ways. Burmese foreign minister Nyan Win was summoned to Beijing recently.

If India wants to "Look East" and continues to deal with Burma in such an unaccountable manner, its future position and reputation will be greatly jeopardised. One of the few reasons why India was not admitted into Apec this year in Sydney was its support for the Burmese regime. With the US, a key Apec member, lashing out at Burma, it would have been odd for India's membership bid to receive support. If New Delhi continues with its current policy, India will be caught in a dilemma, as the country would become Burma's only strong supporter.

Since 1991, India has pursued a Look East policy to very good result. It started out courting the economies of Asean and East Asia. In the following years, it has forged closer ties with Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and Japan. The country's relations progressed and resulted in the overall strengthening of ties between India and Asean.

The abrupt change in its policy towards Burma in the mid-1990s was in response to China's southward policy in Southeast Asia and domestic concerns over insurgents in Nagaland. That was understandable, but the trouble is that India has been doing more by strengthening the regime in the past several years with ammunition and arms. Mukherjee denied outright that India has sold arms to Burma. Maybe India did not sell the arms but simply gave them to the junta. India has to answer these questions in front of the international community.

Obviously, India-Burma relations cannot go on forever like this. It does not make sense.

COMMENT: The Nation is a Thai publication and criticises India for its Burma policy, but fails to mention Thailand. If you are to blame India for selling arms to Burma, why no mention the country that is the largest investor in Burma and takes almost 50% of all Burmese exports (10 times that of China)? Thailand!

Gen. Sonthi is also a proponent of its an internal matter for Burma.