When Myanmar’s ambassador to the United Nations Kyaw Moe Tun took the floor of the General Assembly on Feb. 26 to condemn the weeks-old military coup and announce his loyalty to the elected government, he not only shocked all those tuning in who expected a pro forma defense of the Tatmadaw’s power grab and denunciation of U.N. interference. He also provided Myanmar’s democratic movement a potentially powerful new tool, both to help secure their legitimacy, and to shift the historic dynamics of U.N. failure in Myanmar. To make the most of this tool, the nascent National Unity Government (NUG) must quickly learn how to work with the U.N. system and leverage it for its intrinsic utility as well as to build out their footprint internationally. To date, the results have been mixed, but there are signs that the NUG is learning. Whether these efforts ultimately will be effective also depends on whether the U.N. system can learn from its own failures in Myanmar and make the necessary course corrections at this pivotal moment.
If the NUG and U.N. squander this opportunity by repeating old patterns, it is virtually guaranteed that everyone stands to lose
The U.N.’s history with Myanmar has been a multi-decade case study in the moral hazards that international organizations face when dealing with regimes that do not care about either the welfare of their own people or the opinions of outsiders. After being one of the first of the newly independent post-colonial countries to join the U.N., Myanmar enthusiastically participated in U.N. activities during the parliamentary democracy period. It even requested the U.N.’s help in dealing with spillover from the Chinese civil war, when both Kuomintang (KMT) and Communist troops breached Myanmar’s border.
After Ne Win’s 1962 coup, however, successive military regimes rigorously limited their engagement with international organizations out of an almost fanatical devotion to neutrality. Like other autarkic dictatorships, the Ne Win regime deeply distrusted the U.N. and particularly eschewed involvement with its field-based activities, even though his countryman U Thant served as U.N. Secretary General during much of the first decade of Burmese Socialist Program Party (BSPP) rule. It was not just the U.N. that drew Ne Win’s suspicions: nearly all foreign organizations were kicked out of Myanmar during the 1960s and diplomats based in the country were heavily restricted. The BSPP’s fetishization of neutrality was such that Ne Win withdrew Myanmar from the Non-Aligned Movement in 1978 because he was concerned it had become too partisan toward the Soviet Union. Given the role of Southeast Asia as a major theater of Cold War contestation, and China’s mercurial role in these geostrategic games, one can hardly blame Myanmar for wanting to remain aloof from it all. But Ne Win’s autarky also ensured that Myanmar essentially was suspended in amber for more than a decade.
Read the full article from Just Security.
More from CNAS
"No Question of U.S. Using India As A Cat's Paw Against China"
On 'Talking Point', Lisa Curtis, Senior Fellow and Director of the Indo-Pacific Security Programme at the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) in Washington, D.C., Former...
By Lisa Curtis
Japan-South Korea Cooperation Amid Israel-Hamas Conflict Proves Benefits of Trilateral With US
Coordination on evacuations of their citizens from the Middle East is a seemingly small but symbolically significant step for Tokyo and Seoul....
By Evan Wright & Lt Col Jessica A. Guarini
Indian Diplomacy: US Strategy in the Indo-Pacific
Discussion on the goals and strategies of the USA in the Indo-Pacific and the challenges in implementing them. Hosted by Dr. Sreeram Chaulia and featuring expert analysis by L...
By Lisa Curtis
How India-China Powerplay In Indo-Pacific Puts U.S. In A Fix
Former White House Official Lisa Curtis and Professor Minxin Pei decode the impact of changing global equilibrium on India-U.S. relations. Lisa Curtis believes that Chinese ag...
By Lisa Curtis