[The result was the first U.S. secretary of state ever to set foot in the gaudy presidential palace in this constructed-from-scratch capital. Clinton carried to her meeting with Burmese President Thein Sein a letter from Obama that conveyed praise, but also a warning that significantly more progress is needed for change to take root.]
By William Wan,
NAYPYIDAW, Burma — It was a moment President Obama has sought since his inauguration, when he pledged to reach out to despotic rulers who “are willing to unclench your fist.”
But in the three years since, his invitation has been ignored by Iran, North Korea and Syria.
Then came Thursday, when the leader of one of the most isolated and repressive regimes in the world — a government responsible for killing thousands in a quest to silence dissent — welcomed U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Burma has lurched unexpectedly toward reform in the past three months. Its move has coincided with a broader attempt by Obama to pivot his administration’s foreign policy focus away from the Middle East and toward a counterbalancing of China’s rise in Asia.
The result was the first U.S. secretary of state ever to set foot in the gaudy presidential palace in this constructed-from-scratch capital. Clinton carried to her meeting with Burmese President Thein Sein a letter from Obama that conveyed praise, but also a warning that significantly more progress is needed for change to take root.
“For decades, the choices of this country’s leaders kept it apart from the global economy and the community of nations,” Clinton said after the meeting. “While the measures already taken may be unprecedented and welcomed, they are just a beginning.”
The Burmese overture — and the U.S. response — are freighted with risk for both sides. Thein Sein must balance the competing desires of his country’s restless opposition movement against the hardliners within his own government. Obama could face criticism for coddling autocrats if Burma’s reform push proves less than genuine.
Burma’s leaders are ultimately believed to be seeking an end to U.S. sanctions, but Clinton on Thursday offered Thein Sein smaller incentives. The two discussed loosening restrictions on United Nations funding for health and microfinance projects, as well as the possibility of additional international aid.
The most direct result of their meeting could be a restoration of U.S. diplomatic relations, which would upgrade the U.S. mission here into a full-fledged embassy headed by an ambassador, Clinton told reporters afterward.
Eager to convince U.S. officials of his sincerity, Thein Sein gave a detailed 45-minute presentation on his plans for reforming the very areas of his authoritarian government that the United States and others have criticized for decades, according to a senior State Department official who was present at the meeting.
The gestures of reform in recent months have included the release of political prisoners, greater media freedoms and plans for political and economic reform. The Burmese leader vowed Thursday to work toward releasing more prisoners, brokering a ceasefire with ethnic minorities and adopting international agreements on nuclear weapons development.
The Obama administration has proceeded cautiously with Burma’s reclusive leaders, careful not to declare success too early in dealing with a government that has a long track record of promising reform only to resume its crackdowns.
“It was good policy by the Obama administration that led to where we are now, but they also to a degree got lucky,” said Ernie Bower, a Southeast Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Burma’s decision to open up this time is considered to be at least in part an attempt to ward off an increasingly assertive China. But the reforms are also believed to be the result of internal power dynamics among Burmese leaders that U.S. officials readily admit they are still trying to understand.
Thursday’s meeting gave U.S. officials their most extensive look yet at the man believed to be driving Burma’s tentative reform efforts. Like all leaders in Burma’s nominally civilian government, Thein Sein is a retired general. But beside that, not much else is known.
He has heart disease and uses a pacemaker. He is described as low-key and served for years as prime minister, a position that was several steps below Senior Gen. Than Shwe, the junta’s longtime leader.
It is that role, U.S. officials believe, that may have planted the seed for reform.
“He spent an enormous amount of time traveling outside the country in meetings, interacting with others,” said the senior State Department official. “So it’s entirely possible that he had a chance to get a much better sense of what was going on in Southeast Asia, how far behind his country was falling.”
There are pervasive rumors in Burma, also known as Myanmar, that the president is still partly controlled by Than Shwe, who has, at least officially, retired from public life.
“It’s just common sense,” said one Burmese journalist with access to high-ranking civilian officials in the government, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution. “Why would he give up that power? It can only hurt him in the future. His family still has crony companies to run. He would not want another leader to come in and criticize or get rid of him.”
In Thursday's meeting , U.S. officials said they were surprised by Thein Sein’s frankness about the pressure he’s facing. He acknowledged that his reforms have drawn supporters, opponents and fence-sitters within his own government.
One of the main reasons Clinton was willing to visit Thein Sein was that the president’s reforms have been endorsed by Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma’s long-persecuted democracy movement. Suu Kyi has said she believes the president’s intentions are good, even if she doesn’t trust others in his government.
On Thursday, as Suu Kyi and Clinton had dinner together — the first meeting between two of the world’s most prominent female politicians — Suu Kyi mentioned she had been reading books of late about military personalities, said a U.S. official who was also at the dinner.
She was trying to understand the “military mentality” of commanders such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Otto von Bismarck, who later went into politics — men much like the former general she is now trying to work with to change her country.
@ The Washington Post
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ISLAMABAD:Confusion and a communication breakdown prevented Pakistan's airforce from scrambling to defend troops on the ground during the deadly NATO bombing last weekend of two border outposts, the military said Friday, responding to rare domestic criticism of the powerful institution.
The Pakistani military, which eats up most of the country's budget and is accountable to no one, has said the attack that killed 24 troops was an "act of deliberate aggression" that went on for close two hours.
It has also said that Pakistani commanders contacted and pleaded with coalition commanders to stop firing.
NATO and U.S. officials have disputed that account, which has triggered uncomfortable questions in this South Asian country over why Pakistan's own fighter jets and helicopters stationed close to the border did not take off to defend the ground troops during the attack.
The military has said troops did fire back at the NATO choppers when they attacked.
A Pakistani military statement on Friday said the response could have been more "effective" if the airforce had been called in, but this was not possible because of a "breakdown of communication" and confusion at "various levels" within the organization.
The incident has pushed already strained ties between Washington and Islamabad over the future of Afghanistan close to rupture. Islamabad has closed its eastern border to NATO supplies traveling into landlocked Afghanistan and said it is reviewing its cooperation with Washington.
U.S. officials expressed their condolences over the loss of life and denied the Pakistan army was deliberately targeted.
But they have not apologized, saying it would not be appropriate before an investigation into the incident has been completed. In the past, NATO and the US has complained that militants along the border are helped or tolerated by Pakistani soldiers.
U.S. officials have said a joint U.S-Afghan patrol came under fire from the Pakistani side of the border and called in airstrikes. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal quoted American officials as saying that Pakistani officers had given the go-ahead for the raid, unaware they had troops in the area.
Pakistan's military also faced criticism after the May 2 unilateral American helicopter-borne raid that killed Osama bin Laden, with questions — yet unanswered — over how the aircraft were able to fly deep into Pakistani territory without the knowledge of the airforce.
@ The Himalayan Times
PAKISTAN DEFENDS LACK OF ACTION DURING NATO ATTACK
[U.S. officials have said a joint U.S-Afghan patrol came under fire from the Pakistani side of the border and called in airstrikes. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal quoted American officials as saying that Pakistani officers had given the go-ahead for the raid, unaware they had troops in the area.]ASSOCIATED PRESS
ISLAMABAD:Confusion and a communication breakdown prevented Pakistan's airforce from scrambling to defend troops on the ground during the deadly NATO bombing last weekend of two border outposts, the military said Friday, responding to rare domestic criticism of the powerful institution.
The Pakistani military, which eats up most of the country's budget and is accountable to no one, has said the attack that killed 24 troops was an "act of deliberate aggression" that went on for close two hours.
It has also said that Pakistani commanders contacted and pleaded with coalition commanders to stop firing.
NATO and U.S. officials have disputed that account, which has triggered uncomfortable questions in this South Asian country over why Pakistan's own fighter jets and helicopters stationed close to the border did not take off to defend the ground troops during the attack.
The military has said troops did fire back at the NATO choppers when they attacked.
A Pakistani military statement on Friday said the response could have been more "effective" if the airforce had been called in, but this was not possible because of a "breakdown of communication" and confusion at "various levels" within the organization.
The incident has pushed already strained ties between Washington and Islamabad over the future of Afghanistan close to rupture. Islamabad has closed its eastern border to NATO supplies traveling into landlocked Afghanistan and said it is reviewing its cooperation with Washington.
U.S. officials expressed their condolences over the loss of life and denied the Pakistan army was deliberately targeted.
But they have not apologized, saying it would not be appropriate before an investigation into the incident has been completed. In the past, NATO and the US has complained that militants along the border are helped or tolerated by Pakistani soldiers.
U.S. officials have said a joint U.S-Afghan patrol came under fire from the Pakistani side of the border and called in airstrikes. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal quoted American officials as saying that Pakistani officers had given the go-ahead for the raid, unaware they had troops in the area.
Pakistan's military also faced criticism after the May 2 unilateral American helicopter-borne raid that killed Osama bin Laden, with questions — yet unanswered — over how the aircraft were able to fly deep into Pakistani territory without the knowledge of the airforce.
@ The Himalayan Times
