Burma: A New Government& Its Attitudes

Adrian Allen

Miguel Ibarra

Valentina Martinez

Paul Rolon

Michael Yatskievych

Conceptual Model

BURMA[Naypyidaw]

Strategic Location in SE Asia

Area

< Texas22°N 98°E

Population

54,584,650 est.[N.O.C. – 1983]

• Colonized - Indian Empire & Self-Gov.

• Military Regimes I & II – Internally Focused• Systems of Oppression

• China – 2,185 • India – 1,463• Thailand - 1800• Bangladesh - 193• Laos - 235

• 12 nm territorial sea• 24 nm contiguous zone• 200 nm exclusive econ. zone

Coastline [km] – 1,930

Land Borders [km] Political & Social Systems

Maritime Claims [nm]

676,578

Natural Resources• Petroleum, Natural Gas,

Hydropower, Coal• Tin, Antimony, Zinc, Copper,

Tungsten, Lead• Timber, Precious Stones,

Marble

Economy• Strict Govt. Controls/Corr.• External Influences• Illicit NetworksSectors: Agriculture [43%] Industry [20.5%] Services [36.6% ]

Key Questions Asked1) What is wanted?; 2) Why? What purpose will the product serve?; 3) Who is our consumer?; 4) What is their level of knowledge?; 5) How much time does the group have for the analysis?; 6) What preliminary knowledge do the investigators have of Burma?; 7) How do the analysts feel about the situation in Burma? – Assumptions and Preconceptions Exercise – 8) How much breadth and detail should the investigation contain?; 9) What kind of collection methods and sources will the investigators exploit?;10) What time period should be covered?; 11) What issues should the group focus on; 12) Which ones shall be given less priority, or even none?13) Given the answers to the first 12 Qs, is it best to apply situational logic, search for a theory, or use analogies and other historical comparisons as the basis for developing the results?14) Is it likely that the conclusions will be proved, or will the group be called upon to give its best estimates and conclusions?

Key Indicators Searched

• Geographic Location Issues

• Structures & Features

• Political Conditions

• Sociological Issues

• Cultural Aspects

• Economic Conditions & Impact

• Industrial & Commercial Considerations

• Legislation & Penalty Systems

Leadership Under 2ND Military Regime

- March, 1988-Student-led demonstrations. - Diminishing economy - Regime change- August, 1988- Military kills 1,000s of demonstrators. - Aung San Suu Kyi - Political Speech - Opposition leader- September, 1988- The BSPP is dismantled - Military junta takes command - Thousands of protestors killed - SLORC

1980s 1990s

- 1990- National League for Democracy Party - Aung San Suu Kyi – House Arrest - 60% of votes - 392 out of 485 seats- SLORC refutes results; remains in command- 1,000s of political activists imprisoned- 1997- Military junta changes name to SPDC

More Recent Leadership Developments

2000s 2010s- 2004 - Senior officials oust Prime Minster General Nyunt.

- Aug., 2007 - Protests led by monks & activists continue.-Sept., 2007 - Principles are drafted into the constitution.-Oct., 2007 - SPDC appoints 54 members to committee.-Nov., 2008 - Harsh sentences for political prisoners.

-April, 2010 - Cabinet ministers resign their Mlty. Comm.-Nov. 3, 2010 - SPDC releases Aung San Suu Kyi.-Nov., 2010 - Union Solidarity and

Development Party wins.-April, 2011- Civilian government takes office and SPDC is dissolved.

Convergent – Divergent Thinking

Problem RestatementIn what direction will the new leaders steer the country? How will society impact the new government?

180° FlipWill there even be a change in the administration? How can the attitudes remain the same? [Preservation of Current Administration]

Broadening the FocusHow can the current administration be prolonged? Attitudes remain?

Re-directing the FocusWhat are the factors that give the current regime strength?

Original Questions: 1) What are the likely attitudes of the next generation of Burmese leaders? 2) How might these attitudes shift with generational change?

• Asking “Why”?– Why are the attitudes of future leaders so important and how will they affect generational change?If Burma wishes to thrive and join the modern world, its leadership must change.– Why?To end corruption, ethnic rivalries, drug and human trafficking; to improve its infrastructure & make proper use of its natural resources.– Why?To guarantee political stability, foster peace, and improve its economy; ponder the concept of a democratic government.

• Winnow and Cluster:Used the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses [ACH]

• Promising Idea:Final Conclusion

C-D Thinking (cont’d)

The Bottom Line Is:Current authoritarian government - Only elite are prosperous. Corruption and political oppression are widespread.

Potential Policies:Neighboring countries must step in as allies to the opposition; Incorporating the UN; Allies must assist in organizing, funding, and campaigning for the opposition; Society must encourage a regime step down – regime unification – reconciliation with armed groups/lower ranks of military; Releasing of political prisoners; Ending the military campaign against minority nationalities and religious groups; Respecting the rule of law and improving human rights conditions.

Risk AnalysisEconomist Method I – 1986: Burma

* Risk Rating Guide *100-70: Hyper Risk70-60: Very High Risk60-46: High Risk45-31: Moderate Risk30-0: Low Risk

Final Burma Risk Assessment

Economic: (14/33 points) Political: (27/50 points) Social: (6/17 points)

ΣTotal: 47/100 = High Risk

1. Falling GDP (1/8 pts)2. High Inflation (4/5 pts)3. Capital Flight (0/4 pts)4. Increasing, High Foreign Debt (3/6 pts) 5. Low Food Output (0/4 pts)6. Commodity Dependence (6/6 pts)

1. Bad Neighbors (1/3 pts)2. Authoritarian Power (5/7 pts)3. Staleness (5/5 pts)4. Illegitimacy (3/9 pts)5. Generals in Power (3/6 pts)6. War (10/20 pts)

1. Urbanization (0/3 pts)2. Religious Fundamentalism (0/4 pts)3. Corruption (4/6 pts)4. Ethnic, Religious, Racial Tension (2/4 pts)

Economic Factors Assessment

Political Factors Assessment

Social Factors Assessment

Risk Analysis (cont’d)

Economist Method II – 2011: Burma* Risk Rating Guide *A = Low RiskB = Moderate RiskC = High RiskD = Very High RiskE = Hyper Risk

Final Burma Risk Assessment

D = 78 Very High Risk

Security Risk: C = 46Political Stability: D = 75Government Effectiveness: E = 100Legal/Regulation: E = 90Macroeconomic Risk: D = 70Foreign Trade: E = 96Financial Risk: E = 88Tax Policy: D =62Labor Market: D = 64Infrastructure Risk: E = 91

Risk Analysis (cont’d)International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) Method: Burma [2006-08, 2012]

Risk Band2006: Mod. Risk2007: High Risk2008: High Risk2012: Very High Risk

Overall Risk Rank: 123/140

Economist Methods: Angola, Burundi, Pakistan, Afghanistan

ICRG Method: Pakistan, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia

Countries with Comparable

Ranks

Hypothesis I: Transitioning to a Democracy

What state-forming factors cause an entire population to accede to authoritarian politics? In the case of Burma, why has it never democratized? How have the different political systems throughout Burmese history suppressed the idea of a democracy? What conditions might allow for a peaceful transition to democracy? On the other hand, what conditions might allow for a violent transition to democracy? What are the barriers in each scenario? Given the current political climate, is it likely that Burma will democratize? How stable is the current regime? How ‘hardened’ are the attitudes of its leaders? Are there any tangible indicators that Burma may democratize within the next generation of its leaders? How can these be identified and assessed? In what ways can such a transition benefit the people? If a transition occurs, how can it affect the geopolitics of the region? According to Democratic Peace Theory, democracies do not fight each other because they operate in a transparent fashion and cooperate with one another. If a transition occurs, will the region become more politically stable? How would the U.S. benefit from a change in government and the shifting of theleaders’ attitudes? Why?

Evidence MatrixFindings Evidence Source Degree of Confidence

Journal of Asia Pacific Studies

A-1

Journal of Democracy A-1

Democratization A-1

Contemporary Southeast Asia

B-1

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Prospects

B-2

C-2

Hypothesis II: Preservation of the Status Quo Using historical data, why has the military regime been so successful in this country? Although there has clearly been an opposition, why have dissenters repeatedly failed to overthrow the military establishment? Using historical data, what are those factors? How can one assess the future of this country? Considering recent elections, the constitution, and the release of the major opposition leader, what are the indications that military leaders will remain in charge? Using political, economic and even ethnicity data, which factors can be identified as being ‘favorable’ to the opposition? Analyzing these factors, can it be suggested that the current government is in jeopardy? What are the signs? Why the sudden interest in Southeast Asia by our consumers? – Call to analyze SE Asia – How can one assess the potential for democracy advocates to win? Even if the current regime stays in power, is it likely that the new leaders will havedifferent attitudes? Or will their attitudes resist generational change? What are the signs, and how can they be assessed? How are American interests affected, directly and indirectly, under the current regime? Is it strategic for the U.S. to support the preservation of the status quo or is it better to support a new government and a shift in the leaders’ attitudes?

Evidence MatrixFindings Evidence Source Degree of Confidence Comments

In Favor

X

USSDA1

In Favor

Nuetral

Nuetral

In Favor

Nuetral

In Favor

Nuetral

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

A1CIA Factbook Accurate statistics - difficult to obtain

The Awakening

Myanmar: The Next Failed State?

Berkley Article

BBC

Wash. Post

The Telegraph

B2

B1

B2

B2

B2

B2

Accurate statistics - difficult to obtain

Hypothesis III: The Satellization of Burma

Burma lies at the crossroads of the Indian subcontinent, SW China, the Indian Ocean and the rest of SE Asia. How does its strategic location influence its neighbors into getting involved in the Burmese political scene? Following the 1988 coup, India and China took advantage of the opportunity to refocus their regional strategic ambitions. Is the bilateral strategic rivalry a threat to Burmese internal politics? Can foreign penetration in Burma be an indicator of a strengthening Sino-Burmese partnership or Indo-Burmese partnership? What are the main expressions of the Sino-Indian rivalry in Burma? Why is China investing in Burmese infrastructure and trading markets? Why is India following along? Has foreign direct investment had any effect in the political stability of the country? Power Transition Theory asserts that China and India are two of the greatest emerging powers on Earth. It is not surprising that their energy demands will continue to sky-rocket. Burma’s resources remain largely unexploited. How will these countries enter the energy rush? Can the typical Burmese xenophobic nationalism resist external influences, esp. In the political atmosphere? What are the signs? How can a change in the Burmese government and a shift in its leaders’ attitudes alter the involvement of neighboring countries?

Evidence MatrixFindings Evidence Source Degree of Confidence Comments

Routledge – Taylor & Francis Group

--------

Am. Journal of Int’l AffairsXJournal of Strat. Studies

XArmed Forces & Society

Third World Quarterly

Energy Sec.

Civil-Mil. Relns.

Journal of Contemp. China

C’s Non-Int. Pol.X

PTT

PTT

Neighboring Relns.

Journal of Int’l AffairsC-I Tension --------

-------- Journal of Int’l Affairs

C-I and B Press

A - 1

B - 2

B - 3

A - 1

B - 3

C - 2

B - 1

B - 1

Final Assessment

Overall Degree of Confidence: B – 1

We assess with high confidence that in the mid-to-long range (2 years +), Burma will not form a new government nor witness its leaders’ attitudes changing dramatically. However, we do not assess that Burma is immovable. We also assess there is a low risk of foreign intervention affecting the political stability of the country.

Paraphrasing Thomas Fingar [p. 37], “Please note that the ice under this judgment is thin. Before committing the consumer’s prestige or the power of the United States to a course of action predicated on what the analysts have determined to be the case, you need to remind yourself that available information was limited to open source intelligence. The short time frame dedicated to the analysis and assessment of the next generation of Burmese leaders was inadequate to see through much of the fog of the future and determine with confidence what the trends are determining is likely to occur.”

Sources• Stateness problems or regime unification? Explaining obstacles

to democratization in Burma/Myanmar Alexander Dukalskis Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA Democratization Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2009, 945–968

• A Historical Approach to Myanmar’s Democratic Process Journal of Asia Pacific Studies ( 2010) Vol 1, No 2, 132-148

• ASEAN and Political Change in Myanmar: Towards a Regional Initiative? Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 30, No. 3 (2008), pp. 351-78

• How Burma Could Democratize Journal of Democracy, Volume 12, Number 4, October 2001, pp. 95-108

• Burma's Quest for Democracy: An Introduction Journal of Democracy, Volume 3, Number 1, January 1992, pp. 3-4

• Myanmar: On the Road to Democracy? By: Gee, John, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 87554917, Jan/Feb2012, Vol. 31, Issue 1

• Approaches and Concerns in Myanmar, Prospects, (Paris, France) 35 no3 S 2005, PAGE(S): 331-42

• A Historical Approach to Myanmar’s Democratic Process Journal of Asia Pacific Studies ( 2010) Vol 1, No 2, 132-148

• ASEAN and Political Change in Myanmar: Towards a Regional Initiative? Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 30, No. 3 (2008), pp. 351-78

• BBC Monitoring. (2012). Burma profile. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12990563

• Burma's Quest for Democracy: An Introduction Journal of Democracy, Volume 3, Number 1, January 1992, pp. 3-4

• CIA World Factbook. (2012). Burma. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

• KURLANTZICK, J. (2011). Myanmar: The next failed state? Current History, 110(737), 242-247. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=65123019&site=ehost-live&scope=site

• Lansner, T. (2012). Burma history. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/burma/history2.html

• LARKIN, E. (2012). The awakening. New Republic, 243(1), 14-16. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70453844&site=ehost-live&scope=site

• McPeanne, J. (2012). Why is burma taking the democratic route? Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.straight.com/article-601281/vancouver/jeffrey-mcpeanne-why-burma-taking-democratic-route

• Nelson, D. (2012). Burma's opposition prepares for the unexpected after aung san suu kyi agrees to contest elections. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.telegraph.co.uk

• Nelson, D., & MacKinnon, I. (2012). Burma releases 650 political prisoners in move to end isolation. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.telegraph.co.uk

• Unknown, T. T. (2012). Burma signs ceasefire with karen ethnic rebels. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.telegraph.co.uk

• Unknown, W. P. (2011). Clinton visits burma. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific

• US State Department. (2012). Burma. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm

Sources• Howell, Llewellyn D. (2007). The Handbook

of Country and Political Risk Analysis, 4th Edition. East Syracuse NY: PRS Group, Inc.

• Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Myanmar Risk Ratings. [Data File]. Retrieved from: http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=RKCountryVW3&country_id=1080000308&rf=0

• Stateness problems or regime unification? Explaining obstacles to democratization in Burma/Myanmar Alexander Dukalskis Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA Democratization Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2009, 945–968

• A Historical Approach to Myanmar’s Democratic Process Journal of Asia Pacific Studies ( 2010) Vol 1, No 2, 132-148

• ASEAN and Political Change in Myanmar: Towards a Regional Initiative? Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 30, No. 3 (2008), pp. 351-78

• How Burma Could Democratize Journal of Democracy, Volume 12, Number 4, October 2001, pp. 95-108