Better relations with Myanmar is welcome change

There’s been much recently in the media about President Barack Obama’s visit to Myanmar. Suddenly, after being on page 15 (if at all) in most newspapers for the past 22 years — and then only if Suu Kyi did something, however minor — Myanmar (still called by the colonial name Burma given to it by Great Britain) is on or around the front pages. There are even accounts of Aung San Suu Kyi’s piano tuner on some national news outlets.

Most opinions applaud the visit for a variety of reasons, some object, but none has anything to do with Burmese needs, priorities or perspectives. Rather they have to do with ours. It is no accident that nearly every article employs the word "isolated" when referring to the country, and from that premise arises many conclusions that I’ll get to below. Actually, other than about 12 years during the Ne Win regime under the "Burmese Way to Socialism" (1962-1974) when the country was "house cleaning," Myanmar was certainly not isolated from the superpowers of the region: India, China and Japan.

Nor was it from its ASEAN neighbors, becoming a member of the organization in 1997, despite strong protests by the U.S. and European Union members, seeking, in effect, to isolate it.

The whole notion of isolation reminds me of a report in the London Times a while ago, which stated: "Dense fog over the Channel; Continent isolated."

The assumption that the "other" is the one isolated confirms the image we have of ourselves: an enlightened superpower doing good for the world for the sake of it. Perhaps there is some of that missionary bent in U.S. foreign policy, but let’s not make any mistake about the geopolitical and economic, perhaps even ideological, ramifications.

There’s no question — one has only to look at a map — to see that China is being encircled and Myanmar is one of the holes in that wall. Whether it will work is another question, as China has consistently backed Myanmar during the pounding it took mainly at the hands of the U.S. and United Kingdom during the last two decades: economically, politically and verbally.

Even nations we had assumed were far stronger economically and politically — Egypt, Libya and now Syria — could not withstand such external and internal pressure. Moreover, given that much of Europe’s economy is heading south in the foreseeable future, Asia is looking much more attractive as a solid investment. Finally, what better doctrine to pursue in this endeavor than one we consider universal — namely, democracy?

So — and as much as I, too, applaud Obama’s recent visit, characteristic of his international perspec- tive, perhaps the result of his childhood and teenage years in Indonesia and Hawaii, and his stop at Yangon University, reflective of another fundamentally important component of the president’s upbringing and domestic policies — let’s not get too self-congratulatory or starry-eyed about our role in two past antagonists smoking the peace pipe.

It happened even with Vietnam, so Myanmar is much easier. Interestingly, one of the most important things the president can do to make this relationship more effective is actually symbolic and doesn’t cost much: Refer to the country by its 11th-century name, Myanmar.

That Obama did, in his Monday speech at Yangon University, by saying "Myanmar Naingnan Mingalabar" ("Greetings, the Nation of Myanmar") although he also continued to use the term "Burma." Nonetheless, this was the first official use by the United States of the name "Myanmar" in more than two decades, a not insignificant gesture.

And that the speech was held at Yangon University is important: I once asked Suu Kyi (in 1985-86 in Japan, before she became famous) what would be her highest priority if she became a leader in Myanmar’s government. She said: "Education."

What became clear from Obama’s visit: his optimism and compromising nature. It will serve him well in a country such as Myanmar whose leaders and people, after many decades of stalemate, truly appreciate change for the better.