China’s “Client State”? China-Burma Relations and Burma’s Human Security in a Regional Context by Katherine Lindsay Suplick SIS Honors Capstone Supervised by Professors Linda Lubrano and Pek Koon Heng Submitted to the School of International Service American University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with University Honors in International Studies Bachelor of Arts Degree May 2009 Abstract What is the nature of China’s relationship with Burma, and how does this dynamic affect Burma’s human security? In this context, why has Burma’s human security remained low for decades, and how can it be strengthened? The International Society and human security paradigms employed in unison provide the multi-faceted framework necessary to determine the complexity of this relationship and its implications for Burma’s citizens. The normative project utilizes qualitative, interpretive analysis, including in-depth interviews from the Thailand-Burma border, to ascertain the multi- dimensionality of China and Burma’s ties and their regional context. This analysis necessarily includes the degree to which the interests of other regional actors affect China-Burma relations. Current Asian and U.S. strategies to address Burma’s repressive regime have not been successful, which in turn perpetuate transnational security problems. As a result, the capstone explores new ways in which collaborative regional action can increase human security levels in Burma. 2 Table of Contents 1. International Society and Human Security 4 a. Research Agenda b. Literature Review c. Research Design 2. Burma: Background 15 a. Human Security b. Sanctions c. Analysis 3. Burma – China Relations 29 a. Realism: Strategic Security b. Analysis 4. Burma: Regional Geopolitical Context 35 a. ASEAN b. India c. Analysis 5. Policy Analysis and Recommendations 44 3 1. International Society and Human Security a. Research Agenda “How is Burma’s human security framed by China and other regional actors, and why has the situation remained stagnant since 1988? In this context, how can Burma’s human security be strengthened? These questions will allow me to ascertain the economic, political, social, and militaristic extent of the China-Burma relationship and how much these ties directly and indirectly affect the Burmese people. I will complement that analysis with an assessment of the roles played by India, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the U.S. sanctions policy and how they impact Burma’s human security. The qualitative, interpretive analysis of these complex relationships will help explain why the Burmese people have continuously suffered for the last 21 years, and will provide possible policy alternatives to achieve the normative goal of improving Burmese livelihoods. 1 I will utilize the International Society and human security theoretical paradigms to tie my research together. 2 The International Society school of thought represents a middle ground between traditional liberalism and realism and rejects positivist approaches to analyze the complexity of international relations in dynamic contexts. Due to the theory’s inclusiveness, it will help interpret connections between the multiple domestic and international forces that simultaneously shape Burma’s human security. For example, it will account for both the regional stability issues usually explained by 1 The military junta renamed the country Myanmar in 1989 and the UN currently refers to the nation as Myanmar. However, out of respect to the nation’s democracy advocates’ request, I will refer to the country as Burma throughout the capstone. 2 When referencing the International Society theoretical framework, I will capitalize the phrase, whereas when discussing the idea of an international society I will use lower case. I will not capitalize “human security” since this is still a developing theoretical framework. This, also, is not to be mistaken with the idea of human security. 4 realism and the collaborative nature of these relationships oftentimes defined by liberalism. On the other hand, the human security school of thought is an emerging normative concept that prioritizes the well-being of the individual over traditional realist conceptions of state power, and maintains that governments are responsible for safeguarding their people. It also emphasizes the transnational nature of security issues and their international ramifications, which are essential components in an increasingly globalized world. Sustainable development, not only in the environmental realm, but also economically, politically, socially, and culturally, plays an important role in strengthening human security. International Society will serve as the bedrock of analysis, combining traditional interpretive lenses to formulate innovative explanations for Burma’s situation, and the human security framework will serve to “update” these propositions. In other words, human security studies will contextualize these analyses in our modern, interconnected society. Since the 1988 protests for democracy, the Burmese people’s security has at best remained the same and at worst dramatically decreased. 3 Despite regional and international reform initiatives, Burma’s military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has obstinately opposed implementing policies to improve its citizens’ standard of living. As a result of Burma’s history, its prime location, and its natural resources, many regional actors are stakeholders in Burma’s development. Unfortunately, for actors that engage the junta, such as China, India, and ASEAN, human rights concerns are usually superseded by economic and strategic policies that oftentimes perpetuate human insecurity in Burma. In addition, Western sanctions policies, 3 Indeed, their human security has been low for decades, especially since the military coup of 1962. However, the dynamic has changed since the 1988 events, so I will begin my analysis at this point. 5 epitomized by those of the U.S., while morally laudable have also failed to affect real change in Burma. By utilizing the International Society and human security frameworks I will analyze these competing forces and search for feasible solutions that could increase the security of the Burmese people. Along with this qualitative, interpretive analysis, I will incorporate information from interviews of numerous local, state, and international NGOs conducted on the Thailand-Burma border. Their field experience and advocacy on behalf of the Burmese people will add subjective, yet pragmatic points of view that will complement and enhance my theoretical analysis. These qualitative components will work in tandem with one another to explain the impasse of Burma’s human security situation and to explore policy alternatives that could improve the lives of the Burmese people. b. Literature Review To place this research in context, it is important to review the basic tenets of the International Society and human security approaches that I will use to evaluate Burma’s current human security situation and to formulate possible future policy alternatives. This will not only involve assessing Burmese human development indicators, but will also include analyzing China, India, and ASEAN’s role in shaping Burma’s situation as well as the effects of U.S. sanctions. Once this context has been established, I will determine what, if any, feasible policy alternatives would increase Burma’s human security. The challenging, normative nature of this research is necessary from a practical and humanitarian perspective – reform in Burma would contribute to regional stabilization, which would benefit all parties involved and would directly help the Burmese people. Researchers have not yet scrutinized Burma’s complex situation using 6 these theoretical frameworks, and therefore have not explored all possible political solutions to the human security dilemma. My research will attempt to fill this gap. According to Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, the International Society tradition is a highly normative, historical, and holistic approach to international relations that focuses on individuals and their interactions. Core values like independence and security play central roles in this interpretation, as well as the conception of an ‘anarchical society.’ In this framework, international relations revolve around a ‘society’ of sovereign states, but policy makers take into account rules, norms, and institutions when crafting foreign policy. The International Society school espouses a traditionalist approach, which means that it is “human-focused, interpretive, normative, and historical- concrete” in nature, as opposed to “structured, explanatory, positive, and analytical- abstract” advocated by behavioralism. 4 The International Society paradigm dates back to Hedley Bull’s work in the 1960s and 1970s. Bull claimed that neither anarchy nor a Hobbesian state of war were in and of themselves sufficient to understand International Relations. The society of states should not necessarily be governed by domestic institutions and norms, but rather by distinct and innovative institutions and ideas that are suited to address the unique problems of the community. Society as an organizational framework does not necessarily indicate stable inter-state relations, but is helpful when assessing the role of common institutions in ameliorating or proliferating conflicts. 5 As Bull puts it, “Whether or not there is consensus. .depends not simply on the number or intensity of