At the international level, the tragedy in Myanmar, where thousands of people have been protesting on the streets for a month and a half against the takeover of power by the military, continues to play only a minor role. As far as is known, the events in Myanmar were not discussed in the recent first high-level talks between China and the USA after Joe Biden took office. According to experts from the United States Institute of Peace, a non-partisan body of the US Congress, this would be a “unique opportunity to work together for the two powers that are at odds on so many things.”
But the call by China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi to the US at the Alaska meeting “to stop promoting its own (idea of) democracy in the rest of the world” rather suggests that a joint approach by both powers is the solution the crisis in Myanmar is not to be expected.
China’s top diplomats Wang Yi (l) and Yang Jiechi (r) at the meeting in Alaska
–
Signal from the Security Council
On March 10, the UN Security Council, with the approval of China and Russia, condemned the violence against peaceful demonstrators in Myanmar and committed itself to the “democratic transition” and the “maintenance of democratic institutions” in Myanmar. However, the Security Council could not bring itself to calling the events a coup because China and Russia had reservations about this.
After all: “China would have previously rejected such a statement without much fuss. The fact that it did not do so indicates that there are similarities with the West,” said the political scientist Michal Lubina from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow in an interview with the German Wave. Unfortunately, however, the West and China have common interests in Myanmar, but because of the ultimately more weighted systemic competition, they do not work together adequately. “A common goal of the West and China is stability and an end to the bloodshed,” says Lubina. China has no interest in chaos, it wants to build roads, an economic corridor to India, all of which has become impossible for the time being. “But of course it also wants to keep the West at a distance.”
Protest in front of the Chinese embassy: “China supports the military”
–
Anger at China
At the same time, China’s position in Myanmar is by no means undisputed. Despite its role as the largest foreign investor, there is great distrust of its overpowering neighbor. Sympathy points that China might have hoped for with the support of the Security Council’s relatively clear statement among the people of Myanmar then fizzled out again a week ago as a result of arson attacks on several factories of Chinese investors in Yangon. It is unclear who was behind the arson attacks and how they are related to the current protests against the military coup. But the reaction from the Chinese side was all the clearer.
The Global Times, the international and ultra-nationalist mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, published a report and an opinion piece on the events. The report quoted the Chinese embassy in Myanmar as calling for Chinese assets and Chinese employees to be protected.
The perpetrators, according to the Global Times report, may have been anti-Chinese locals “who were instigated by Western anti-Chinese forces, non-governmental organizations and Hong Kong separatists.” The author discovers a supposed pattern here: “For a long time the West and anti-Chinese forces have been trying to use Myanmar as a strategic lever to contain China.”
In the opinion piece, the “Global Times” stressed that China is sticking to non-interference in Myanmar, but is “doing everything possible to support a peaceful solution within the framework of the law”. Shortly after the reports, outrage broke out on Myanmar’s social media channels. As reported by the English-language daily “The Irrawaddy”, a message in Burmese and Chinese was shared around a million times. It said: “We condemn the purely selfish attitude of the Chinese embassy in every respect. China has so far remained silent and has not condemned the military coup, although hundreds lost their lives during the peaceful protests.” The statement by the Chinese embassy has undoubtedly increased anti-Chinese resentment in Myanmar and made it more difficult for Beijing to act as a moderator on the parties to the conflict.
Just a few days ago, Muhyiddin Yassin (l) and Joko Widodo, the heads of state of Malaysia and Indonesia, respectively, sharply criticized Myanmar’s military.
–
Reactions from ASEAN neighbors
Meanwhile, some of Myanmar’s Southeast Asian neighbors have taken a stand for the first time, deviating from their traditional reluctance. The Indonesian President Joko Widodo called for an immediate end to the violence on Friday and announced that he would convene a special meeting of the alliance near Brunei as the current chairman of ASEAN. Malaysian Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin expressed “disgust at the continuing deadly violence against unarmed civilians”, and Singapore also expressed disapproval of the army’s actions. It remains to be seen how much pressure, if any, will be exerted on the Myanmar army command by the regional alliance.
Coup leader Min Aung Hlain and his generals want to sit out sanctions
–
UN sanctions unrealistic
So far, sanctions have only been imposed by western countries, primarily the USA. They are directed against individual members of the army as well as against certain ministries and companies controlled by the army. The measures include entry bans, the freezing of assets and the prohibition or hindering of business relationships with the persons or organizations concerned.
On Monday, the EU foreign ministers want to adopt appropriate sanctions against eleven army officers and security forces in Myanmar, as well as against companies that generate income or financial support for the Myanmar army. UN sanctions, which would have to be decided by the UN Security Council, are considered unrealistic because of the expected rejection by the veto powers China and Russia.
The UN special envoy for Myanmar, Tom Andrews, pleaded with DW for “a collective response outside the Security Council”. However, this should also remain illusory due to the Sino-American contradiction that emerged openly at the bilateral kick-off meeting.
– .
