Watching Burma's ongoing progress towards democratic reforms and
political dialogue from afar is like seeing sprinkling rain turning into
a light downpour after a long drought over two decades. It is a
spectacular and stunning sight thus far, partly because the long drought
stirred pent-up demands and grievances for ways forward.
Now good news abounds in Burma after years of bad news and no news, which meant bad news. While what transpires next door to the west will be portentous and deeply consequential for Thailand in the medium- and longer-term, Thai leaders both in politics and business do not seem tuned in to the ramifications from Burma's democratic uptick and turnaround.
Burma is arguably the single most important country to Thailand in terms of national interest. It is difficult to pinpoint the turning point in Burma's recent progress on democratic reforms and political reconciliation between the government of Prime Minister Thein Sein, and Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition who has spent 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest ordered by the same military regime which is now governing under a civilian guise.
As the constitution that was promulgated in 2008 and the ensuing elections in 2010 were both deemed illegitimate, it seemed like a bogus government was produced by a bogus election under a bogus constitution.
But events on the ground over recent months have suggested otherwise.
It appears that the meeting between President Thein Sein and Mrs Suu Kyi on Aug 19 last year crossed a threshold of sorts. After that meeting, goodwill, dialogue and reforms seem to have carried the day, now generating a breathtaking momentum that will not be easily halted or reversed.
This momentum has been punctuated by key concessions from the parties involved, from the Naypyidaw government's substantial but incomplete release of political prisoners and ease on Mrs Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, to the limited curtailment of sanctions from Western countries and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' granting Burma the grouping's rotational chairmanship for 2014. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's three-day visit to Burma on Nov 30 last year, following President Barack Obama's overture olive branch during the recent Asia-focused summit season, provided a green light for high-level visits from other countries.
Mrs Clinton met with both Mr Thein Sein and Mrs Suu Kyi where symbolism was as important as substance.
Despite the apparent turnaround and progress, it is unclear if or how this remarkable reform momentum will be maintained. Presumably, there are conservative elements of the old regime lurking in corners and corridors looking for ways to derail the reform and dialogue train.
Burma has come so far in so short a time but it has a long way to go to become a genuine democracy. By-elections on April 1, which could send Mrs Suu Kyi to parliament, is the next telltale sign of near-term political direction.
That such reforms and concessions have been implemented in short order and the formidable Mrs Suu Kyi's willingness to join in the dialogue is puzzling.
Why the sudden flicker of light, to invoke President Obama's metaphor, after long years of darkness?
In fact, it may well have to do with the women's network in the heart of Rangoon, the former capital and still the hub of international life in Burma. From sources that have been verified, it appears Mr Thein Sein's wife is an admirer of Mrs Suu Kyi. The two women hold a fond regard for each other and hence Mrs Suu Kyi's goodwill towards the president. As confirmed and relayed through a senior diplomatic informant, "If she [Thein Sein's wife] can be married to him for so long, he must not be such a bad man."
If the Thein Sein-Suu Kyi axis is fundamental to the reform momentum, then women's power and network have been a vital component.
For Thai security considerations, the reforms in Burma bear far-reaching repercussions. The upshot of these reforms is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the threat of nuclear weapons emanating from Naypyidaw has dissipated. Burma was reportedly interested in developing crude nuclear capabilities with North Korean assistance. A nuclearised Burma would likely have been a game changer for Thai security, leaving Bangkok vulnerable to nuclear blackmail and triggering a Thai response to eliminate such insecurity.
However, Mrs Clinton's visit and the Obama administration's overall engagement were reportedly hinged on a halt to Burma's nuclear programme. It was a "deal maker" with which the Burmese military and Mr Thein Sein's government complied.
While the nuclear threat has waned, Thailand's energy insecurity has grown. The recent cancellation of a coal-fired power plant in the Dawei Special Economic Zone due to environmental concern serves as a case in point. This plant was designed to produce 4,000 megawatts of electricity for the Dawei Development Project, a US$58 billion agreement reached in May 2008 between the governments of Burma and Thailand. This project has transcended Thailand's political divide.
The Dawei Development Project, in turn, would be a lifeline for Thai energy and development needs for years to come, shifting some of the polluting industries from Thailand to its neighbour, especially since the row between civil society and government over Map Ta Phut health and environmental impacts. Thai leaders in the recent past have clearly indicated so. The long-term project would include industrial zones, a new city, deep-sea ports, infrastructure, oil and gas pipelines, and heavy industries such as chemical and steel factories. It would quench some of the Thai thirst for natural gas which produces more than 70% of electricity supplies in Thailand. Gas imports from Burma are now more than 25% total natural gas consumption, and this figure will only grow in the future. The Dawei project is a desperate sign of Thai energy insecurity.
Moreover, Thailand relies on migrant labourers from Burma, especially from Karen and Shan states. More than two million of these workers take up back-breaking and menial jobs all over the Thai economy, and have become an indispensable component of Thai economic growth.
While these workers have entered their second and third generations, Thai authorities still do not have adequate plans to integrate them or provide long-term human security for them to avoid medium-term social problems from a lack of education and healthcare.
Burma's reform progress can only be good for its people. For Thailand, a more democratic Burma means that lucrative business deals can no longer be taken for granted in the same way. More transparency and accountability may be in the offing at the expense of shady concessions and commissions with past military rulers.
This is a time when Thai leaders need to secure their country's energy and development needs with less dependence on neighbours, by focusing on issues such as nuclear power, sustainable industrialisation, industrial upgrading, skills training, education, state-society trust and accommodation, and so forth.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak is Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
