Myanmar on the Cusp of Revolution Philippines in a Dilemma Afghanistan: US Mission Accomplished? Mongolia: Between the Dragon & the Bear
Myanmar: Opposition Consolidates
The opposition to the detested Tatmadaw or Myanmar military establishment is now consolidating itself, and the country-wide revolt against it is slowly but certainly transforming into a revolution.
The committee representing Myanmar’s dismissed parliament has announced the formation of a new “unity government” which includes the ousted lawmakers, members of various ethnic groups and prominent figures in the anticoup, anti-military protests and noncooperation movement. The aim was to root out authoritarian military rule, tooth and nail [Al Jazeera, 16.04.21].
The announcement was made last Friday by Dr Sasa, who has been designated by the dismissed parliament as the representative of the shadow government to the United Nations.
He declared on social media: “For the first time in our history, Myanmar has a unity government,” posting the document indicating Win Myintas president and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as state counsellor [her previous position].
The shadow acting Vice President Mahn Win Khaing Than was appointed interim prime minister. Dr Sasa himself was designated as the union minister for international cooperation.
The latest development comes as thousands of people continue to stage different forms of protests and demonstrations nationwide – from the “silent strike” in Yangon to protest marches in Mandalay and elsewhere – against the military’s February 1 putsch and powerfully denouncing the violent and brutal crackdown that has killed more than 800 people, including many children. Most people this year shunned the traditional festivities connected with the Buddhist New Year to focus on their campaign against the generals. Junta chief Min Aung Hlaing is planning to attend the Association of South-East Asian Nations [ASEAN] summit on April 24 in Jakarta – his first known foreign trip since the February 1 coup.
The junta is not considered legitimate by the overwhelming number of people in Myanmar and also the international community. Thus, if the leaders of ASEAN had the courage of their convictions, they would have invited members of the National Unity Government (NUG) instead. Hopefully, the people of Jakarta will extend a fitting ‘welcome’ to the little scoundrel. Unknowingly to the Biden administration, and whether they – and the members of the ‘Quad’ -- like it or not, the situation in the Bay of Bengal region is also developing into an acute test for the U.S. ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’ [IPS].
Nepal as the acting chair of the ‘South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’ [SAARC] could play a decisive role in diffusing the Myanmar crisis by calling an emergency virtual meeting of the regional organization and inviting a representative of the Myanmar National Unity Government to participate as an observer. Unfortunately, the foreign minister of the ‘Himalayan Federal Democratic Republic’ [HFDR], Pradip Gyawali is too busy consolidating ‘a superior democracy with Nepalese characteristics’ [i.e. nothing other than: “Oligarchy”].
Philippines: Duterte Faces Critical National Security Test
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been urged by his own compatriots to confront China in the South China Sea.
His lawmakers and foreign policy experts are of the opinion that Duterte must end his “policy of subservience” towards Beijing and warning that the Filipino leader’s ‘silence’ is sending the wrong signal as hundreds of Chinese “maritime militia” vessels continue to congregate within Philippine’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea [Al Jazeera, 16.04.21].
More than 240 Chinese vessels were first spotted on March 7 at Whitsun Reef, which is about 320 km (200 miles) west of Palawan Island and within the Philippine EEZ as defined by the International Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Since the first reported sighting, the vessels have dispersed in an even wider area.
The Chinese embassy in Manila has insisted that its “fishing vessels” were only “seeking shelter” near the reef due to bad weather, adding that the area has been a traditional fishing ground of Chinese fishermen and that it is part of China’s Nansha Islands or the Spratly Islands which are also disputed.
China has already built naval and air facilities on an artificial island on top of the Mischief Reef, which is also within the Philippine EEZ. China has also created an island at Scarborough Shoal, which was controlled by the Philippines until 2012.
China claims almost all of the South China Sea under its historical formula the “nine-dash line.” It has also dismissed as “null and void” the ruling of the Hague tribunal that had stated that the Philippines had exclusive control of the resources within its EEZ.
Last Thursday, Senator Leila de Lima, an opposition member, warned that despite the expression of support by the United States towards Manila’s position in the South China Sea, Duterte’s “policy of groveling before China” could prove detrimental to the country’s territorial integrity.
For almost 70 years, the Philippines has maintained a mutual defence pact with the U.S. But since Duterte came to power in 2016, he has nurtured closer ties with China and has openly shown his arrogance and dismissiveness towards Washington, even threatening to end the U.S.Philippine military alliance.
U.S. Retreat from Afghanistan
After US President Joe Biden announced that America’s longest war in Afghanistan would come to an end on September 11 of this year, there has been much speculation about the motives and possible repercussions.
Elise Labott of Foreign Policy notes that if the Taliban return to power, the “blowback from the U.S. decision could soon be felt...Afghanistan has consistently been among the largest source of refugees in Europe – and could be again. Afghanistan’s heroin could again flood world markets. Jihadi groups everywhere will see a simple message: They can prevail.” Afghan journalist, Fazelminallah Qazizai, spent three days in Taliban-controlled territory in Helmand province, and reported from “the center of what is fast becoming the new Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” and predicting that the Taliban may well make gains as the US withdraws, filling the emerging power vacuum and reneging on any deal made: “...the future of Afghanistan... feels more precarious than at any point since 9/11.”
The harshest critique came from The Economist of London. It noted:
Joe Biden offers unconvincing reasons for ending America’s longest war
He is wrong to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan
The Biden administration missed an opportunity to show its mettle.
The Economist argues that Biden’s decision to pull out America’s remaining troops is a withdrawal of choice, not of political necessity. It notes: “It is debatable how many Americans would even have noticed had he decided...to hang in there for a bit rather than risk the Taliban retaking Kabul.
The journal concedes that Biden is right to predict that perfect conditions for a withdrawal will not emerge soon. However, the US had long abandoned its statebuilding mission, recognizing that “Post-conflict, pre-modern Muslim societies with lousy neighbours are not transformable.”
By mistakenly concluding that America’s interests no longer warrant even its shrunken commitment will make counterterrorism – of vital necessity to the U.S. national security – that much more difficult.
Biden also pointed to America’s growing competition with China as a reason to disengage. This would be compelling were not China Afghanistan’s next-door neighbour and already subjecting it to its overtures. The wider question of China’s and the world’s perception of a de facto American capitulation has not been part of the equation. Uncharacteristically, the Biden administration fumbled in the test of American military power, the test of its decision-making and its ability to take the long view.
The most damning critique came from a former national security adviser, Lt Gen. H.R. Mc Master (retd.). On Fareed Zakaria’s CNN Global Public Square last Sunday, he characterized ‘Biden’s capitulation’ as a Munich style appeasement [left unsaid: which would come to haunt him later]. That says it all!
Not everyone sees a bleak future. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the U.S., writing for The Hill, suggests the current government could forge ahead with more durable US backing.
The fact is that Biden’s retreat from Afghanistan – whatever way you look at it – seriously punctures his Indo-Pacific Strategy. If he falters here as in Myanmar, the reputation of the U.S. will take a serious knock. He can also forget his campaign to strengthen and consolidate “democracy” worldwide. He will also have betrayed the brave women and girls of Afghanistan, who will soon be at the mercy of terrible barbarians with their antediluvian concepts. The Taliban should be exterminated from the face of the earth for what they have done to women and girls [and will do in greater measure in future], and not be tolerated at all.
It will be said of Biden: ‘When the push came to shove, he took the easy way out’!
Indian Concerns
India’s chief of defence staff, General Bipin Rawat told a security conference last Friday that India was quite concerned about a vacuum developing in Afghanistan following the proposed withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from the country (my Republica, 15.04.21).
The worry was “disruptors” would step into the space created by the withdrawal of foreign troops.
India is highly concerned that instability in Afghanistan could spill over into its Muslimmajority territory of Kashmir where it has been fighting militants for three decades.
It is also apprehensive that archrival Pakistan will gain a bigger hand in Afghanistan because of its long-standing ties with the extremist Taliban, who are expected to play a dominant role once the U.S. leaves.
India has invested US $ Dollar 3 billion in Afghanistan on physical infrastructure and even built its parliament following the ousting of the hardline Taliban back in 2001.
Mongolia: Precarious Situation between Juggernauts
Today, Mongolia is a relatively small country [not from mere size, but from the small population and its economic/ political rank among the nations of the world] in Central Asia. It is bordered by Russia’s Siberia in the north and China in the south.
In the 13th Century, the Mongols under Genghis Khan swept out to create the largest landstretched empire in history. In the 16th Century, they were converted to Tibetan Buddhism of the Gelugpa School [‘Yellow Hats’ with the Dalai Lama as the supreme head]. During the 17th Century, the Manchus won control of Inner and then of Outer Mongolia.
Outer Mongolia seized independence in 1911. It became communist in 1924 as the “Mongolian People’s Republic” in 1924. In the 90s, it adopted a new democratic constitution. Mongolia’s former president, Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj has met China’s Xi Jinping very many times and even broached several sensitive issues. Xi also delivered a grand speech to parliament, promising: “China will respect your way of life, Mongolia’s independence, and territorial integrity” (TIME, 13.04.21).
During his two presidential terms from 2009 to 2017, Elbegdorj had overseen an upgrading of the relationship from mere bilateral ties to a “comprehensive strategic partnership” in 2014. A year later, Xi hailed relations as the “best ever.”
Today, Elbegdorj has become one of China’s harshest critics in a region where few in power dare to speak out. This resulted from what Mongolians perceived as China’s efforts to curb Mongolian language and culture in its Inner Mongolia province, which lies to Mongolia’s south, and has around five million ethnic Mongolians – some 50 percent more than in Mongolia itself.
Beijing insists it fully respects Mongolian culture and says the promotion of Mandarin will help boost the competitiveness of students.
Elbegdorj stated Mongolia’s delicate geopolitical position succinctly: “Our location is strategic because Mongolia sits on the backbone of China, while punching the underbelly of Russia.”[This could very well apply to another small country, only substituting India for Russia!].
However, there is no way for Mongolia to escape Chinese influence due to strong economic dependence, according to Prof. Julian Dierkes of the University of British Columbia. After all, China currently buys around 90 percent of all Mongolian exports.
[Again this applies with some modification also to that very same small country].
Elbegdorj believes that the country’s strategic tightrope makes presidential elections earmarked for this June very important. China and Russia “are doing everything they can to swing our elections in their favour.”
Mongolia is trying to hedge its bets by being both a NATO “Partner Across the Globe” and an observer at the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) – the Eurasian security pact led by China and Russia.
Mongolia’s long-running strategy of cultivating relationships beyond China and Russia or “third neighbour policy” found expression in building ties with the U.S. Thus, it supported missions to Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan (2009). But when a real crunch comes, it is difficult to see how Washington can effectively support Ulaanbaatar.