The Americans Have Arrived A

s Myanmar opens its doors to the world, the United States is making moves to strengthen ties with its government, military and civil society. The Irrawaddy’s founding editor, Aung Zaw, recently sat down with America’s top diplomat in Myanmar to discuss the superpower’s changing role. In this interview, US Ambassador Derek Mitchell tells us how he sees his country’s relationship with Myanmar, also known as Burma, while explaining his take on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s influence, sectarian violence in Rakhine State, US-Myanmar military ties and more.

Mr. Ambassador, how would you describe the US-Myanmar relationship?

We’re at a stage of rediscovering each other. We were isolated for a while from each other, for various reasons, but I think we’re at a very good place now, where we have open and candid discussions. I think we’re building up trust not just at the official level but at a people-to-people level. ... It should be very clear: American policy is not about radical approaches to change here. We’re about the peaceful evolution of a society to be more open, to be more fair and just, and to encourage the national reconciliation process so that this country becomes a developed, stable, peaceful contributor to international affairs. And we’re very encouraged by the progress so far, but there’s obviously a long way to go. And as we go, the United States, of course, will not be silent about the things we’re concerned about, and I expect the [Myanmar] government will be candid as well about the things they’re concerned about related to us, and that’s the measure, I think, of an ever-stronger and more mature relationship.

How important is pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in shaping US policy toward Myanmar?

She’s a very important voice, obviously. She has embodied the values of human rights, democracy, and justice that US policy has sought to promote here over the past 25 years. She inspires great respect and loyalty among a great many Americans. And no one else here has inspired such veneration and respect from the Burmese people since her father. For those reasons, she is quite unique.

So of course we should listen to her. But US policy will be based on our own calculations of national interests and values. And we understand she’s not the only voice in this country we should be listening to. I think she’d agree that no single person in a democracy speaks for everyone else, particularly in a country as diverse as this one. Democracy means there will be many voices that emerge, in the government, in the military and within civil society and population at large. We have enormous respect for what Daw Suu has done and what she continues to represent in this country. What she says will continue to have great resonance with us even as we engage many different people going forward inside and outside the government.

How closely does the United States work with Myanmar’s ethnic leaders?

We have regular engagement with ethnic communities—I consider that a critical component of our engagement [in Myanmar]. The ethnic question, national reconciliation among all ethnic groups here, is the defining challenge of the country. National reconciliation arguably has never happened in the history of the country—post-independence, or even pre-independence you could say. Military means have failed and of course cannot be the basis of a lasting solution to hold this place together. But neither has there been a peaceful Burma held together through political means, and in the end that will be the only way this country will be truly stable. So we [the United States] recognize the fundamental and critical importance of the ethnic question, and I’m personally committed to understanding better their [ethnic nationality] perspectives and learning more about their cultures. It’s one of my priorities.

Is US engagement in Myanmar about China?

It’s about Burma. It’s always been about Burma. There’s a misunderstanding among some in China, and among some international commentators, that everything we do in Asia is somehow about China, but that’s simply not the case. Our policy toward Burma over the past 20 years, 25 years, has been about Burma. Our policy toward Burma is evolving because Burma itself is evolving.

But isn’t a stable Myanmar in both superpowers’ interest?

It’s a common interest for the United States and China, as it is for Thailand and the rest of the region, that this place [Myanmar] be stable and open … It [Myanmar] has been an outlier—it’s been an outlier in Asean [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations], it has affected our ability to work with Asean, it’s been a missing piece in the connectivity of growing economies of South Asia and Southeast Asia. There’s so much possibility here, and it means a tremendous amount that Burma develops in the interests of regional growth, in the interests of regional stability.

Do you think sectarian violence last year between Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State has undermined the national government’s reform process?

So far it doesn’t seem to have done so. But the kind of communal violence that began several months ago was a very bad sign, and it was of great concern to the international community. What was most concerning was how the violence seemed to resonate within the population at large, even among some who represented the kind of political and spiritual values we had supported for years. We saw intolerance among citizens who felt that the Rohingya were subhuman, that they didn’t deserve any support or assistance, that they needed to be thrown out of the country. This popular attitude toward these people who have suffered greatly seems to run counter to the values that many of these same individuals fought so long to achieve for themselves. I’m not saying everyone here feels that way—I think there’s a silent majority who feel differently, frankly.

There needs to be a process by which the human rights and dignity of these individuals can be addressed. There needs to be a process for dealing with these issues effectively and fairly. … But there’s a long way to go, starting with getting them humanitarian assistance, allowing them to have a semblance of normality in their lives, education, health care, getting them out of the IDP [internally displaced persons] camps, and hopefully on a path to citizenship.

Do you think it’s still important for the United States to maintain economic sanctions on Burma?

Our sanctions policy has obviously evolved greatly in the past year. We’ve taken it from a broad, blunt instrument that hits everyone equally, and now we’re trying to target the policy against those with close ties to the previous regime who continue to stand in the way of reform, including the so-called cronies and military entities. When it comes to those folks, our policy hasn’t changed.

And when it comes to entities like MOGE [Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise], whose revenues have been opaque or at least have raised questions as to whether they actually contribute to national development or go into other hands, we now require American businesses to report on any financial transactions with these or other companies to ensure we model the type of transparency that is in the interest of Burmese citizens. responsibility activities. Contribute to a more open, transparent society. Do things in ways that offer jobs, opportunity and development to people in the local communities. Give back. Invest, don’t just extract. And frankly, that’s what American businesses do anyway, so I’m really not telling them something they don’t already know. So yes, I encourage that.

In the end, sanctions are only one tool to support change. They played an important role, I believe, in American policy, a constructive role in the evolution here, in my view. But there comes a time when you should consider other tools. And we think that targeted sanctions against certain entities and individuals who we think have not been helpful to reform, while stepping up our engagement—whether business engagement or other types of engagement with Burmese society—is the best way to promote reform. So we’re in a new era.

When you meet with top-brass leaders in Naypyitaw, what do you talk about?

I talk about our interest to build greater mutual understanding, our interest to reestablish military-to-military contact step by step, the importance of getting to know each other better after so long without contact. I also address very frankly issues of concern that constrain our ability to normalize the military-to-military relationship, things like the situation in Kachin State, child soldiers, accountability for abuses. We continue to talk to them about the [lack of] humanitarian access to innocent civilians, citizens who the international community can assist but are not able to. … We talk to them about continuing concerns when it comes to non-transparency in the country’s military relationship with North Korea. But the fact is, the military is an important and proud institution that we don’t know as well as we’d like. It’s important to have regular contact to build relationships, and to discuss not just issues of concern but also potential for partnership in its reform process over time.

Are you encouraging US companies to invest in Myanmar now?

What I encourage is that they go in with eyes wide open, that they understand the local environment, that they be very careful to understand clearly the opportunities and challenges here, and if they decide to [invest], to do so consistent with our values. Consult with local populations. Do corporate social

What do you foresee for the future state of military ties between Myanmar and the United States?

I hope, over time, to reestablish the type of relationship that we had back in the ‘80s, where they [Myanmar’s military leaders] would come to our military institutes or academies, and they could learn from us, we can learn from them. But there’s a lot that needs to happen between now and that point.