Episode #156: From Democracy to Demolition
“We really need the international community to be in lockstep about this and make very clear that sham elections are not a pathway for international legitimacy, and [not] normalize this barbaric military regime,” Zach Abuza asserts. “The only thing [the Tatmadaw] really assumed correctly was that the international community would not put that much pressure on them. They assumed that ASEAN would be divided and do very little. They assume some countries would look the other way just for the sake of economic growth.”
In this, the third installment of our interview with Abuza, a professor at the National War College and specialist of Southeast Asian security and politics, he turns his focus to the economy and the international sphere. We invite listeners to check out his first interview on the state of the military, and the second discussion concerning the resistance movement. Throughout this current conversation, he highlights General Min Aung Hlaing’s goals towards achieving international legitimacy and discusses how the democracy movement can come out ahead.
As the two-year anniversary of the coup has already come and passed, the devastation caused by military rule continues. The Tatmadaw continues its campaign of terror by committing heinous acts toward civilians, disrupting communities, causing a massive refugee problem and destroying the country’s infrastructure. And because the military looks for loyalty rather than competence in choosing personnel, it has led to incompetent economic managers heading the country’s banks. Not surprisingly, the result is the effective collapse of the country’s economy. “The junta, their actions, and their abject incompetence has decimated the economy,” states Abuza. “They eviscerated ten to twelve years of economic growth in a matter of months!” As a result, military leaders have frantically looked outward for economic support, particularly to Russia and China.
Abuza sees another looming danger: the proposed upcoming elections. Even though the military has not been able to terrorize the Burmese population into submission, he expresses a fear that holding elections will result in at least some part of the international community accepting military rule in Myanmar, even though they are likely be neither free or fair. He believes other autocratic nations will be eager to use these fraudulent elections as an excuse to ramp up economic and political engagement with the military regime.
He also argues that even “countries that aren't even bad faith actors, that really should be more responsible and more critical, like South Korea and Japan, will probably begin to allow those elections to normalize a post-military regime.” According to Abuza, both Japan and Korea have appeared relatively eager to continue economic activities, and do not tend to focus on human rights protection in their respective foreign policies.
Sham elections also present a challenge for pro-democracy forces in the country like the NLD. Essentially, it is a lose-lose proposition: If they boycott the election, the narrative presented will be that they refuse to participate in democracy; and if they participate, the election will be rigged against them. Either way, the military garners political legitimacy at the expense of democratic forces. Abuza recognizes that there is no effective strategy for democratic parties in Myanmar if the elections are held. Instead, he emphasizes that important international players like the United States, Australia, and particularly members of ASEAN must “come out and unequivocally state, we will not recognize the results of a shambolic election.”
However, for even many pro-democracy nations, support for the NUG has been lacking, at the same time that autocratic nations continue to back the military. This is in spite of the fact that the NUG aims to create a “stable, and prosperous and independent state founded on democratic principles and federalism,” and holds widespread support among the Burmese people. “I think it's more of a resource and financial problem,” Abuza says. “War is just really costly. You know, the NUG can raise $40 million in bonds sales or the sale of properties owned by the military. But $40 million doesn't go very far when you're trying to arm 50,000 men to take on the military.” Simply put, as the NUG continues to effectively resist military rule for a multiyear period, the international community has not risen to the challenge of finding the means to support them in achieving full victory.
As is frequently brought up, the hypocrisy of pro-democracy countries failing to support democratic efforts in Myanmar is apparent. Abuza frankly asserts that, at the end of the day, these countries’ support hinges on self-interest. Most nations in the West like the United States have limited trade and investments in Myanmar, and so intervention is not an economic or political priority for so-called champions of democracy.
Abuza also argues that Aung San Suu Kyi essentially defending the Rohingya genocide in the years prior to the coup dramatically decreased sympathy for Myanmar in the West. Thus, while some Western nations are willing to state that the NUG is the true and legitimate government of the Burmese people, they do not back this up in terms of their policies, let alone official recognition. The loss of an internationally recognized figure like Suu Kyi, who commanded the attention of Western policymakers for decades, has severely inhibited the NUG’s cause. As Abuza puts it, “Not having that unifying force that that one charismatic figure who can command international attention and respect has been really devastating for the NUG.”
Abuza next discusses how he believes the NUG and PDFs can overcome military rule. First off, he is sure that PDFs will never defeat the army by force of arms, saying, “The army simply has too many men, too many resources. It has state sponsors and Russia, China and even India. What the PDFs need to do is hollow out the military slowly, to wear it down through a war of attrition. They want to encourage defections, desertions.” Abuza adds that the military has been shooting itself in the foot and undermining even its own objectives, with its callous willingness to sacrifice and lose troops. He argues that the path to victory for pro-democracy forces is for military leaders to finally realize that they simply do not have the manpower, supplies, resources, and control needed to win the war. By bringing military officials to the point where they realize that their ability to claim victory and suppress the resistance movement is futile, more and more leaders will begin to defect in the hopes of their own self-preservation.
On the topic of war crimes committed by resistance fighters within and independent of the PDF, Abuza emphasizes that the NUG must maintain a moral high ground. This is imperative in the battle for political and international legitimacy, as the pro-democracy government must continue to juxtapose its actions against the brutality of the military. But this is easier said than done. Abuza points to how many resistance fighters have suffered under decades of oppression from the military, especially in the past few years, and how many of the ethnic minority groups have been victims of atrocities for decades, in particular since military’s Four Cut strategy has terrorized the civilian population in the 1970s. So in spite of the pent up desire to forcefully redress past wrongs, Abuza emphasizes that the resistance must continue to model a clear contrast between themselves and the brutal military. “Don't forget, [the Tatmadaw’s] doctrine is based on terrorizing the civilian population! They do not have a counterinsurgency doctrine, based on winning the hearts and minds of the population, or winning them over with good governance, development projects, and the like,” he observes.
Yet Abuza emphasizes that the military’s mentality will not allow them to back down gracefully. High-level military leaders, led by General Min Aung Hlaing, are “are surrounded by sycophants who tell them what they want to hear, not the truth, they are living in a fact free environment… They’re happy to rule the country and run it into the ground because they think it is their birthright to do so.”