The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said he would make a decision within "a matter of days" whether or not to withdraw US navy ships from the Burmese coast. They had been mobilised to coordinate aid deliveries.
"It's becoming pretty clear the regime is not going to let us help," Gates told reporters in Singapore.
02 June 2008: ABS-CBN News
ANALYSIS BY MARITES DANGUILAN VITUG
Two countries that are polar opposites—US and Myanmar—figured in a big way at the recent meeting of defense ministers in Singapore, an annual gathering that has become known as the Shangri-la Dialogue. The US, for its much awaited presidential election in November and what this will mean for policy towards Asia, and Myanmar, for its refusal to let international aid into its shores after the disaster caused by Cyclone Nargis.
The usually polite tone at the Dialogue, held at the Shangri-la hotel, changed somewhat when the subject turned to Myanmar. It was the first time that Myanmar sent a delegation to the Dialogue, which started seven years ago, and was described as US Defense Secretary Robert Gates as "without peer in Asia."
The Shangri-la Dialogue scored other firsts as well, reflecting changes in the security landscape in the region. It was the first time that Vietnam sent a high-level delegation; it was the first time that NATO was invited; and it was the first time that a non-defense official spoke, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In his talk, Maj. Gen. Aye Myint, Myanmar’s deputy defense minister, said that they will only accept foreign aid "without preconditions" and reported what they have done for the victims of the devastating cyclone. Myint was part of a panel that spoke on the theme of "restoring peace in complex emergencies" and he was the only one who was not applauded.
Others in the panel were: Malaysia’s deputy prime minister and minister of defense, Timor-Leste’s secretary of state for defense, and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
A French official asked pointed questions on why Myanmar said no to French aid—1,000 tons of relief goods aboard a military ship. In an angry tone, Pierre Lellouche, member of the National Assembly, said that "the principle of non-interference in internal affairs (of another country) should not be at the expense of people dying."
Lellouche said he will push for a resolution in the French national assembly to take Myanmar’s generals to the International Court of Justice for not looking after the welfare of its people.
Gates vs Burmese generals
The US, in a way, set the tone for the Dialogue. In his opening speech on Saturday, Gates sharply criticized the ruling generals of Myanmar for refusing aid brought by US ships and aircraft. He said that the US worked rapidly to deliver relief but Burma disapproved "at a cost of tens of thousands of lives."
In similar instances, Indonesia agreed to let US aid in after a tsunami struck in 2004, and Bangladesh, too, after a fierce cyclone last November.
When the Dialogue opened Friday night, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in his keynote, took a swipe at Myanmar but in a diplomatic way. He said that "every day lost means more unconscionable human suffering." But he pointed out that the military rulers "fear the political consequence of opening up the disaster zone to international aid teams. This might show up their incapability, and undermine their credibility and legitimacy."
Lee Hsien Loong explained: "They are highly suspicious of humanitarian aid serving as a camouflage for a ‘regime change’ agenda."
The discussions brought to fore the international principle of "responsibility to protect," referring to governments’ duty to protect its citizens as well as other countries’ obligation to help countries do so in cases of disaster and conflict.
Myanmar’s Myint could only respond this way: "We are trying our best…Every process is not perfect…"
Anxiety over US
The other wave of sentiment that swept through the Dialogue, at least for those who spoke up, was a mix of anxiety and anticipation over the shape of US foreign policy toward Asia after its presidential elections in November.
"Any future US administration’s Asia security policy is going to be grounded in the fact that the United States remains
a nation with strong and enduring interests in the region—no matter which political party occupies the White House next year," Gates said in his speech.
A delegate wanted to know what exactly the US strategy was in Asia, while another wanted to be certain whether US foreign policy was based on pragmatism or ideology. Gates answered that the US is basically a "partner and collaborator" and this takes multiple forms, among them "providing protection, if required."
The other factor that seemed to worry some was the troubled US economy and how it would impact on foreign policy as well. Will you lose interest in Asia because of the slowdown in your domestic economy, one participant asked Gates.
With a dry sense of humor, Gates replied, quoting Gerald Ford, former US president: "We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time." Explaining himself, Gates said, "We’ve had more severe economic slowdowns before but we never lost interest in Asia."
He said that, whatever happens to its economy, the US has the capacity to be engaged in Asia because of its interests in this part of the world. Gates called the US a "resident power" in the Asia-Pacific region.
Go to Shangri-La Dialogue homepage
