Myanmar democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi delivers a speech at the National League for Democracy party office in Pyar Pon, Irrawaddy in Burma on Feb. 17. The Burmese generals are engaging with the U.S. while counting on the Chinese regime's backing, argues Kanbawza Win. (Soe Than Win/AFP/Getty Images)

Once a drunken American met a Burmese on a road and asked “Hey! What Ese are you?” The Burmese man was bewildered and so the American said, “I mean to say are you a Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese or Vietnamese since you must end in one of the Ese?”

The man replied that he is a Burmese because the junta that changed the name from Burma to Myanmar has forbidden anyone using the name “Myanmarnese.”

The Obama administration is underestimating the cunning and the craftiness of Burmese diplomacy.

Then he asked the American “By the way friend what keys are you? I mean to say, are you a Monkey or a Donkey or a Yankey?” This is exactly the way the Obama administration is treating the quasi-Burmese civilian administration, underestimating the cunning and the craftiness of Burmese diplomacy.

If we go back to the contemporary history of neutrality or rather the nonalignment movement, one can see the Burmese imprint there.

Burma after gaining independence from Great Britain in 1948 was beset by civil wars and joined the Colombo plan (conceived at the Commonwealth Conference of Foreign Affairs in Colombo in January 1950) to get some resources for its armed forces. In the 1954 Colombo Conference the five participating countries (Burma, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, and Pakistan) pledged their neutrality in the Cold War.

Jawaharlal Nehru of India, the most influential leader was backed by U Nu, prime minister of Burma in calling the Bandung Conference to create an atmosphere of cooperation and put Asia and Africa in the world’s picture. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc, was founded. As of today the movement has 120 members and 17 observer countries.

New Cold War

In the impending Cold War between China and the United States, it seems that Burma will play a crucial part and obviously the ex-military brass will try its level best to remain in power in the so called newly emerging Burmese democracy.

In the economic sphere American pre-eminence can no longer be taken for granted, nor can it be assumed that a stronger, richer China is good news for America—as successive U.S. presidents have argued since 1978. On the contrary, Americans are getting the queasy feeling that a richer, more powerful China might just mean a relatively poorer, relatively weaker America.

In other words, the rise of China is not a win-win situation for both nations. It is a zero-sum game. Respected economists like Paul Krugman and Fred Bergsten have argued that imposing tariffs would be a legitimate U.S. response to Chinese currency policies.

China is set to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy, possibly as soon as 2016 according to an International Monetary Fund projection. Washington sees Beijing as already flexing its muscles, with increases in military spending and a harder line in border disputes with a range of neighbors, including India, Japan, and Vietnam.

As a result, the United States is seeking to make common cause with China’s nervous neighbors, including Burma. This is what the Burmese regime will try to exploit to ensure its survival.

China the Fulcrum

By taking advantage of China overplaying its hand in the South China Sea and generally unnerving most of the region, the Obama administration is smart in reconfirming the United States as having a central role in Asia. The opening of a new base in Australia is a powerful symbol of America’s enduring strategic presence in the region and relations with Burma have both strategic motives as well as several other implications.

The United States has also taken a pro-democracy posture not only in Burma but also in the Middle East and Russia. The political evolution of countries in these regions will have a direct bearing on the international strategic situation and on the nature of world order in the coming years.

The New Cold War will be over natural resources rather than over ideas.

But Beijing is likely to be the fulcrum around which Asian relations and economies revolve—a revival of the Middle Kingdom era when China was “first-among-equals” in Asia. For Burma, despite its recent attempts to reduce China’s influence and forge better political and business ties with the West, China’s inevitable rise to first-among-equals status in Asia will weigh heavily on its much smaller, southwestern neighbor.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s opposition leader and an icon for politically aware Westerners, has stressed her neutral view of China—an acknowledgment that Burma will continue to do much business with the Asian superpower regardless of its future relationship with the West.

Continued on the next page: Dependence on (foreign) oil …