A policy for Myanmar

What should the Government of India's stand be on the goings-on in Myanmar? Should it be supportive of the pro-democracy movement? Or, should it keep its counsel and hope for the best? There are no easy answers to such questions when they pertain to neighbours whom you have to deal with on a variety of issues. In the end, though, the question boils down to a simple one: should a country's foreign policy be informed by moral content or should that take second place in the pursuit of what has come to be called 'realpolitik', which is to say that the ends justify the means? Much can be said on both sides and, possibly, the successful strategy is to appear to be taking the moral high ground while not jeopardising your interests. Hypocrisy is one name for this but, in the context of foreign policy, perhaps not the most suitable one.

It is useful to note that such the attractiveness of such a policy "" known in Punjab as 'look here, see there' "" is related in some way to the interests of a country. Thus it is easy for the US and the West in general to be very moral about distant and (to them) mostly irrelevant Myanmar, but they will not apply the same yardsticks to many countries in West Asia and a host of countries in South and Central America, which are important geographically or because they supply oil. Likewise, India could afford to lecture the US about Vietnam (to name but just one example) because it had nothing but moral interests there. These examples can be multiplied. The other factor that influences the choice between morality and hypocrisy is strength or, its opposite, weakness. Gandhi recognised that the only effective weapon the weak have is moral power. The flip side of that is that, as a country becomes more powerful and thus develops more vested interests, morality has to make way for expediency.

For India, going against the ruling junta in Myanmar involves the risk of even greater "non-cooperation" by it. Myanmar is so situated that it can choose to be more friendly with China than India. It is opening up for the Chinese a land route to a port that gives direct access to the Bay of Bengal, so that Chinese goods do not have to take the long route via the Straits of Malacca; it harbours insurgents who cause problems in India's troubled north-east; there is rampant border smuggling which can be partially sorted out by expanding legitimate trade. In short, however much Indians would like to see Aung San Suu Ki freed and Myanmar emerge as an open democracy, the Government of India needs some purchase with those who are in power, which happens to be a military junta.

In a democracy, however, it is not always possible to allow foreign policy to be shaped only by those who have to keep such issues in mind. Public opinion, which can be guided by simple notions of right and wrong, plays a vital part. Until now, India was lucky because the people trusted the government to follow a moral foreign policy "" and the government was mostly able to do so because India was weak. Both prior conditions have now changed, which means public opinion has to be taken into account by the government while deciding what it will do. In short, India has to adopt an element essential to foreign policy: hypocrisy or subterfuge. Keeping these considerations in view, it would appear that India's current Myanmar policy is a sensible one but a public relations failure. It should have been projected differently. That the government failed to do so suggests that the ministry of external affairs has not understood that the times have changed and that public opinion about foreign policy can no longer be ignored.