Burma Analysis FINAL

Burma: A New Government
& Its Attitudes
Adrian Allen
Miguel Ibarra
Valentina Martinez
Paul Rolon
Michael Yatskievych

Conceptual Model
BURMA
[Naypyidaw]
Strategic Location
in SE Asia
Area
< Texas22°N 98°E
Population
54,584,650 est.
[N.O.C. – 1983]
• Colonized - Indian
Empire & Self-Gov.
• Military Regimes I & II
– Internally Focused
• Systems of Oppression
• China – 2,185
• India – 1,463
• Thailand - 1800
• Bangladesh - 193
• Laos - 235
• 12 nm territorial sea
• 24 nm contiguous zone
• 200 nm exclusive econ. zone
Coastline [km] – 1,930
Land Borders [km] Political & Social Systems
Maritime Claims [nm]
676,578 km2
Natural Resources
• Petroleum, Natural Gas,
Hydropower, Coal
• Tin, Antimony, Zinc, Copper,
Tungsten, Lead
• Timber, Precious Stones,
Marble
Economy
• Strict Govt. Controls/Corr.
• External Influences
• Illicit Networks
Sectors: Agriculture [43%]
Industry [20.5%]
Services [36.6% ]

Key Questions Asked
1) What is wanted?; 2) Why? What purpose will the
product serve?; 3) Who is our consumer?; 4) What is
their level of knowledge?; 5) How much time does
the group have for the analysis?; 6) What
preliminary knowledge do the investigators have of
Burma?; 7) How do the analysts feel about the
situation in Burma?
– Assumptions and Preconceptions Exercise –
8) How much breadth and detail should the
investigation contain?; 9) What kind of collection
methods and sources will the investigators exploit?;
10) What time period should be covered?;
11) What issues should the group focus on;
12) Which ones shall be given less priority, or even
none?
13) Given the answers to the first 12 Qs, is it best to
apply situational logic, search for a theory, or use
analogies and other historical comparisons as the
basis for developing the results?
14) Is it likely that the conclusions will be proved, or
will the group be called upon to give its best
estimates and conclusions?
Key Indicators Searched
• Geographic Location Issues
• Structures & Features
• Political Conditions
• Sociological Issues
• Cultural Aspects
• Economic Conditions & Impact
• Industrial & Commercial
Considerations
• Legislation & Penalty Systems

Leadership Under 2ND Military Regime
- March, 1988-Student-led demonstrations.
- Diminishing economy
- Regime change
- August, 1988- Military kills 1,000s of
demonstrators.
- Aung San Suu Kyi
- Political Speech
- Opposition leader
- September, 1988- The BSPP is dismantled
- Military junta takes command
- Thousands of protestors killed
- SLORC
1980s 1990s
- 1990- National League for Democracy Party
- Aung San Suu Kyi – House Arrest
- 60% of votes
- 392 out of 485 seats
- SLORC refutes results; remains in command
- 1,000s of political activists imprisoned
- 1997- Military junta changes name to SPDC

More Recent Leadership
Developments
2000s 2010s
- 2004 - Senior officials oust Prime
Minster General Nyunt.
- Aug., 2007 - Protests led by monks
& activists continue.
-Sept., 2007 - Principles are drafted
into the constitution.
-Oct., 2007 - SPDC appoints 54
members to committee.
-Nov., 2008 - Harsh sentences for
political prisoners.
-April, 2010 - Cabinet ministers resign
their Mlty. Comm.
-Nov. 3, 2010 - SPDC releases Aung San
Suu Kyi.
-Nov., 2010 - Union Solidarity and
Development Party wins.
-April, 2011- Civilian government takes
office and SPDC is
dissolved.

Convergent – Divergent Thinking
Problem Restatement
In what direction will the new leaders steer the country? How will society impact the new
government?
180° Flip
Will there even be a change in the administration? How can the attitudes
remain the same? [Preservation of Current Administration]
Broadening the Focus
How can the current administration be prolonged? Attitudes remain?
Re-directing the Focus
What are the factors that give the current regime strength?
Original Questions: 1) What are the likely attitudes of the next generation of Burmese leaders?
2) How might these attitudes shift with generational change?

• Asking “Why”?
– Why are the attitudes of future leaders so
important and how will they affect
generational change?
If Burma wishes to thrive and join the modern
world, its leadership must change.
– Why?
To end corruption, ethnic rivalries, drug and
human trafficking; to improve its infrastructure
& make proper use of its natural resources.
– Why?
To guarantee political stability, foster peace,
and improve its economy; ponder the concept
of a democratic government.
• Winnow and Cluster:
Used the Analysis of Competing
Hypotheses [ACH]
• Promising Idea:
Final Conclusion
C-D Thinking (cont’d)
The Bottom Line Is:
Current authoritarian government - Only elite are
prosperous. Corruption and political oppression are
widespread.
Potential Policies:
Neighboring countries must step in as allies to the
opposition; Incorporating the UN; Allies must assist in
organizing, funding, and campaigning for the opposition;
Society must encourage a regime step down – regime
unification – reconciliation with armed groups/lower
ranks of military; Releasing of political prisoners; Ending
the military campaign against minority nationalities
and religious groups; Respecting the rule of law
and improving human rights conditions.

Risk Analysis
Economist Method I – 1986: Burma
* Risk Rating Guide *
100-70: Hyper Risk
70-60: Very High Risk
60-46: High Risk
45-31: Moderate Risk
30-0: Low Risk
Final Burma Risk Assessment
Economic: (14/33 points)
Political: (27/50 points)
Social: (6/17 points)
ΣTotal: 47/100 = High Risk
1. Falling GDP (1/8 pts)
2. High Inflation (4/5 pts)
3. Capital Flight (0/4 pts)
4. Increasing, High Foreign Debt (3/6 pts)
5. Low Food Output (0/4 pts)
6. Commodity Dependence (6/6 pts)
1. Bad Neighbors (1/3 pts)
2. Authoritarian Power (5/7 pts)
3. Staleness (5/5 pts)
4. Illegitimacy (3/9 pts)
5. Generals in Power (3/6 pts)
6. War (10/20 pts)
1. Urbanization (0/3 pts)
2. Religious Fundamentalism (0/4 pts)
3. Corruption (4/6 pts)
4. Ethnic, Religious, Racial Tension (2/4 pts)
Economic Factors Assessment
Political Factors Assessment
Social Factors Assessment

Risk Analysis (cont’d)
Economist Method II – 2011: Burma
* Risk Rating Guide *
A = Low Risk
B = Moderate Risk
C = High Risk
D = Very High Risk
E = Hyper Risk
Final Burma Risk Assessment
D = 78 Very High Risk
Security Risk: C = 46
Political Stability: D = 75
Government Effectiveness: E = 100
Legal/Regulation: E = 90
Macroeconomic Risk: D = 70
Foreign Trade: E = 96
Financial Risk: E = 88
Tax Policy: D =62
Labor Market: D = 64
Infrastructure Risk: E = 91

Risk Analysis (cont’d)
International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) Method: Burma [2006-08, 2012]
Risk Band
2006: Mod. Risk
2007: High Risk
2008: High Risk
2012: Very High Risk
Overall Risk Rank: 123/140
Economist Methods: Angola, Burundi, Pakistan, Afghanistan
ICRG Method: Pakistan, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia
Countries with
Comparable
Ranks

Hypothesis I:
Transitioning to a Democracy
 What state-forming factors cause an entire population to accede to authoritarian politics?
 In the case of Burma, why has it never democratized?
 How have the different political systems throughout Burmese history suppressed the idea
of a democracy?
 What conditions might allow for a peaceful transition to democracy?
 On the other hand, what conditions might allow for a violent transition to democracy?
 What are the barriers in each scenario?
 Given the current political climate, is it likely that Burma will democratize? How stable is
the current regime? How ‘hardened’ are the attitudes of its leaders?
 Are there any tangible indicators that Burma may democratize within the next generation
of its leaders? How can these be identified and assessed?
 In what ways can such a transition benefit the people?
 If a transition occurs, how can it affect the geopolitics of the region?
 According to Democratic Peace Theory, democracies do not fight each other
because they operate in a transparent fashion and cooperate with one another.
If a transition occurs, will the region become more politically stable?
 How would the U.S. benefit from a change in government and the shifting of the
leaders’ attitudes? Why?

Evidence Matrix
Findings Evidence Source Degree of Confidence
Journal of Asia
Pacific Studies
A-1
Journal of
Democracy
A-1
Democratization A-1
Contemporary
Southeast Asia
B-1
Washington Report
on Middle East
Affairs
Prospects
B-2
C-2

Hypothesis II:
Preservation of the Status Quo
 Using historical data, why has the military regime been so successful in this country?
 Although there has clearly been an opposition, why have dissenters repeatedly failed to
overthrow the military establishment?
 Using historical data, what are those factors?
 How can one assess the future of this country?
 Considering recent elections, the constitution, and the release of the major opposition
leader, what are the indications that military leaders will remain in charge?
 Using political, economic and even ethnicity data, which factors can be identified as being
‘favorable’ to the opposition?
 Analyzing these factors, can it be suggested that the current government is in jeopardy?
 What are the signs?
 Why the sudden interest in Southeast Asia by our consumers? – Call to analyze SE Asia –
 How can one assess the potential for democracy advocates to win?
 Even if the current regime stays in power, is it likely that the new leaders will have
different attitudes? Or will their attitudes resist generational change?
 What are the signs, and how can they be assessed?
 How are American interests affected, directly and indirectly, under the current regime?
 Is it strategic for the U.S. to support the preservation of the status quo or is it better to
support a new government and a shift in the leaders’ attitudes?

Evidence Matrix
Findings Evidence Source Degree of Confidence Comments
In Favor
X
USSD
A1
In Favor
Nuetral
Nuetral
In Favor
Nuetral
In Favor
Nuetral
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A1CIA Factbook
Accurate statistics -
difficult to obtain
The Awakening
Myanmar: The
Next Failed State?
Berkley Article
BBC
Wash. Post
The Telegraph
B2
B1
B2
B2
B2
B2
Accurate statistics -
difficult to obtain

Hypothesis III:
The Satellization of Burma
 Burma lies at the crossroads of the Indian subcontinent, SW China, the Indian Ocean and the
rest of SE Asia. How does its strategic location influence its neighbors into getting involved in the
Burmese political scene?
 Following the 1988 coup, India and China took advantage of the opportunity to refocus their
regional strategic ambitions. Is the bilateral strategic rivalry a threat to Burmese internal politics?
 Can foreign penetration in Burma be an indicator of a strengthening Sino-Burmese partnership
or Indo-Burmese partnership?
 What are the main expressions of the Sino-Indian rivalry in Burma?
 Why is China investing in Burmese infrastructure and trading markets?
 Why is India following along?
 Has foreign direct investment had any effect in the political stability of the country?
 Power Transition Theory asserts that China and India are two of the greatest emerging powers
on Earth. It is not surprising that their energy demands will continue to sky-
rocket. Burma’s resources remain largely unexploited. How will these countries
enter the energy rush?
 Can the typical Burmese xenophobic nationalism resist external influences, esp.
In the political atmosphere?
 What are the signs?
 How can a change in the Burmese government and a shift in its leaders’ attitudes alter the
involvement of neighboring countries?

Evidence Matrix
Findings Evidence Source Degree of Confidence Comments
Routledge –
Taylor & Francis
Group
--------
Am. Journal of
Int’l AffairsX
Journal of
Strat. Studies
X
Armed Forces
& Society
Third World
Quarterly
Energy
Sec.
Civil-Mil.
Relns.
Journal of
Contemp. China
C’s Non-
Int. Pol.
X
PTT
PTT
Neighboring
Relns.
Journal of Int’l
Affairs
C-I Tension--------
-------- Journal of Int’l
Affairs
C-I and B
Press
A - 1
B - 2
B - 3
A - 1
B - 3
C - 2
B - 1
B - 1

Final Assessment
Overall Degree of Confidence: B – 1
We assess with high confidence that in the mid-to-long range (2 years +), Burma
will not form a new government nor witness its leaders’ attitudes changing
dramatically. However, we do not assess that Burma is immovable. We also
assess there is a low risk of foreign intervention affecting the political stability of
the country.
Paraphrasing Thomas Fingar [p. 37], “Please note that the ice under this
judgment is thin. Before committing the consumer’s prestige or the power of the
United States to a course of action predicated on what the analysts have
determined to be the case, you need to remind yourself that available
information was limited to open source intelligence. The short time frame
dedicated to the analysis and assessment of the next generation of Burmese
leaders was inadequate to see through much of the fog of the future and
determine with confidence what the trends are determining is likely to occur.”

Sources
• Stateness problems or regime unification? Explaining obstacles
to democratization in Burma/Myanmar Alexander Dukalskis
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and Department
of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA
Democratization Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2009, 945–968
• A Historical Approach to Myanmar’s Democratic Process Journal
of Asia Pacific Studies ( 2010) Vol 1, No 2, 132-148
• ASEAN and Political Change in Myanmar: Towards a Regional
Initiative? Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 30, No. 3 (2008),
pp. 351-78
• How Burma Could Democratize Journal of Democracy, Volume
12, Number 4, October 2001, pp. 95-108
• Burma's Quest for Democracy: An Introduction Journal of
Democracy, Volume 3, Number 1, January 1992, pp. 3-4
• Myanmar: On the Road to Democracy? By: Gee, John,
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 87554917,
Jan/Feb2012, Vol. 31, Issue 1
• Approaches and Concerns in Myanmar, Prospects, (Paris,
France) 35 no3 S 2005, PAGE(S): 331-42
• A Historical Approach to Myanmar’s Democratic Process Journal
of Asia Pacific Studies ( 2010) Vol 1, No 2, 132-148
• ASEAN and Political Change in Myanmar: Towards a Regional
Initiative? Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 30, No. 3 (2008),
pp. 351-78
• BBC Monitoring. (2012). Burma profile. Retrieved January/30,
2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-
12990563
• Burma's Quest for Democracy: An
Introduction Journal of Democracy,
Volume 3, Number 1, January 1992, pp. 3-
4
• CIA World Factbook. (2012). Burma.
Retrieved January/30, 2012, from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/t
he-world-factbook/geos/bm.html
• KURLANTZICK, J. (2011). Myanmar: The
next failed state? Current History,
110(737), 242-247. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di
rect=true&db=a9h&AN=65123019&site=e
host-live&scope=site
• Lansner, T. (2012). Burma history.
Retrieved January/30, 2012, from
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/b
urma/history2.html

• LARKIN, E. (2012). The awakening. New Republic, 243(1), 14-16.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN
=70453844&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• McPeanne, J. (2012). Why is burma taking the democratic route?
Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.straight.com/article-
601281/vancouver/jeffrey-mcpeanne-why-burma-taking-
democratic-route
• Nelson, D. (2012). Burma's opposition prepares for the unexpected
after aung san suu kyi agrees to contest elections. Retrieved
January/30, 2012, from www.telegraph.co.uk
• Nelson, D., & MacKinnon, I. (2012). Burma releases 650 political
prisoners in move to end isolation. Retrieved January/30, 2012,
from www.telegraph.co.uk
• Unknown, T. T. (2012). Burma signs ceasefire with karen ethnic
rebels. Retrieved January/30, 2012, from www.telegraph.co.uk
• Unknown, W. P. (2011). Clinton visits burma. Retrieved
January/30, 2012, from www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-
pacific
• US State Department. (2012). Burma. Retrieved January/30, 2012,
from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm
Sources
• Howell, Llewellyn D. (2007). The Handbook
of Country and Political Risk Analysis, 4th
Edition. East Syracuse NY: PRS Group, Inc.
• Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012).
Myanmar Risk Ratings. [Data File].
Retrieved from:
http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=RKCo
untryVW3&country_id=1080000308&rf=0
• Stateness problems or regime unification? Explaining obstacles
to democratization in Burma/Myanmar Alexander Dukalskis
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and Department
of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA
Democratization Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2009, 945–968
• A Historical Approach to Myanmar’s
Democratic Process Journal of Asia Pacific
Studies ( 2010) Vol 1, No 2, 132-148
• ASEAN and Political Change in Myanmar:
Towards a Regional Initiative?
Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol. 30, No. 3
(2008), pp. 351-78
• How Burma Could Democratize Journal of
Democracy, Volume 12, Number 4, October
2001, pp. 95-108

Burma Analysis FINAL

More Related Content

What's hot (10)

Similar to Burma Analysis FINAL (20)

More from Michael Yatskievych (6)

Burma Analysis FINAL