Report / Asia 3 minutes

中国的缅甸困境

  • Share
  • 保存
  • 打印
  • Download PDF Full Report

执行摘要

每当全球聚焦缅甸,各方总会将希冀的目光投向中国,希望中国对缅甸军政府施展影响力,促使其进行改革。然而,仅仅呼吁北京施压并不能带来变革。尽管缅甸对于中国来说代表着巨大的政治、经济和战略利益,然而国际社会高估了中国对缅甸的影响力。缅甸军政府的领导人奉行本国利益至上的民族主义政策,并不听令于包括北京在内的任何国家。中国与西方国家在政策目标上存在分歧,缅甸还在不断挑拨中国和西方国家的竞争关系。国际社会和以往一样,将所有希望都寄予中国,期望中国作为领头羊解决缅甸问题,但并没有提出切实可行的全局性政策。过去二十年来,国际社会对缅甸采取的种种政策相继失败,因此,西方国家和中国必须找到更好的办法,共同解决双方共同关注的广泛问题。

与其说中国和缅甸的关系是“两情相悦”,倒不如说它是一场“利益婚姻”。双方的依存关系并不对等——一旦双方关系变质,缅甸的损失比中国更为重大:中国是缅甸在安理会的保护者,在国际上为孤立的缅甸提供强大的邻国支持,也是缅甸重要的经济伙伴和投资来源。尽管中国看到了缅甸目前存在的重大问题,尤其是在经济政策和少数民族方面,然而,中国青睐的解决方案是由强有力的中央政府逐步调整相关政策,而不是求助于联邦制、自由民主制政府,甚至是政权更迭。这样的方案能够保护中国在缅甸的经济和战略利益,因为除能源和其他投资外,缅甸的战略位置也决定了它是中国通往印度洋和东南亚的门户。

然而,中国的政策可能最终对缅甸的稳定和中国的利益产生负面影响。政治上的不稳定性和不确定性导致外界对缅甸的投资环境信心不足,缅甸国内治理能力薄弱、腐败问题泛滥,甚至就连实力强大的中国公司也深感头痛。中缅边界滋生种种问题——少数民族武装冲突、毒品、艾滋病以及近期果敢局势引起的上万难民。中国公司被认为在缅北地区无视生态和环境问题、强行搬迁当地居民、侵犯人权。中央和云南省地方之间的政策存在差异——云南负责应对少数民族地方停火武装,一定程度上使得问题更加复杂。

与此同时,缅甸的“仇华”心理——源自历史侵略和此前中国对缅甸共产党的支持——正在不断滋长。缅甸领导人担心强大的邻国在双边关系中占据主导地位,因此始终遵循不结盟和多边主义政策以平衡中国的影响力。日益激烈的资源和贸易竞争给予缅甸机会加强与印度、俄罗斯、泰国、新加坡、朝鲜、马来西亚等国的合作,从而与中国相抗衡。缅甸军政府民族主义情绪泛滥、不可以常理推断,对外界的批评强烈抵触,外界的施压因此常常收效甚微。

尽管中国希望缅甸实现稳定、繁荣,但是在实现目标的途径上与西方存在分歧。中国不会按西方限定的条件和缅甸开展双边关系。要使中国参与其中,国际社会需采取更为可行的战略,充分挖掘和利用双方的共同利益。国际社会必须准确、现实地评估中缅关系、中国实际的影响力、中国在缅甸的经济和战略利益。西方可改变战略促使中国鼓励缅甸政府与反对党和少数民族开展真正具有包容性的对话。除政治、民族和解之外,对话内容还应包括深层次的经济和人道主义问题,从根本上铲除和解的最大阻碍。与此同时,中国应加强与东盟成员国的紧密合作,支持联合国斡旋办公室的工作,同时劝说缅甸军方推行改革。

缅甸即将于2010年举行大选,尽管此次选举缺憾甚多,但是有望为政权交替和体制变革创造机会。因此,国际社会应重新考察其缅甸政策。中国正在鼓励缅甸政府切实实现选举的广泛性和包容性,但是,我们可以确信,只要不会带来重大不稳定因素,中国将欣然接受几乎任何选举结果。尽管中国影响缅甸国内政策的能力和意愿有限,然而,国际社会应继续鼓励中国以及地区相关各国做出实际、具体的努力,应对缅甸的过渡问题。

北京/雅加达/布鲁塞尔,2009年9月14日

Executive Summary

Each time global attention is focused on events in Myanmar, concerned stakeholders turn to China to influence the military government to undertake reforms. Yet simply calling on Beijing to apply more pressure is unlikely to result in change. While China has substantial political, economic and strategic stakes in Myanmar, its influence is overstated. The insular and nationalistic leaders in the military government do not take orders from anyone, including Beijing. China also diverges from the West in the goals for which it is prepared to use its influence. By continuing to simply expect China to take the lead in solving the problem, a workable international approach will remain elusive as Myanmar continues to play China and the West against each other. After two decades of failed international approaches to Myanmar, Western countries and Beijing must find better ways to work together to pursue a wide array of issues that reflect the concerns of both sides.

The relationship between China and Myanmar is best characterised as a marriage of convenience rather than a love match. The dependence is asymmetric – Myanmar has more to lose should the relationship sour: a protector in the Security Council, support from a large neighbour amid international isolation, a key economic partner and a source of investment. While China sees major problems with the status quo, particularly with regards to Myanmar’s economic policy and ethnic relations, its preferred solution is gradual adjustment of policy by a strong central government, not federalism or liberal democracy and certainly not regime change. In this way, it can continue to protect its economic and strategic interests in the country. In addition to energy and other investments, Myanmar’s strategic location allows China access to the Indian Ocean and South East Asia.

But Beijing’s policy might ultimately have an adverse effect on Myanmar’s stability and on China’s ability to leverage the advantages it holds. Political instability and uncertainty have resulted in a lack of confidence in Myanmar’s investment environment, and weak governance and widespread corruption have made it difficult for even strong Chinese companies to operate there. Myanmar’s borders continue to leak all sorts of problems – not just insurgency, but also drugs, HIV/AIDS and, recently, tens of thousands of refugees. Chinese companies have been cited for environmental and ecological destruction as well as forced relocation and human rights abuses carried out by the Myanmar military. These problems are aggravated by differences in approach between Beijing and the provincial government in Yunnan’s capital Kunming, which implements policies towards the ethnic ceasefire groups.

At the same time, resentment towards China, rooted in past invasions and prior Chinese support to the Communist Party of Burma, is growing. Myanmar’s leaders fear domination by their larger neighbour, and have traditionally pursued policies of non-alignment and multilateralism to balance Chinese influence. Increasing competition among regional actors for access to resources and economic relationships has allowed Myanmar to counterbalance China by strengthening cooperation with other countries such as India, Russia, Thailand, Singapore, North Korea and Malaysia. The military government is intensely nationalistic, unpredictable and resistant to external criticism, making it often impervious to outside influence.

While China shares the aspiration for a stable and prosperous Myanmar, it differs from the West on how to achieve such goals. China will not engage with Myanmar on terms dictated by the West. To bring Beijing on board, the wider international community will need to pursue a plausible strategy that takes advantage of areas of common interest. This strategy must be based on a realistic assessment of China’s engagement with Myanmar, its actual influence, and its economic and strategic interests. The West could better engage China to encourage Myanmar’s government to commit to a truly inclusive dialogue with the opposition and ethnic groups. In addition to talks on national reconciliation, dialogue should also address the economic and humanitarian crisis that hampers reconciliation at all levels of society. At the same time, China should act both directly and in close cooperation with ASEAN member countries to continue support for the good offices of the United Nations as well as to persuade the military to open up.

Myanmar is heading towards elections in 2010 which, despite major shortcomings, are likely to create opportunities for generational and institutional changes. International policy towards Myanmar accordingly deserves careful reassessment. China is encouraging the government to make the process genuinely inclusive, but will certainly accept almost any result that does not involve major instability. While its capacity and willingness to influence Myanmar’s domestic politics is limited, the international community should continue to encourage Beijing as well as other regional stakeholders to take part in a meaningful and concerted effort to address the transition in Myanmar.

Beijing/Jakarta/Brussels, 14 September 2009

Subscribe to Crisis Group’s Email Updates

Receive the best source of conflict analysis right in your inbox.