Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for authoritarianism

authoritarianism

Has Myanmar’s military overplayed its hand?

by

An example of military propaganda. The Tatmadaw has long portrayed itself as the sole protector of Myanmar’s interests. Photo Credit: Immu, Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

On 27th March, Myanmar’s powerful military (commonly known as the Tatmadaw), killed over 100 civilians protesting its 1st February overthrow of Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected government. The Tatmadaw has reacted forcefully against demonstrators since the start of the protests, and this was not the first time it had killed civilians. However, the crackdown was unprecedented in its brutality. Despite the bloodshed, protestors defied the military by returning to the streets the very next day, and over a month later the protests show no sign of fading away.

The foundations of the chaos in Burma run deep. During colonial rule, the British governed the minority dominated periphery regions as self-governing frontier areas, separate from Burma proper. This divide and rule strategy saw ethnic minorities heavily recruited into the colonial army while the Bamar majority was excluded. The legacy of ethnic division was compounded by the founding of the modern Burmese state, which was largely built around the Bamar dominated army of the Burmese nationalists. The Rohingya crisis of 2015, which saw Suu Kyi, the symbol of Myanmar’s democracy, taking a nationalist line in defence of the Tatmadaw’s campaign of ethnic cleansing, emphasises just how deep ethnic divisions lie in Myanmar. Successive military regimes have exploited this ethnic dimension to remain in power, casting themselves as the defenders of the Bamar majority and promoting ethnic nationalism. Following decades of military rule, the military generals came to see themselves as the only ones who knew what was good for the country. However, the question remains, what prompted the Tatmadaw to seize power this time, and given the widespread public opposition to the coup, has it overplayed its hand?

Why did Myanmar’s military believe a coup was necessary?

The military has denied it carried out a coup and has instead claimed that it acted in defence of democracy, citing fraud and discrepancies in the 2020 general election, although the extent to which it genuinely believes this is debateable. Consequently, there are other theories as to why the Tatmadaw seized power. Its support for the democratic transition has always been contingent upon its ability to retain a high degree of influence in the country’s political system, Myanmar’s constitution reserves 25% of seats in parliament for the military and has a threshold of 75% for any constitutional changes. However, the landslide 2020 election result for Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy was seen as providing a mandate for constitutional reform and increased the pressure on the military not to stand in the way. It is no coincidence that the coup occurred the day the new parliament was due to be sworn in. It has also been suggested that powerful military chief General Min Aung Hlaing was acting to protect his personal interests. The General was due to retire in 2021 and, faced with the potential threat of international prosecution for genocide against the Rohingya, may well have acted to extend his immunity.

Why has the coup faced such resistance?

Myanmar has changed since being put on the path back to civilian rule. Reform has been slow, but Myanmar’s large young population has experienced greater personal freedoms and better access to education, information, and the rest of the world. After experiencing these freedoms, this new generation has little desire to live under the restrictive military rule of previous decades. This attitude can be seen in the prominence of the three-finger salute in images of the protests. The symbolic gesture has been widely used by young activists across South East Asia as a sign of defiance against authoritarianism. Believing it can reimpose military rule as if nothing has changed represents a significant gamble by the Tatmadaw. It is an even greater gamble to do so having just removed a popular democratic government. Aung San Suu Kyi holds a revered status in Myanmar, and further endeared herself to the people by risking her international reputation to defend Myanmar (and by extension the Tatmadaw) against accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice. This despite her previous long imprisonment at their hands. Suu Kyi’s landslide election victory not only demonstrated her and the NLD’s enduring popularity amongst the people, but also highlighted Myanmar’s growing rejection of the Tatmadaw. The military’s proxy party won only 33 of 476 seats. Even those activists who turned away from the NLD as a result of their inaction over the Rohingya crisis have proven willing to stand alongside them in opposition to the coup.

What does this mean for Myanmar?

In the short term, the Tatmadaw is under increasing pressure from both inside and out. The regime’s initial support from Russia and China, who blocked condemnation of the coup at the UN, has waned as the crackdown has grown increasingly bloody. On 10th March both countries backed a unanimous statement from the UN Security Council denouncing the Tatmadaw’s violent response to protests. ASEAN, the regional group of Myanmar’s neighbours, is divided over the issue. However, Malaysia and Indonesia have been heavily critical, and the group has pressed Min Aung Hlaing to commit to an end to the violence. With the regime increasingly isolated internationally, Western powers have been ratcheting up the pressure. In the days before the recent crackdown, the US and UK imposed economic sanctions on Myanmar’s two vast military conglomerates. These sanctions will hurt, but it is domestically where the military faces a greater reckoning. The coup and the brutal crackdown that followed has tarnished the Tatmadaw’s image. If anger towards the military continues to rise then a growing number of people in Myanmar may begin to aspire to a future without it. Nevertheless, the Tatmadaw is unlikely to change course. For all the pressure it faces, the military has shown itself ready to use force to put down protests, and likely knows that China, although displeased, will not go as far as to abandon it internationally. Therefore, there is a good chance the military can ride out the protests and succeed in its initial objectives. Min Aung Hlaing could delay his retirement and the Tatmadaw avoid the prospect of major constitutional reform which curtails its power.

However, the generals do not appear to have considered the long-term consequences of their actions. For one, by gambling on a coup to improve its position the military has thrown away a political situation which remained immensely favourable to it, and once it reaches its self-imposed deadline for new elections in 2022, it is difficult to envisage a scenario in which it benefits. If it holds a free election, it will almost certainly lose, and face an NLD or unity government which will be empowered and unlikely to compromise following the events of the coup. On the other hand, if it attempts to retain power, it will erode what little respect and legitimacy it has left.

More significantly, by choosing to overthrow Suu Kyi’s popular and increasingly nationalistic government, the Tatmadaw has set itself at odds with its core constituency, Myanmar’s Bamar majority. For an institution which derives a large degree of legitimacy from its role as the protector of the Bamar ethnicity, the brutal suppression of the predominantly Bamar protestors makes such a mantra ring increasingly hollow. The chaos of the protests and widespread disaffection with the military unleashed by the coup has also emboldened and reenergised the country’s various ethnic militias, several of whom have stepped up their offensives, with increasing success. This is not the only way in which the Tatmadaw’s grip on power has been weakened by the effects of the coup. The military takeover and accompanying crackdown have revealed to many Bamar the true extent of the Tatmadaw’s brutality, which has had the effect of facilitating a growing understanding of the plight faced by Myanmar’s minorities. The consequence has been tentative cooperation between the Bamar dominated anti-coup movement and several of the ethnic groups fighting the military. Any reconciliation, even if limited for now, will serve to diminish the Tatmadaw’s ability to divide and rule.

In short, the February coup may well have preserved the Tatmadaw’s immediate political interests, but it has also had several major consequences for the military’s long-term prospects of retaining its entrenched position within Myanmar’s state and society. In fact, by prioritising short-term gain over long-term strategy, the coup has significantly undermined several of the key aspects which make up the Tatmadaw’s claim to legitimacy, and as a result could end up costing it far more than it stood to lose in the first place.

Internet Sovereignty as a Gateway to Global Norms: The Battle over Global Internet Governance

by

by Eve Gleeson

18 July 2019

A borderless world, or not really? (Image credit: Pxhere)

Introduction

The Internet’s essence as “open, global, [and] borderless” has complicated attempts toward international cooperation on Internet governance. Many authoritarian states with comprehensive cybersecurity policies and strategies regard the Internet as a tool to monitor and quell internal dissent that may threaten regime stability, while liberal democracies, especially those belonging to Western multilateral organisations such as the EU and NATO, have tended to conceive of it rather as a borderless space free from excessive regulation.

Authoritarian states, such as Russia, China and the states with whom they maintain rather informal ties, such as Iran and Southeastern Asian states like Malaysia and Indonesia, clash with the proponents of liberal democracy whose values traditionally prevail in international institutions. As leaders of the Internet Sovereignty (IS) movement, China and Russia hope to use their growing diplomatic influence to manipulate global Internet governance standards in favour of state sovereignty. This article will discuss how the values of IS may impact the global power balance and a transnational Internet governance agreement, stressing the position of Russia and China in global diplomatic bodies.

Transnational cybersecurity governance

Bodies like the UN and its agency the International Telecommunications Union have created and reviewed numerous initiatives concerning transnational Internet protocols. However, these initiatives have proved to be vague and incomplete strategies victim to gridlock and technical limitations. IS leaders Russia and China and their increasingly potent force of global Internet allies remain challenged by Western actors, such as the United States, who benefit from institutionalised power and market-dominating private technology companies.

Bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this area has been prolific as powerful states seek to gain Internet allies who may represent their interests at the global negotiating table. This includes the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, an alliance originally designed to combat terrorism but has since ushered its eight members, hailing from South and Central Asia, toward strategies and norms that speak to the threat that information poses to national security and stability. Other occurrences of inter-group cooperation are reflected through signatures on UN resolutions by band-wagoning states, including by developing states in Latin America, Africa and Asia, as well as collaborations on global Internet conferences.

China and Russia: Messiahs of Internet Sovereignty

These states serve as beacons of hope for national jurisdiction over the digital space, serving up bold cybersecurity policies and strategies. With landmark policies like the Golden Shield and the Great Firewall, and technology giants like Huawei and Alibaba, China has become a leader of technological prosperity. Russia has created similarly robust Internet policies in addition to several market-dominating technology companies including Yandex and Kaspersky Lab. This has given the Russian state the capacity to expel Western technology companies, bolster the national economy, and monopolise national identity creation through social media censorship.

Chinese policies of filtering and censoring content reflect the ideals of state control over national identity, information access, dissent and mobilisation, and emerging technologies. China’s investment in the telecommunications sectors of East African states (linked with their adoption of Chinese-inspired censorious cybersecurity policies) and policy leadership in the SCO and BRICS partnerships reflect the state’s efforts to “promote [their views] as the basic principles for structuring international relations and regimes on a global level.”

In 2015, China and Russia formalised their bilateral cybersecurity relations with the Agreement on International Information Security Cooperation. Russia has also forged formal cybersecurity ties with less advanced emerging economies, such as Southeast Asia through an emerging agreement with ASEAN and existing cybersecurity collaboration with the Philippines. In addition, Russia has used the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, an alliance comprised of former Soviet satellite states, as a tool to consolidate a collective cybersecurity strategy. By combatting Western technological dominance, both materially and normatively, Russia and China can expand their own industries, retain control over their population, and spread non-Western ideals among states who may, in turn, provide support to them in international fora.

Implications and Conclusion

A global Internet governance regime ruled by IS ideals, whether it be a codified UN agreement or more informal norms and practices, would not mirror the hierarchical structure of traditional governance bodies: instead, it would create no order of power at all, with each individual state executing autonomy over Internet activity within its borders. This sort of agreement may also impact how cybersecurity development programs are funded, with resistance from China and Russia for developing states to receive development aid from the West.

Such a collaborative agreement may also struggle to set human rights and transparency norms. By granting states autonomy in this arena, it would relinquish authority over domestic consequences of Internet policies. This would leave states with a pre-modern degree of sovereignty, allowing them to steer the Internet toward or away from state-based information and knowledge control, political mobilisation, and national identity creation. Russia and China’s efforts toward Internet sovereignty norms will persist as they advance their interests of building a strong anti-West alliance. As they grow as economic powers, their efforts to integrate Westphalian values of sovereignty into international institutions will grow in tandem, threatening liberal ideals of globalisation.

So far, the transnational agreements that have been proposed, amended, and rejected have encountered fragmentation, ambiguity, and logistically-weak imperatives. The economic and infrastructural disparities between states, the struggle for policy to outpace technological advances, the role of private stakeholders that uphold the industry, and the logistical impracticalities of enforcing Internet policies have all stifled ventures toward global cooperation. In addition to resolving these issues, states must realistically engage in compromise to construct a functional regime.

Eve Gleeson is a master’s student in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Communications Manager of Strife and a security analyst at AMC Solutions. Her research focuses on technology governance, cybersecurity of critical systems, and socio-technical theory. Eve holds a BA in International Studies with a focus on conflict and security from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. You can find her on LinkedIn and on Twitter @evegleeson_.

Chavez Versus Maduro: Who Did It Worse?

by

by Roisin Murray

29 May 2019

Hero vs. Scapegoat? (BBC)

For most of the late twentieth-century, Venezuela was considered the most stable democracy in Latin America, held up as an example for its volatile Latin American neighbours. Venezuela is renowned for being a country rich in natural assets. It is a major producer of oil, as well as a manufacturer of other goods such as gold, diamonds and natural gas. Yet, despite the abundance of its resources, a combination of chronic government mismanagement, corruption and a failed socialism project has meant that Venezuela is on the brink of implosion. The fate of Venezuela is key for the West as the Venezuelan crisis risks wreaking havoc with the international oil market, which would be particularly damaging to its main oil customer, the United States. Challenges to Nicholas Maduro’s legitimacy as President during the escalating political situation have begged the question: who is to blame for the collapse of Venezuela?

This question cannot be answered without considering Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez. Venezuela’s socialism was the brainchild of Chavez, but his death in 2013 meant he failed to experience the widespread poverty and mass emigration induced partially by his policies. In order to address the question of where culpability lies for the current crisis in Venezuela, this article will scrutinise Chavez and Maduro’s policies and their social impact on the Venezuelan people. This will help to contextualise the origins of the unrest in Venezuela and demonstrate to what extent the cause of the chaos can be attributed to Maduro’s policies, or inherited from his predecessor. Ultimately, this article will seek to demonstrate that Chavez orchestrated the disaster, while Maduro simply executed it.

Ideology

Venezuela’s foray into socialism can be traced to Hugo Chavez, an army officer who called for a ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ drawing on the legacy of Simon Bolivar, the leader of Venezuelan liberation. Chavez was elected president in 1998 after two unsuccessful government coups. He won the election on the platform of redistributing power to the people, a refreshing divergence from the corruption that had dominated the politics of the mainstream political parties for the preceding twenty-five years. In reality, however, Chavez’s presidency did not signify an end to corruption in Venezuela. Rather, he orchestrated a regime that was run according to patronage and nepotism. Furthermore, the ambiguity surrounding the government’s finances also contributed to Venezuela’s poor score on the Transparency International corruption perception index, which ranked the country 165th out of 180 countries in 2012. Nevertheless, the hallmark of Chavez’s rule was his ‘socialist’ agenda, which manifested itself in high government spending, redistribution of wealth and the nationalisation of Venezuelan industries. Chavez managed to win the trust of the working classes by injecting public money into social welfare programmes. One of the most notable merits of his government was the transformation of the ‘ranchos’ or shanty towns. However, as Webber highlights, his leftist, socialist ideology was not a permanent feature of his leadership. Rather, when Chavez entered office as ‘moderately reformist’, his socialist policies conversely began to develop in response to challenges from the right. And, even then, Chavez’s pseudo socialism remained built upon a market-focused approach to the predominantly private-sector economy.

Dissent intensifies as Maduro clings to power (Opensourceinvestigations.com)

Nicholas Maduro assumed power in 2013 following the death of Chavez, his former mentor. Previously a bus driver, he was quick to emphasise his humble origins, immediately establishing an affiliation with the working classes. Maduro appeared fully invested in Chavez’s socialist brainchild. He continued to rule Venezuela with greatly regulated price controls and a highly centralised, hands-on economy- all hallmarks of aspiring socialist regimes. He lacked the presence and charisma of Chavez, but secured legitimacy for his actions by constantly referring to Chavez’s memory and the longevity of his legacy. In this sense, Chavez’s shadow was never far from Maduro’s course of action. Unfortunately, Maduro’s tendency to follow the precedent set by Chavez was particularly replicated in his use of corrupt governance to rule. He centralised his power by establishing a more loyal Constitution Assembly under the rule of a new Constitution, thereby undercutting the opponent led legislature, the National Assembly. He further secured the allegiance of the military by offering it control over profitable businesses. For both Chavez and Maduro, corrupt practices seemed to be instrumental in propping up their regimes.

Economy

Chavez’s socialist dream was primarily financed by the surging price of oil, a material that Venezuela is fortuitously rich in and built its entire economic infrastructure around. Large investments in social programmes, facilitated by the country’s oil reserves, transformed the lives of poor Venezuelans and did much to bolster Chavez’s approval rating. However, the gains that Chavez made for the poor of Venezuela were negated by his eventual decimation of the Venezuelan economy under the auspices of implementing ‘socialism’. Government overspending caused rampant inflation, culminating in a recession in 2014 shortly after Chavez’s death. Furthermore, foreign investment stagnated under Chavez: revenue produced by foreign investment in 2004 amounted to $1.5 billion, in comparison to almost $5 billion in 1998. Culpability for the economic ills of Venezuela cannot be far removed from Chavez’s hands. As Corrales and Penfold point out, Chavez’s level of power over the economy was unparalleled, even in comparison to other leftist regimes of the era.

Venezuela’s persistent over-reliance on oil, initiated by Chavez and inherited by Maduro, became a contentious issue when the oil boom imploded and prices plummeted around the time of Chavez’s death in 2013. Maduro’s solution to prop up the failing economy was to print more money, thus devaluing the Bolivarian currency further. The combination of these ineffective fiscal economic solutions, widespread corruption and gross mismanagement precipitated an economic and political collapse. Nevertheless, Maduro attempted to continue the socialist legacy that Chavez had begun, despite the economic circumstances rendering this course of action unfeasible. Maduro increased the national minimum wage on six separate occasions in 2018, but the positive effects of this move were negligible given the rate of hyperinflation. Maduro is a living proof that Chavez’s socialist experiment was completely unfeasible in the long-term, but stubborn persistence regardless signed Venezuela’s death warrant.

Social Impact

In the short-term, life for Venezuelans had been rejuvenated by Chavez’s measures. Between 2005 and 2014 unemployment rates and poverty rates fell by 50% and infant mortality plummeted. Workers were met with increased increments to the minimum wage, and literacy levels increased sharply. However, the improved lives of Venezuelans cannot be attributed solely to Chavez, and to do so risks overstating the impact of his policies at the expense of minimising the role of oil. As Canon argued, ‘the oil boom has without a doubt contributed an inordinate amount to the current upswing in growth and reduction in poverty.’ And even when society gave the impression of flourishing, this Chavez inspired ‘age of prosperity’ was built on shaky, unsustainable foundations. Chavez’s policies drummed up substantial national debt, and this ‘boom’ paved the way for the inevitable ‘bust’ when the oil prices crashed.

Venezuelan citizens queue for food as shortages worsen (Wall Street Journal)

Nobody has felt the effect of this escalating hyperinflation more than the citizens of Venezuela. Inflation levels have peaked at 1.7 million per cent, obliterating people’s life savings. Savings in bolivars equivalent to $10,000 at the beginning of 2018 only amounted to 59 cents by the end of the year. Widespread malnutrition has emerged due to basic food shortages, with Venezuelan citizens losing a median of twenty-four pounds in weight during 2017. Venezuela’s healthcare system also lies in tatters. Hospitals are lacking in vital supplies, and many HIV-positive and cancer patients are facing shortages of their medication. The growing dissatisfaction with Venezuelan life is reflected in the rate at which citizens are fleeing the country; 1.5 million people emigrated between 2014 and 2017. For those that remain in Venezuela dissent is not easy to express. Censorship of the media obscures the reality of the crisis and the Venezuelan police harshly subdue protesters with tear gas, and on occasion, bullets. Maduro’s recent measures have also resulted in the incarceration of protestors as political prisoners, causing an uproar from human rights groups.

Conclusion

Maduro is bearing the brunt of the criticism from the international community on the handling of the Venezuelan crisis- and rightly so. His economic ‘solutions’ to the recession have only worsened Venezuela’s economic position, he has rejected vital international aid and his authoritarian response to dissenting voices has demonstrated his unwillingness to be held accountable. But it would be injudicious to forget Chavez’s part in determining the crisis. The situation he created formed a set of unsustainable preconditions that Maduro was bound by when he inherited leadership of the country. His policies, that promised to uplift the lower classes, were inadvertently responsible for their being plunged into poverty years down the line. His irresponsible economic measures and unsustainable ideals set Venezuela on a course to crash and burn- but just not during his lifetime. Both Maduro and Chavez should be held equally accountable, whether they are here to face the charges or not.

Roisin Murray is currently working as a researcher at a private security consultancy. She holds an MA in International Relations from King’s College London. Her research interests include diplomacy, authoritarian regimes and counter-terrorism.

Bibliography

Canon, Barry. Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009.

Ellner, Steve and Miguel Tinker Salas. “The Venezuelan Exceptionalism Thesis: Separating Myth from Reality.” Latin American Perspectives 32, no.2 (2005): 5-19, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040273.

Webber, Jeffery R. “Venezeula Under Chavez: The Prospects and Limitations of Twenty-First Century Socialism, 1999-2009.” Socialist Studies: the Journal of the Society for Socialist Studies 6, no.1 (2010): 11-44, http://dx.doi.org/10.18740/S47W2R.

Corrales, Javier and Michael Penfold. The Dragon in the Tropics: Hugo Chavez and the Political Economy of Revolution in Venezuela. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2011.

Gunson, Phil.”Chavez’s Venezuela.” Current History 105, no.688 (2006): 58-63, https://search.proquest.com/docview/200735447?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo.