Is Than Shwe Still Pulling the Strings?

Yet that expectation was suddenly doused at the time of the summit and no more prisoners were set free. Now one sees little chance of an additional release happening before the parliamentary by-elections, because an earlier release would allow the 88 Generation Students group leaders and other political activists to take part in the campaign and possibly even compete in the polls.

In addition, the parliamentary by-election, which Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) will compete in, was postponed until at least March. This would place the polls conveniently after the date that next year’s budget will most likely be adopted and thereby block Suu Kyi and the NLD from participating in any budget discussions in Parliament.

Finally, just before Clinton touched down in Naypyidaw, military chief Min Aung Hlaing showed up in Beijing to ink a defense cooperation deal.

Each of these maneuvers had all the hallmarks of Than Shwe’s modus operandi.

There are persistent rumors in Rangoon and Bangkok that a hard-line faction wants Than Shwe to return to power. But if the former dictator is able to exert his authority without any personal accountability through Thein Sein and Min Aung Hlaing—both of whom would not be in the positions they are in today if not for Than Shwe—while at the same time convincing the international community to ease their diplomatic and economic isolation of Burma, why would he want to come back unless forced to do so?

While Than Shwe was still formally in power, US Charge d’Affaires Larry Dinger sent a cable to Washington, which was revealed by WikiLeaks, that said “The most senior generals are looking for an escape strategy” and “The current senior generals are getting old … (they) undoubtedly want assurances that, if they voluntarily step aside, they and their families will retain their assets and will not be prosecuted.”

Than Shwe’s “escape strategy” was meticulously planned and implemented over many years. It’s highpoints were the 2008 Constitution designed to keep the military and the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party in power, the privatization scheme that placed most of the nation’s assets in the hands of the top generals and their cronies, the rigged 2010 election, and the cunning appointments of Thein Sein and Min Aung Hlaing, neither of whom were individually powerful, to the top government and military posts.

In his 2009 Armed Forces Day speech, Than Shwe said, “Democracy in Myanmar [Burma] today is at a fledgling stage and still requires patient care and attention.” He then cryptically added that, “As a Myanmar proverb puts it, a recently dug well cannot be expected to produce clear water immediately.”

Reading between the former dictator’s lines, the first of these statements justifies continued control of the country by the former junta’s top brass, including Than Shwe himself, and the second justifies long delays in implementing any significant change that dilutes such control.

In one form or another, the senior leaders of Burma’s new government are continuing to loyally repeat Than Shwe’s mantra, including President Thein Sein, who delivered a very similar message to Clinton during her visit.

But even a well-planned escape strategy and the placement of loyal officers in top positions does not give Than Shwe the absolute assurance he craves regarding either his own personal safety and economic security or the maintenance of ultimate power by the military leaders—whether they are wearing army uniforms or civilian clothes—which he believes is necessary both to protect the country and hold it together. For this type of assurance, he needs to stay at least somewhat personally involved and in control of major decisions.

In reference to Than Shwe, one businessman close to Burma’s top brass told me, “No one wants to wake the sleeping tiger.” The real question, however, is whether the tiger is even asleep.

There is no way of knowing exactly how much control Than Shwe has retained and how much influence he wields, but to assume the answer is “none” is to put blinders on when analyzing the political environment in Burma. And when one wears blinders, one can easily get ambushed by a tiger hiding in the jungle.