A good time to explain the reason for reform

As United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her historic visit to Burma, there are no doubt innumerable questions about the substance of the recent reforms and the road ahead for the reclusive country.

But one fundamental question looms above all: Why is the Burmese leadership embarking on these changes, given that there is no serious challenge in sight to their continued rule?

Diplomats and analysts have offered a few explanations - from Burma wanting to shed its pariah status to being afraid of being left behind economically in the region. Others believe Naypyidaw wants closer relations with Washington in order to counter Beijing's growing influence.

But the commentators have also been candid enough to admit that they do not fully know the reasons why Burma is undertaking these changes, like freeing political prisoners and loosening media control, and at such a surprising pace.

"It's a tough question," a senior US State Department official acknowledged when pressed on this question last week.

"I would say probably the two countries in Asia that we know the least about in terms of how they make decisions, the machinations that take place behind the scenes, would be probably North Korea and Burma."

The most magnanimous explanation thus far has come from Burma's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Speaking to an audience in Washington last Wednesday via video-conference, the Nobel laureate said she believes that the Burmese government wants to improve the people's lives, and that the pro-democracy movement does not have a monopoly on such good intentions.

"I do believe there are people in the military and present government who want to do what is best for the people, and for the country," said a cautiously optimistic Suu Kyi.

"I don't think we can say that (such) goodwill is the prerogative only of those fighting for democracy."

Her generous words, however, do not detract from the fact that the world needs to hear directly from Burma's leaders about the reason, or perhaps reasons, behind their change of heart.

Is there a blueprint or a guiding philosophy behind all this? What do they hope to achieve ultimately? What kind of help do they need?

There is no better time to address these questions than when the world is watching. At issue is not just a matter of long-standing mistrust, which is to be expected given Burma's decades-long resistance to calls for political and socio-economic reforms. Following Asean's recent decision to grant Burma the rotating chairmanship of the regional grouping in 2014, the stakes have simply got much, much higher - not just for Naypyidaw, but for the region at large.

As chair, burma will host a series of key regional meetings, including the annual Asean pow-wows and the East Asia Summit, which also involves the US, Russia, China and India. Asean is playing a growing role at the meetings these days by driving the agenda for regional architecture, economic integration and resolution of multilateral disputes like those in the South China Sea.

If there is major backsliding on the reforms by Burma, not only would Asean's credibility be hurt, but the momentum behind these regional initiatives would suffer a serious setback as well.

For one thing, it is hard to imagine the US president attending any of these meetings if Naypyidaw attempts to round up dissenting political activists again.

This being the case, Burma should put an end to this unnecessary guessing game and explain its thinking behind the recent reforms, and where the changes are ultimately headed. Doing so is not only important for political reasons, but for economic ones as well.

If Burma is to build a modern economy, it will need businesses from around the world to start investing in the country. At the moment, long-standing economic sanctions imposed by western governments prevent many international businesses from operating in Burma.

But the lifting of these sanctions will not automatically result in investors flooding back to Burma to open factories or build malls either. As Suu Kyi points out, the bigger question for foreign businesses is whether there will be the rule of law in Burma. If there is no protection for their investments, the lifting of the sanctions might be moot to begin with.

So while most of the attention has fallen on Mrs Clinton, the most consequential words could be the ones from Burmese President Thein Sein, if he chooses to make use of this rare opportunity to state the case for reform.

For sure, action speaks louder than words. But at similar historical junctures in the past, words have often been just as important.

The early days of China's reform and opening up, for instance, were accompanied by the famous aphorism that "to get rich is glorious", as well as late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping's exhortation that the country should "let some people get rich first".

It is probably unrealistic to expect Thein Sein to spout similar sound bites in the coming days. But that does not diminish the need for the right words to start coming from Naypyidaw.