Professor David Steinberg, one of the most renowned Western spectators of contemporary Myanmar, passed away at the age of 96. Steinberg was a minister, development employee, professor and people academic who specialized in Myanmar, Korea and broader global relationships.
Before the Communist Revolution, Steinberg, one of the last American trade pupils to China, was from Dartmouth in the United States, where he studied before the Socialist revolution had expelled some immigrants. Before joining the Asia Foundation, he continued to study at Harvard University and the School of Oriental and African Studies ( SOAS ).
He served in Burma from 1958 to 1962, when General Ne Win’s defense coup forced the majority of Westerners to leave. Before joining the United States Agency for International Development ( USAID), where he was posted to Bangkok for three years, he was then stationed for the base in Hong Kong and South Korea.
After a long lack of over 50 years, Steinberg was instrumental in helping to reopen the Asia Foundation business in Yangon in 2013. He even generously donated his sizable Myanmar-related book series to the office in 2019, only two years before the 2021 revolution forced its closing.
Steinberg was a well-known Eastern studies teacher at Georgetown University for many years. His intellectual career spanned 14 novels, most on Myanmar, but some also on Korea, along with 150 books, information and book chapters, and some 300 commentaries and opinion pieces, including in Asia Times.
He continued to write for a number of papers until well into 2024, including Frontier Myanmar and The Irrawaddy. His approach to realizing Myanmar was generally multi-disciplinary, seeking a consolidation of political perspectives, scientific investigation and the practicalities of advancement work.
In a 2007 meeting, he said,” I would describe my job as trying to bridge the spaces between recognized plans, the scientific community, and the non-profit area. So those in each industry would likely criticize me for not being sufficiently committed to their strategy (either theory or practice ). I strongly believe that these three industries can benefit from one another and their initiatives.
Very presciently, given the state of civil conflict and common suffering in Myanmar presently, he provided guidance to younger scholars. Think about how your research and study does, either directly or indirectly, improve the understanding of the numerous issues the citizens of that nation face, and thus improve their internal and external capacities to ameliorate their miserable condition. There are great theoretical and philosophical justifications for studying Burma, but the requirements in that world don’t seem to bother me at this point.
Steinberg was a vehement critic of Myanmar’s Western economic sanctions policies, which sparked a lot of resentment from some activists. However, his opinions finally spanned liberal concerns about how sanctions affected ordinary people of Myanmar.
He also supported important engagement with Myanmar’s prior military regimes. His long-standing presence there as a representative of the Asia Foundation, which he remembered with wonderful kindness, was frequently obscured by his critics. These reviewers occasionally made up inaccurate statements about him, forgetting that he was a follower of the sanctions that were put in place following the coupd’etat of 1988.
Steinberg was listed as one of the” Enemies of the Burmese Revolution” in a checklist released by the National League for Democracy in 2006. He wrote about his listing in an article from late-2023 in The Irrawaddy:” ( m ) ost of the names had titles, military units and comments on their views. Although the majority of those present were in the military, there were numerous foreigners of various cultures. I was listed as range 320 because Steinberg’s letter neared the end of the word, and I indicated that I opposed Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s punishment plan. That was appropriate. Despite my lack of power, I didn’t appear to suffer as a result of being included.
This analyst first met Professor Steinberg at a 1998 conference held by the Australian National University ( ANU) in Canberra about the Burma/Myanmar Update. He was always really supportive of emerging scholars, total of attention and guidance, and craved hearing a multitude of varied study and perspectives. At the age of 86, he attended the yearly Burma/Myanmar Studies Conference in Singapore every program and was always crowded with newcomers and old pals. And he never stopped speaking.
On the sites of Asia Times in 2011, I had a vocal discussion with Steinberg about issues of punishment and human rights transparency in Myanmar. It was a tag of his personality that he bore no prejudices and I constantly valued his compassion, information and guidance, yet when we disagreed.
As he once told me,” we can agree on 95 % of problems and that other 5 % we can continue to believe but always debate” he again told me in Washington. He had an unquestionable person researcher part, and this is what. He was constantly available to question, explain, and discuss ideas with grace and wit. When disputes in Washington DC turned, as they frequently did, become heated, yet his opponents had to acknowledge that he was a class act.
Up until immediately before his passing, we kept in touch regularly. Professor Steinberg often regaled me with many anecdotes, including reminiscing in an email last month about a meal at Harvard in 1956 with Henry Kissinger, while also offering suggestions on each other’s published articles. With his characteristic understatement, he said of Kissinger,” (w ) e all know that being intelligent does not necessarily result in better policies”.
It would be an understatement to say that Professor Steinberg was alarmed by the military’s repression of power in 2021. Only someone with 70 years of experience with Myanmar could possibly express such pain to him.
He was thrilled, and in some respects vindicated, by the early years of the post-2011″ transition”, which at first seemed to expand openings and possibilities more than anyone had predicted. He already had growing concerns about the military’s involuntary maneuverings and the country’s future under the National League for Democracy even before the coup.
His post-coup writings conveyed those concerns, but as always he thought and argued with independence, reason and, as ever, a sense of how to improve the dire conditions of the country and its people.
His analysis was markedly more thoughtful, understanding, and informed than commentators his age, and he decried those who are “bound in webs of self-deception or propaganda” from Myanmar opposition figures and their Western courtiers, which is propaganda that permeates political action in Myanmar.
In one of his pieces from earlier this year, he wrote of the challenges of “assembling” a new Myanmar. The current leadership of all conflicting parties has shown to be ineffective at best and ineffective at reaching agreements necessary for reassembly. A new generation of leaders from all political parties who are willing to think critically is urgently needed, but power is a corrosive force that frequently undermines reality and is rarely voluntarily discarded… The current chaos is unacceptable to all parties, and yet no group has sought viable alternatives. There is a need for dialogue, discussion and compromise”.
The legacy of Professor Steinberg will serve as invaluable markers for what has failed in the past as Myanmar reassembles for a challenging future. But most importantly will be how he approached thinking and writing: with clarity, honesty and commitment.
Independent analyst David Scott Mathieson is engaged in conflict, humanitarian, and human rights issues in Myanmar.