Why Boycott Just Makes Things Worse
|
By ERIK SOLHEIM |
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
|
Cut off contact with Hamas! Don't talk to Israel! Keep away from Burma! Over the past few years there have been calls from many quarters to break off contact with regimes we don't like. Few, however, seem to have a realistic idea of whether breaking off contact works, or what kind of regime it might work on. In this context it is worth recalling the words of former Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, more of a hawk than a dove: "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." Dialogue is not a goal in itself. The goal is to reduce conflict and save lives. We must be clear at all times about our basic values, which include respect for the individual, human rights and democracy. For more than 20 years, I have been a champion of human rights and democracy in Burma. A number of times I've thought that a major breakthrough was imminent, but I was always disappointed. At the end of January I was in Burma and saw with my own eyes that in many respects the country has stood still for the past several decades. Since a military junta seized control of the country in 1988, the West's response has been to isolate it. The regime has refused to implement political and economic reforms. It's time to think of a new approach. Isolation rarely leads to improvements in a country, but it often creates considerable problems for the people living there. Experience has shown that democratic development is closely linked to the emergence of a middle class. It is the middle class that has the resources to become politically engaged in promoting freedom of expression and other social progress, not the poor, whose hands are full trying to keep their children from going hungry. If a country is isolated from the rest of the world, no middle class will emerge, and achieving democratic development will be far more difficult. According to East Timorese President Jose Ramos-Horta, if Indonesia had been isolated in the same way as Burma, it would still be a dictatorship and East Timor would not have won its independence in 2002. Democratic development has also been closely linked to the emergence of a middle class in Thailand, South Korea, and most other countries in eastern Asia. Because of isolation, few Burmese receive any stimulus from the outside world, and fewer yet are aware of how far Burma lags behind neighbors like Thailand and China, both economically and technologically. If Burma's military leaders are given more opportunity to travel abroad, they will be more likely to say as Mikhail Gorbachev once did: "We cannot live like this any longer." One of the hallmarks of Norway today is that we are nearly always willing to talk to everyone. This has given us a special role in a number of conflicts. Because we could talk to Hamas and were thus among the first to establish contact with the Palestinian National Unity Government, we have had unique access to the negotiations in the Middle East conflict. In Sri Lanka we were among the few who had contact with both the Tamil Tigers and the authorities. We met with the Nepalese Maoists before anyone else. Now the Maoists are represented in the national assembly and the prime minister is from their party. We talk to Communist guerrillas in the Philippines, and have contact with rebel groups in Burundi and Sudan. When the parties in strife-torn Zimbabwe decided to establish a government of national unity, we started a dialogue with all of them. The fact we have contact with regimes and armed groups doesn't mean that we accept their views but simply that we have an opportunity for dialogue. The emergency relief effort that followed cyclone Nargis' devastation of Burma last year showed that it was possible to get much-needed aid to the people of the country. The UN and NGOs did a wonderful job. The participants in the relief effort described the situation as a "humanitarian space," which Norway, together with many other Western and Asian countries, has helped to fill. This space opened up because the UN secretary-general and the regime talked together. Now it is essential that we help to preserve this space and eventually extend it to the rest of the country. Burma is facing major challenges because of the financial crisis. The military regime is planning elections, which are certain to be neither free nor fair. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is still being kept under strict house arrest. Unfortunately there is little hope of any democratic breakthrough in the near future. We must take a longer, historical perspective; openness and dialogue are bound to be more effective than isolation. Erik Solheim is Norwegian Minister of the Environment and International Development. He wrote this commentary for IPS.
Moe Aung Wrote: |
11/05/2009 |
|
plan B,
"I am not brand loyal, like some here." No, not brand, only completely beholden to power and totally prostrate. Their wish is your command.
"We need all ideas that will change the SPDC's mind." I wouldn't keep my hopes up if I were you since you are going after a mirage.
"Not one idea can supplant others." Just in case yours gets binned. Touchy-feely wishy-washy liberal ideas are sadly out of place in a country like Burma.
|
|
 |
|
Master Shifu,
I agree. All in all my advocacy reflects my sentiment about the immediate suffering. Legitimacy, engagement are commonsense solution that need to be refined by real politicians. Be it from the NLD or others.
I am not brand loyal, like some here.
I can only contribute as a real individual in helping. Ideas presented may be flawed and I stand corrected and ready to learn anything new.
Presently the no-win situation is headed towards a "from a bad to worst scenario".
No one policy alone can effect a total change.
My main gripe has been "Why hold onto policy that causes the people more suffering than the SPDC?"
Even Radicals will have their days. If only they can see their parts well as opposed to an end without any beginning.
We need all ideas that will change the SPDC's mind. Not one idea can supplant others.
Meanwhile not burdening the mass with more sufferings is a must. I believe that must be the bottom line for all involved. |
|
 |
Moe Aung Wrote: |
08/05/2009 |
|
Master Shifu,
"We must try to see beyond this 'isolation vs. engagement' debate which only serves the regime's interests and which too has already consumed lots of energy on the activists' side."
Exactly what we must do, thanks. Aik (probably from one of our nationalities)I've noticed has the same clear insight which I find very refreshing and encouraging. Avoid being unduly distracted by one particular aspect of the broader picture, be it sanctions or elections, simply reacting to events, and losing sight of our main task - to build up and strengthen our bases and networks of People Power, to work ceaselessly on the rank and file of the army (they are sons of ordinary folk whose lives are made an endless hardship and hopeless misery), and prepare for the fire next time. To get ready for effective mass action and toppling the junta. Resources, logistics, above all determination.
Whether the NLD will rise up to the challenge or not is a different question altogether. We do live in interesting times. |
|
|
Master Shifu Wrote: |
07/05/2009 |
|
Plan B,
We must try to see beyond this "isolation vs. engagement" debate which only serves the regime's interests and which too has already consumed lots of energy on the activists' side. This is the message that should be conveyed to Erik Solheim.
Tyrants hang upon power not only by brute force. Unless the ruling elites question their own legitimacy, it is unlikely that that they will make a rethink of their views and actions and eventually change. Doubts on political legitimacy played an undeniable role in the collapse of many authoritarian regimes.
"Engagement-right-or-wrong" policies will not help in inducing positive changes. This is no less the "immense wars of the spirits".
We know the 3S advocates are too radical. On the other hand, however, the important task of challenging the creed of despotic rulers cannot possibly be done by accommodating with their versions of the narrative. |
|
|
|
Master Shifu,
That may be correct. At this point what real choice do we have?
There are the 3S advocates, with no specific plan yet uncompromising. With absolutely no reconciliatory attitude.
There are the "nothing can be done" observers. Meanwhile, much needs to be done inside for the masses.
If changes need to come from within, supporting those within should be the end to all means.
Yet with all signs pointing to suffering from being deprived due to nature or by intentional neglect, what can individuals do other than contribute to the hope of the sufferings through health care and education? |
|
|
Master Shifu Wrote: |
04/05/2009 |
|
| Taming pariah regimes by socialization has severe limits. They are selfish and calculating. It should be obvious if you look at how North Korea is blackmailing all the parties concerned. But, as organs of a socialist state, North Korea's healthcare and education systems may still be more egalitarian and all-encompassing than Burma's. Political aspects are crucial. |
|
|
|
| Sanctions only make the common people suffer and they should be lifted immediately if the West really care about Myanmar people's human rights to survive and have a better life. |
|
|
|
Sean Turnell is:
1) An academic whom I doubt ever visited Burma except surrounded by Than SHwe government haters.
2) The single most important instigator of the sanctions that failed due to the exceptions that he clearly described.
3) Arrogantly knowing that controlling those exceptions (Asean, petro-states in the Gulf, China, etc) was impossible, he continues to advocate sanctions unequivocally stating Burmese people suffering has nothing to do with sanctions.
4) Using his mouthpiece Burma Economic watch to present facts without cultural, historical, traditional considerations make him at best unwise, at worst a racist.
http://www.burmaeconomicwatch.blogspot.com/
That being said he raised a few very good points;
1) Stabilizing the currency of Burma will go a long way to promoting the economy. Unfortunately he did not recommend that approach.
2) He mentioned the junta's windfall profits from gas sales, which nobody cares to further investigate even knowing the significance of the ramifications. |
|
|
Moe Aung Wrote: |
02/05/2009 |
|
Sorry, kids growing up is a very poor analogy for the Burmese junta. This is a fully grown bully and gangster, and it's not in a playground.
Many people not only end up in jail and get tortured but get gunned down or beaten to death because they dare protest against oppression, injustice, hardship, and even for trying to help people. Unarmed students, monks, ordinary folk. No revolution.
You see poor people because of rampant exploitation, enforced top-down economic mismanagement, systematic restriction of opportunities, criminal neglect of the public good, and no state social security network (a burden traditionally shouldered by the community and the Sangha). Are they in anyway linked to sanctions? Or are they the inevitable outcome of the priorities the junta set, the choices they make, as autocratic rulers?
The ball is most definitely in their court. The Norwegian can brag all he likes. He has so far failed to establish any significant dialogue let alone get concessions out of the generals. |
|
|
|
| Than Shwe and friends are not bad kids but play like kids. They have the ball in their hands and they don't want the good kids to play with it. Because they (bad kids) like to play indoor games, that doesn't mean they are isolated but safe and secure. |
|
|
Youth Assistant Wrote: |
01/05/2009 |
|
Cound not agree more. Freedom should not be only on paper.
Youth from Burma: Let's make our voice heard here. |
|
|
|
| I see poor people. I'm against sanctions. |
|
|
|
I totally support Mr, Solheim.
What happens when a bad kid is isolated by the good kids? The kid gets worse... gets angrier... joins a gang. That's the situation.
Twenty years just wasted. Nothing's come out of it because the actions are not well-planned, rushed and emotionally charged. The "activists" outside just push for overnight revolutions every chance they have and many people in Myanmar end up in jail.
Most of them are just acting like angry teenagers: always complaining about problems without solutions.
The military very calm and they plan their way very well. That's how they stay in power.
We need a strategic plan. Give it 10 years. It may look long but we've already spent 20 years. Think what we'll do afterward. Democracy is not the end in itself. It's a mean to pursue happiness.
|
|
|
Moe Aung Wrote: |
01/05/2009 |
|
Myauk Phyu,
Thanks for posting that. Much appreciated.
NK,
"... why don’t donor countries invest in “organic-intellectuals” such as.."
They'll back the winning horse as soon as it looks like winning. It's not like the West has not covertly or overtly worked for the downfall of a Third World regime provided it's “Red.” Different story when it comes to right-wing/ pseudo-socialist military dictatorships so long as they can do business with them and turn a good profit taking advantage of cheap labor, unenforced or weak labor laws/ health and safety regulations, little or no union rights, vast natural resources, etc.
Looks like Sean Turnell has a sworn enemy in plan B, green in the eyes, frothing at the mouth and spitting venom. Scary.
|
|
|
|
Solheim has multiple historical facts on his side.
Turnell? 0
Turnell supporter?
Well, you got the point.
Signing out on KMA.
His kitchen's too hot for me.
|
|
|
|
If Erik Solheim’s argument of middle-class theory is easily applied to Burma, we would not have not seen millions of migrant workers in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore and the military would not have been in power for 40 years in Burma.
Erik , you should do more homework on the dependency theory before you write about the development theory in Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines.
The cold war died 20 years ago; it is the post-Washington consensus era. The communist Chinese are drinking Coke and eating American junk-food.
A funny, result-oriented approach: why don’t donor countries invest in “organic-intellectuals,” such as the people of DVB, The Irrawaddy and Mizzima and the 88 generation, in order to work comprehensively on Burma issues and agendas in both international and domestic spheres?
|
|
|
Moe Aung Wrote: |
30/04/2009 |
|
Plan B:
"Turnell and his ilk have now been proven beyond doubt to be people with no stakes in Burma and who do not care what their advice will do."
Solheim does nothing of the sort, either proving or disproving, but he is entitled to his opinion. A democratic impetus by a rising middle class presided over by our generals with an unparalleled track record sounds like a miracle even on an evolutionary time scale of a few more decades. You can take the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Hkunnawng is right in asserting that without a political solution embracing both Burman and ethnic nationality groups, economic incentives alone will disproportionately benefit the junta and its cronies (business as usual); the rest of us will be lucky to receive a mere trickle-down.
Zaw Min: Your notion of “the closed door” is so yesterday, like Solheim's. It's wide open but strictly on their terms.
Master Shifu: political will (Gorbachev, De Klerk)
Thway Ni: internal isolation policy=main obstacle
|
|
|
|
We can discuss all these "exceptions to the rule" when the rule is fully applied.
The sanction rule was applied and failed due to the exceptions of Asean, the junta’s craftiness and the discovery of gas in the Bay of Bengal.
Let us apply this rule and control as many exceptions as possible.
Maybe, just maybe this time, it might work.
Even the EU renew-sanctions statement has already begun with tackling all those exceptions
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15537
|
|
|
Myauk Phyu Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
| There is no correlation between economic growth and democracy in Southeast Asia. Sorry, Huntington! Or with the words of the Lady: "Part of our struggle is to make the international community understand that we are a poor country not because there is an insufficiency of resources and investment, but because we are deprived of the basic institutions and practices that make for good government. There are multinational business concerns which have no inhibitions about dealing with repressive regimes. Their justification for economic involvement in Burma is that their presence will actually assist the process of democratization. Investment that only goes to enrich an already wealthy elite bent on monopolizing both economic and political power cannot contribute towards equality and justice, the foundation stones for a sound democracy. I would therefore... take a principled stand against companies doing business with the military regime of Burma. Please use your liberty to promote ours." |
|
|
Thway Ni Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
I agree with the points mentioned in this commentary and read the comments underneath with interest.
I think when we look at "isolation," we need to consider two kinds: internal and external. Internal isolation comes from the junta through the various kinds of censorship imposed on the people, while external isolation comes from the sanctions on the junta imposed by countries like the US.
What I gather from this commentary is that the writer seems to be touching on the external isolation.
If the junta decides to adopt the internal isolation, even the advancement in technology such as that mentioned by Ko Moe Aung, will not be of much help for our people.
If the international community adopt an external isolation policy (i.e. sanctions or boycott) on the junta, they may risk pushing the junta towards the adoption of an internal isolation policy.
Whenever I ponder upon the matter of "isolation," North Korea comes to my mind. I definitely do not hope to see Burma ending up one day like North Korea.
|
|
|
Master Shifu Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
It is important to remember who finally opened up this "humanitarian space." It was the regime. Humanitarian space has its own logic which does not necessarily translate itself into "political space" or "development space." If aid is really humanitarian, it is normal that political imperatives should be sidelined.
In many places, the tragic aftermath of Cyclone Nargis only reinforced or reaffirmed the state's authority even in remote areas. Policymakers should avoid simplistic readings of the correlation between Burmese society and the state if they want to help the people.
|
|
|
Zaw Min Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
| I fully back what Erik Solheim wrote. Force open the door so that the regime can not stay isolated behind the closed door and do whatever they want. Even when the doors are forced open, they may still do whatever they want but it will make it harder for them to go on like that and easier for ordinary people to find a way to get rid of them. |
|
|
Master Shifu Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
It is a myth that Burma and its leadership are totally isolated from the outside world. Even during the self-isolated BSPP-era, Burma had a good number of western-trained elites. And Ne Win regularly travelled to Europe. If there is political will, Burma's rulers can also take many development examples in the region, starting from China's. They should have equally paid attention to performance legitimacy as in the emerging economies of Southeast Asia.
Burma is not going back to isolation, officially or otherwise. The problematic for the EU policy today is how to find ways to foster political liberalization that would favor "natural and spontaneous" emergence of non-state actors, including political parties, ethnic minorities and youths, and how to help create a minimum "level playing field" for everyone inside Burma.
|
|
|
Thway Ni Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
| The impact of isolation and the dwindling presence of the middle class in Burma are important points for discussion, though the issues may not be anything new. |
|
|
Moe Aung Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
"Because of isolation, few Burmese receive any stimulus from the outside world, and fewer yet are aware of how far Burma lags behind neighbors like Thailand and China, both economically and technologically. If Burma's military leaders are given more opportunity to travel abroad, they will be more likely to say as Mikhail Gorbachev once did: ‘We cannot live like this any longer.'"
If you've noticed the ubiquitous satellite dishes, the Internet (albeit of limited access), cell phones and the substantial diaspora with family links within Burma, “isolation” is nowhere near the level seen in Ne Win's time. It was the march of technology that eroded the isolation.
Gorbachev was not a leader of a military dictatorship to start with, and had already embarked upon perestroika before he visited the West.
"…openness and dialogue are bound to be more effective than isolation."
Just as isolation was self-imposed, openness and dialogue certainly are anathema to the generals. The ball's in their court.
|
|
|
MgMyanmar Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
| You can talk to anyone. It is not an issue, but you should not forgot that Gen Ne Win traveled around would freely while he put the country and his people in isolation. Gen Than Shwe or his successor will do the same. |
|
|
|
Calling Ko Moe Aung and his ilk—Keep an open mind. You might learn something.
Especially this: It is the middle class that has the resources to become politically engaged in promoting freedom of expression and other social progress, not the poor, whose hands are full trying to keep their children from going hungry. If a country is isolated from the rest of the world, no middle class will emerge, and achieving democratic development will be far more difficult.
|
|
|
Myint Thein Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
Eric Solheim is absolutely right, and after all the inane, neo-con, Bush-era, chest-thumping, knee-jerk moralizing, it's refreshing to see that there are still Western politicians willing to think for themselves and try and find a results-oriented approach to democratic change in Burma.
The West has no magic tricks in its bag. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. It really just has two options—isolate Burma from the West and leave it to the Chinese and Indians, or engage and hope to find ways of influencing developments in a more pro-democratic direction. That's it. Anyone who thinks there are any other options is whistling in the dark.
|
|
|
George Than Setkyar Heine Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
You have no answer for Burma yet, Mr Solheim.
It takes two to tango.
Daw Suu has been calling for dialogue with Than Shwe since day one.
Yes, the South Korean had the honor of shaking hands with that monk killer during the Nargis crisis and things changed a bit then. Nothing has yet got better, though.
If the Norwegians can make things happen and better elsewhere, why aren't they doing something about it in Burma?
The problem is that Than Shwe is dead-set on winning this farce all by himself, already rigged and with relevant mechanisms in place. Agreed, Mr Solheim?
The NLD is up in arms now. No choice, as there is no other recourse, since the military refused to play the game after the NLD won the elections in 1990.
Fielding the 2010 farce elections amounts to Than Shwe slapping the faces of the people of Burma after insulting them in 1990, not to mention the NLD and the international community.
|
|
|
|
This article is full of points that can be elaborated in to the realm of Constructive Engagement. Even if a few points are adopted experimentally we will be seeing, if nothing else, more help for the suffering inside Burma.
For those who are seeking ideas, here is the article.
Turnell and his ilk have now been proven beyond doubt to be people with no stakes in Burma and who do not care what their advice will do.
Thank you, Irrawaddy, for this article.
|
|
|
hkunnawng Wrote: |
29/04/2009 |
|
Boycotts don’t make things make worse because our lives are not better today than before the Western boycott imposed ten years ago. But they block the regime from moving forward according to its agenda.
Before you consider how to engage the government, you have to consider what leverages you have. As a humanitarian organization, you can be expelled anytime—the UNDP chief, for example. It is not fair to consider solving the longstanding conflict of Burma without giving consideration to the crux of the problem and just looking at the current situation.
I wish the China, India and Asean could see Burma as the Norwegian does. Actually, the Norwegian government does not have any leverages to influence the government to organize a dialogue with the NLD and ethnic groups.
It is OK to move forward if you do not consider the NLD, opposition groups and the ethnic groups. But this will not be sustainable. This will be insane and problems will emerge in the future again.
|
|
|
|
|
E-MAIL
PRINT
