A United, Collective Voice

Canadian Ambassador Ron Hoffmann recently was posted to Bangkok to represent his country’s interests in Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Laos. Ambassador Hoffmann has served abroad in The Hague, Johannesburg, Beijing and London. His last posting was as ambassador to Afghanistan.

Question: How much of a priority will Burma be for you?

Answer: I arrived in Bangkok with clear directions to engage actively on Burma. I intend to pursue an active dialogue with the fullest range of stakeholders involved— in Canada, in Thailand and in Burma, to communicate Canadian values and to understand and closely track evolving developments.

Q: Your last posting was in Afghanistan, a country high on Canada’s foreign policy agenda. How high is Burma on that agenda? What level of attention do you think Burma warrants from Canada and the international community?

A: You’re right that I just left the role of ambassador for Canada’s highest political, development and military priority in the world, but I also know that this new set of relationships remains important to my country and carries with it some profound challenges and complexities. Canada’s foreign minister, the Honorable Lawrence Cannon, during his speech to the UN General Assembly in September, reaffirmed the pre-eminence of human rights, democratic development and the rule of law as priorities for Canada, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed his strong personal support for these values to me on a recent visit to Afghanistan. I believe Burma will be a major pre-occupation in the period ahead for any country that adheres to these principles.

Q: In late 2007, after the “Saffron Revolution,” Canada imposed tougher sanctions on Burma. Do you think that sanctions have been effective in influencing the Burmese regime? Under what conditions would Canada lift its sanctions?

A: Canada believes that its robust sanctions regime is not only of major symbolic importance, but it has also had some tangible impact in reducing Burma’s access to investments and trading partners. For these reasons, coupled with the lack of progress on human rights and democratic development thus far, Canada intends to keep its sanctions in place for the foreseeable future. But we, like others, are also acutely aware that our tough stance on sanctions alone has not made the kind of difference we had hoped. The frustrating and sad reality is that countries like China and India, in particular, are investing heavily in Burma and undermining much of the effect sanctions could have.

Q: The Obama administration recently announced that it would engage in direct talks with the Burmese junta while maintaining sanctions. What do you think of this approach?

A: Well, I think it’s important that the Obama administration realizes that sanctions still have some role to play. It’s still valuable, I think, that the Burmese regime isn’t rewarded until its words are matched by meaningful, and enduring, deeds. But I also think that the new US administration has come to a reluctant but important conclusion that the tough line taken by principled countries has ultimately made little real difference. Canada will be examining closely the US decision to apply a more multi-faceted approach.

Q: There is some controversy about whether aid should be channeled into Burma through Rangoon or across the border, primarily from Thailand. What is Canada’s policy on providing aid to Burma?

A: Canada has generally heeded the advice of Burma activists inside and outside the country who have asked us not to provide development assistance through channels inside Burma. Cyclone Nargis was an exception, when Canada worked through NGO and UN channels established inside the country to provide some US $25 million of emergency aid, while ordinary Canadians donated another $11.6 million. But I’m struck by the number of credible anti-regime players who are starting to believe that space may be emerging to work with domestic nongovernmental actors and local NGOs, at least selectively.