SUBSCRIBE|ADVERTISE | DONATION
Irrawaddy CONTACT US|FAQ
BURMESE VERSION




COMMENTARY
No Room for Wishful Thinking in Sanctions Debate
By AUNG ZAW Wednesday, May 6, 2009

COMMENTS (11)
RECOMMEND (27)
E-MAIL
PRINT

Burma’s Foreign Minister Nyan Win has called during a recent visit to Cuba for an end to sanctions imposed on developing countries—including his own. Nyan Win’s call came as the US conducts a review of its policy on Burma. 

The former army officer, whose loyalty to Than Shwe is not in doubt, may have thought that Cuba is the right place to call for lifting sanctions as President Barack Obama recently made some conciliatory gestures towards the regime in Cuba. But Cuba is not alone.

Obama has been extending an olive branch to the members of the “axis of evil” and “outposts of tyranny” so loudly condemned by his predecessor, George W Bush. They include North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Burma.  

Now the Burma policy forged by the Bush administration is under review, a process that began when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Asia in February.

During her Asian tour, Clinton said neither sanctions nor engagement had succeeded in bringing about change in Burma.

A month later, Stephen Blake, director of the US State Department’s Office of Mainland Southeast Asia, visited the Burmese capital, Naypyidaw, where he met Nyan Win. Blake was the highest-ranking US official to visit Burma in recent years.

Burma’s state-run media reported that Blake and Nyan Win discussed issues of mutual interest and the promotion of bilateral relations.

Blake’s visit and Clinton’s remarks on Burma stirred speculation about a possible policy shift by the Obama administration. There has even been some talk of a relaxation of sanctions—although Richard Verma, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs who handles relations between the State Department and Congress, wrote a letter to Republican Congressman Peter King saying reports that the US would lift sanctions were “incorrect.”

According to an AFP report, Verma said: “The sanctions that the United States and other countries maintain against the regime are an important part of our efforts to support change in Burma.

“While we are currently reviewing our Burma policy, we can assure you that we remain committed to delivering a firm message on the need for real reform, including the initiation of a credible and inclusive dialogue with the democratic opposition and the release of political prisoners.”

In July 2008, the US signed into law the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act 2008. The act has three aims: to impose new financial sanctions and travel restrictions on the leaders of the junta and their associates; to tighten the economic sanctions imposed in 2003 by outlawing the importation of Burmese gems to the US; and to create a new position of “US Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.”

Recently, the EU renewed its own economic sanctions on Burma for a further year, during a foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg.

The EU said it would continue to work to establish an open dialogue with the ruling
generals. It also called for the junta to conduct a genuine dialogue with opposition and ethnic groups.

So in the foreseeable future, Burma will continue to be punished by the Western sanctions since no single tangible positive development has been detected in the country. But, on the other hand, the old debate over sanctions has returned.

Thaung Htun, representative of the exiled government of Burma, wrote in European Voice that the debate so far has tended to see sanctions as a silver bullet.

“However, it defies logic or precedent to assume sanctions can, as a lone policy tool, generate the sort of drastic reform in Burma that is needed,” Thaung Htun said.

He argued that the government in exile supported sanctions because “they have an impact on the Burmese regime and this has been admitted time and again by the generals.”

But, he added, “it has never envisaged a system of Cuba-style blanket blocks on Burmese economic activity. Any sanctions must be targeted to maximize the impact on the junta and to minimize pressure on ordinary Burmese people.”

However, Burmese opposition and critics of the regime inside and outside Burma favor US engagement in Burma but they are cautious. They want sanctions to be maintained until the regime relaxes its grip on power.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has advocated pressure and sanctions on Burma, wrote in the Washington Post recently: “America should engage Burma, but it should not engage in wishful thinking.



1  |  2 



COMMENTS (11)
 
Please read our policy before you post comments. Click here
Name:
E-mail:   (Your e-mail will not be published.)
Comment:
You have characters left.
Word Verification: captcha Type the characters you see in the picture.
 

plan B Wrote:
13/05/2009
"Talk about stating the obvious. 'At this point'? You just woken up from your deep pretend sleep?"

Are you admitting to being such finally? Please don't make me quote from your previous opinion illustrating the denial of that fact!

"Constant denial of dialogue and relentless repression will not get anywhere near your paradigm shift. You reckon the junta's latest propositions, or rather an ultimatum, to the ceasefire groups constitute the desired outcome of a good paradigm shift?"

Very good point. Can we build on that?

Remember about the ACE I mentioned "the ethnic group" that NLD took for granted the first time?

Moe Aung Wrote:
10/05/2009
plan B,

"SPDC at this point is completely in the drivers seat of Burma' future. Accept this obvious reality."

Talk about stating the obvious. "At this point"? You just woken up from your deep pretend sleep?

"The present paradigm relies on constant vilification."

Constant denial of dialogue and relentless repression will not get anywhere near your paradigm shift. You reckon the junta's latest propositions, or rather an ultimatum, to the ceasefire groups constitute the desired outcome of a good paradigm shift?

Zaw Min,

"I plead for sanctions that are selective in restricting the regime and its cronies but help free people of our countries break out of the vicious cycle of poverty imposed upon us by the regime"

Best one can expect and very sensible but not without a quid pro quo - release all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi and open genuine dialogue with both Burman and minority groups, not some lame PR and manipulation by dodgy deals.

Saw Dennis,

Everything you said was spot on.

Moe Aung Wrote:
10/05/2009
Aung,

"The generals are now friends with all the bad guys in the world."

Wrong. They have won friends now also among the apparently good guys - all those for appeasement. They know their fortunes are changing, for the appeasement crowd has become very vocal, both homegrown and abroad. The junta's increasing confidence and consequent hardening of their inflexible stance will make it untenable for the West to contemplate changing tack in any way supportive of their roadmap charade.

plan B,

"This is the essence of Paradigm Shift"

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Appeasement by calling it "Paradigm Shift" will not become a stratagem for "alleviating the sufferings of the masses immediately." You desire very laudably to open up more opportunities for the masses. The junta also wants to open more opportunities, but only for themselves.

Master Shifu Wrote:
08/05/2009
Aung San Suu Kyi's last statement delivered through Gambari was flexible enough to open meaningful dialogs, but the regime responded to it by asking various political and ceasefire groups to issue counter-statements.

The SPDC leadership intentionally placed unnecessary layers such as liaison officers and relation minister between the top brass and Suu Kyi. Their unilateral approach is very obvious.

Even if the opposition tries to accommodate to their scenario, the generals will make sure to influence the outcome to their own maximum advantage. Asymmetrical (hard) power equation is partly to blame.

The ball is well in the SPDC's court. Yet what can be done to get it back into the oppositions'?

Zaw Min Wrote:
08/05/2009
The regime or opposition have no right to dictate or request or whatsoever on whether sanction should be placed or lifted. Those who put the sanctions in place are neither the regime nor the opposition but the governments of the various countries of the world. These governments should only look into what to do with this sanction with a view to helping the people living in Myanmar. It is obvious that sanctions in the form currently applied didn't work. That does not mean it should be lifted and the regime embraced. But I plead for sanctions that are selective in restricting the regime and its cronies but help free people of our countries break out of the vicious cycle of poverty imposed upon us by the regime and is helped by the current ineffective sanctions. Present sanctions are hurting ordinary people more than the regime and its cronies.

plan B Wrote:
08/05/2009
SPDC at this point is completely in the drivers seat of Burma' future. Accept this obvious reality.

You will have to acknowledge that the
SPDC can do whatever it chooses to the detriment of all, including the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Dialogue? When was the last time the SPDC showed any interest?

Aung San Suu Kyi is associated with call for sanctions, which the West has responded to to this day!

What choice does Aung San Suu Kyi have at this point with her non-violence advocacy but to call for engagement to shift the paradigm? The present paradigm relies on constant vilification. Without a shift there will not be any changes.

Saw Dennis Wrote:
08/05/2009
It is clear that Obama administration is just trying to show that it is different from its predecessor. The US economic and trade sanctions on Burma are the common position of the US Congress. It is clear that the Burmese junta does not intend to relax its grip on power and there is no way for the Obama administration to relax its sanctions regime.

It is true that sanctions alone will not bring about positive change. There must be a concerted resistance by the Burmese people and A.C. going together with sanctions, if there is to be the change desired by the people.

In the ideological sphere, the opposition forces must fight to totally eliminate the corrupt ideology of appeasement and capitulationism floated by self-seeking opportunists and morally depraved groups.

Moe Aung Wrote:
07/05/2009
Plan B,

"..since the call for sanctions came from within (i.e. Aung San Suu Kyi), the call for engagement must also be from within."

It's the opposition's job to oppose, and the regime's to counter. That's why the junta is calling for the lifting of the sanctions, and because it's hurting them in their pockets— their wallets aren't fat enough.

If they are serious about getting back with the West, all they need do is free all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, and enter into genuine dialogue, so at least they can claim a modicum of veracity in their “drive for democracy.”

The ball's well and truly in the generals' court. It's elementary, my dear Plan B

TMT Wrote:
07/05/2009
It was proven by Than Shwe that the Burmese people would be fed with enough food even if the population increases to 100 million. It is observed that the sanctions do not or will not affect the lives of ordinary Burmese people at all.

Therefore, why should you bother about asking the US and friendly nations to give up the sanctions?

Aung Wrote:
07/05/2009
The generals don't care about sanctions. This article didn't mention anything about China and India. They're buying everything in the country at a discount. The generals are like a farmer selling the farms. All the resources will be gone.

The generals are now friends with all the bad guys in the world. How's it gonna help achieve democracy?

That's right! There's no room for wishful thinking in sanctions! Sanctions don't work PERIOD.

Stop the nonsense and start thinking how to transform the country into a real democratic nation in 10 years. Stop daydreaming and misleading people that democracy will happen tomorrow. Enough with anger and illusions.

plan B Wrote:
07/05/2009
Ko Aung Zaw,

A good realistic carrot and stick approach. As we all know since the call for sanctions came from within (i.e. Aung San Suu Kyi), the call for engagement must be also be from within.
If Aung San Suu Kyi will call as vigorously for this as she has, the present no-win situation can be avoided.
This is the essence of Paradigm Shift
I hope she will realize the benefit of this approach.



More Articles in This Section

bullet How to Select a UN Special Envoy?

bullet Why the 2008 Constitution is the Junta's Holy Grail

bullet Than Shwe and the Waiting Game

bullet A Tip for Asean: Ethnic Reality beyond the Election

bullet Dark Signs of Things to Come

bullet A Mouse Tries to Catch A Big Cat’s Tail

bullet You've Got Mail, Than Shwe!

bullet No Turning Back

bullet Letter from Kathmandu

bullet Change Must Come From Within


 

Home |News |Regional |Business |Opinion |Multimedia |Special Feature |Interview |Magazine |Archives |Research
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group. All Rights Reserved.