Answering Burma
FOR MANY YEARS advocates of engagement with Burma’s dictators have argued that economic sanctions, which are intended to promote democratic change in that Southeast Asian nation, could boomerang by forcing the regime into China’s welcoming arms. Even advocates of sanctions, like this page, have acknowledged the risk, since China’s Communist Party has no qualms about dealing with dictators and is hungry for Burma’s natural resources and its access to the Andaman Sea.
Recent changes in Burma, though, suggest that the interaction between sanctions and China relations may be more complex. Like China’s other neighbors, Burma’s rulers may be chafing at China’s increasing assertiveness. They may see a growing advantage in having the United States and its allies play a balancing role. And they may understand that the West will not do so unless Burma’s regime becomes less repressive.
Recent changes in Burma, though, suggest that the interaction between sanctions and China relations may be more complex. Like China’s other neighbors, Burma’s rulers may be chafing at China’s increasing assertiveness. They may see a growing advantage in having the United States and its allies play a balancing role. And they may understand that the West will not do so unless Burma’s regime becomes less repressive.
That, at least, is one explanation for recent, welcome changes in this nation of 50 million or so people. The regime continues to rule through intimidation and violence. Lately, though, there have been signs of a thaw. The generals wrote a new constitution, held (mostly fraudulent) elections and installed a (nominally) civilian government. The new government in turn has held a series of meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s foremost pro-democracy leader and a prisoner under house arrest for most of the past two decades. It suspended plans to build a massive dam that was opposed by much of Burma’s embattled civil society — and that was designed to produce electricity primarily for China. Most recently it freed more than 200 political prisoners.
None of these steps is sufficient. Perhaps 10 times as many peaceful opponents of the regime as were freed remain in prison. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, remains banned from politics. Media are still tightly controlled. The Burmese army continues to commit atrocities, including rape and forcible displacement, against ethnic minorities.
Still, the changes are not minor. The questions, then, are what is motivating them and how can the West encourage more? Some Burma hands speak confidently of a battle between hard-liners and pro-democracy reformers and want to rush to the reformers’ aid. Others, as we suggested earlier, believe that the regime may be looking for a way to lessen its dependence on its giant neighbor to the north. Given the opacity of the regime, any explanation should be viewed cautiously — and any response formulated with modesty about outsiders’ ability to affect change.
For the most part, that is how the Obama administration is responding. U.S. officials have stepped up their level of engagement, including by inviting Burma’s foreign minister to Washington for the first time in memory. But they also have said that substantive change in U.S. policy depends on substantive, irreversible change in Burma’s: a freeing of all prisoners and a change of political environment to allow true debate and full participation. The challenge is to encourage change without too quickly removing the incentives that may be propelling it.
None of these steps is sufficient. Perhaps 10 times as many peaceful opponents of the regime as were freed remain in prison. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, remains banned from politics. Media are still tightly controlled. The Burmese army continues to commit atrocities, including rape and forcible displacement, against ethnic minorities.
Still, the changes are not minor. The questions, then, are what is motivating them and how can the West encourage more? Some Burma hands speak confidently of a battle between hard-liners and pro-democracy reformers and want to rush to the reformers’ aid. Others, as we suggested earlier, believe that the regime may be looking for a way to lessen its dependence on its giant neighbor to the north. Given the opacity of the regime, any explanation should be viewed cautiously — and any response formulated with modesty about outsiders’ ability to affect change.
For the most part, that is how the Obama administration is responding. U.S. officials have stepped up their level of engagement, including by inviting Burma’s foreign minister to Washington for the first time in memory. But they also have said that substantive change in U.S. policy depends on substantive, irreversible change in Burma’s: a freeing of all prisoners and a change of political environment to allow true debate and full participation. The challenge is to encourage change without too quickly removing the incentives that may be propelling it.
Credit :Washington Post
