BURMA, REPRESSIONS AND (IN)HUMANE SANCTIONS – January 16, 2008

REPRESSION OF PROTESTS FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM

In September, the world was shocked by the images coming out of Burma showing government troops forcibly suppressing the political demonstrations in Rangoon that were led by Buddhist monks. The crackdown resulted in numerous deaths including the direct killing of a Japanese journalist by a government soldier. Although the recent events brought the suffering of the Burmese people to the attention of the world, repression and violence have been at the center of the Burmese military government’s policy to retain control of the country for years. Out of sight of the world’s journalists in the ethnic minority regions of the country, over 3,000 villages have been destroyed in order to prevent support for armed resistance groups. Additionally, local villagers have been forced to perform labor in infrastructure projects such as road building which are at least partially designed to increase the military’s control of these areas. And of course we can not forget Aung San Suu Kyi has remained under house arrest for a considerable amount of time and the prevention of any expression of political opposition to military rule in the country has continued for many years.

The most recent protests began in mid-August 2007 in response to the move by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to remove subsidies on fuel and cooking oil resulting in a significant rise in prices overnight. The latest “uprising” began on August 19th as members of the “88 Generation” (leaders of the 1988 student protests) organized a small peaceful march. Over the next month, the number of protests increased in which the much revered Buddhist monks began taking a leading role. The protests began taking on a broader and more political flavor as time went on. There was a sense of optimism and possibility for change within Burmese communities who favored having a democratic system. However, as the protests grew, the decision was made by the military junta to violently crack down on the protestors even though by violently attaching the most respected members of Burma’s society it caused a further distancing of the military from the majority of the Burmese population. (For a detailed account of the protests and the crackdown see Human Rights Watch Report, 19 (18c), December 2007).

Burma’s post colonial history has been one of military conflict and military control. The most serious threat to military rule was in 1988 when student protestors went out to the streets to demand change. Much like in 2007, the protests were brutally suppressed but with a much larger loss of life. In May 1990, the military controlled government allowed elections to take place, presumably because of a belief in its own propaganda of having the support of the Burmese people. Despite restrictions placed on the political opposition, The National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, received the majority of votes while the military controlled party, National Unity Party, was supported by only a small percentage of the population. Despite international pressure, the military refused to relinquish control of the government to the elected representatives. Although there have been changes in personnel leading the government, currently Senior General Than Shwe is the military leader of the country, policies have remained remarkable consistent which have included socialistic and isolationist economic policies mixed with tight restrictions of the freedoms of the population by the military and police.

In 1995, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was briefly released from house arrest, but following what is widely believed to be a military-government supported attack on NLD supporters which resulted in numerous deaths, she was once again placed under house arrest and has continued to have her movements and contacts with the outside world restricted. Aung San Suu Kyi has been the face of Burmese democracy to the outside world and the international community has consistently called for her release. In 2005, the military junta in Burma convened a national assembly with the stated intention of moving forward on the path to democracy. However, the refusal of the NLD to participate removed any semblance of legitimacy to the proceedings. The unquestioning support for Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD by the Western media and Western governments has prevented serious consideration of other options by the international community.

SANCTIONS: THE WESTERN RESPONSE TO REPRESSION IN BURMA

The response of Western governments to unelected military control in Burma has traditionally been to impose sanctions of varying degrees of severity, with the US generally imposing stricter sanctions than European governments. The response of Western governments to the latest violations of human rights in Burma has been to increase or maintain sanctions. The stated purpose of sanctions is to cause economic harm to the ruling party forcing a change in policy or leadership. Sanctions are intended to bring about sudden and dramatic change. An unstated purpose of sanctions is for governments to prove they are proactively “doing something” to satisfy political demands from their constituencies. It should also be remembered, for Western governments, refusing to do business in Burma has a minuscule effect on the national economic performance.

Most proponents of sanctions believe complete isolation of the Burmese government is the key to the success of sanctions and are extremely critical of governments, such as China, India, Thailand, Japan, and Singapore, which have followed policies of engagement. Some proponents of sanctions have even gone so far as to suggest boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics due to China’s approach to engagement in Burma.

In the aftermath of the brutal crackdown and detention there was intense interest in Burma in the outside world resulting in numerous Internet petitions and condemnations by world leader. But there has been no indication that further isolating and criticizing the military regime have resulted in any change in policy. By voluntarily choosing to disengage with the current government of Burma, it limits the options available to Western governments and could result in opening the door for greater Chinese and Indian influence, not only in Burma but in other countries in Southeast Asia. The Western demands of complete submission by the current military-led government in some ways plays into the hands of the Burmese government which uses sanctions and Western anti-Burmese rhetoric as a way to drum up nationalistic sentiments. Furthermore, the hard-line stance and demands for immediate change of the USA and European nations does not play as well in Southeast Asia as it does in a Western context as this strategy can be interpreted by others as Western nations implying they are morally superior to the Asian nations which use different strategies to deal with the government of Burma.

Burma is not a major foreign policy focus for most Western nations and few top diplomats or government officials can afford to spend the time or effort to understand all the detailed complexities of the situation. However, even before the current crackdown, many specialists of Burmese affairs, including Robert H. Taylor, David I. Steinberg, Helen James, and Kyaw Yin Hlaing have questioned the wisdom of continued sanctions.

Sanctions against Burma have not been effective. To paraphrase a Thai official’s response to a criticism by a member of an EU delegation during a meeting on the Burmese refugee situation in Thailand, how do you pressure a regime that has chosen to isolate itself? This is a very difficult question to answer. Most indications are that the Burmese recent economic performance has been miserable, especially in comparison with other Asian nations in the region, and in actuality the standard of living in the country has declined in the last decade. Sanctions are not the only reason for Burma’s isolation from the global economy; the Burmese government has also implemented policies to restrict incoming investment, tourism, and the ability of the country’s citizens to interact with the outside world. Sanctions give the government of Burma another excuse to further isolate its citizens from potential support for democratic reform.

THE FORGOTTEN EFFECT OF SANCTIONS

Research has consistently shown a very strong correlation between international trade and economic growth. Research has also shown a consistent correlation between economic growth and measurable indications of standard of living (life expectancy, informant mortality, etc…). Therefore it would appear that Western sanctions may be contributed to the suffering of the Burmese people. If this suffering leads to a change in regime, a case could be made that the majority of the Burmese people would gladly make the sacrifice. If it does not lead to regime change, and it is difficult to find any evidence supporting the concept that sanctions are driving a change in regime, increasing the suffering of the Burmese people is a high price to pay for Western governments being seen as “doing something” to appease the demands of activists that support the political opposition in Burma.

The ideal situations in Burma are for the military junta in Burma to unconditionally release Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners and allow free and fair elections in which all political parties, including the NLD, are allowed to participate. However, there is no indication that these ideal situations will happen in the foreseeable future. Is giving the Burmese military an all-or-nothing option the only choice for Western governments? Is considering policies that would promote slower and less dramatic change possible? Although the Burmese government whips up support within its armed forces by claiming the US or other Western powers are planning military operations to create regime change, in reality in the US or other Western countries, there is almost no possibility of getting enough public support that would be needed to launch an Iraq-style military operation in Burma. Without the threat of military intervention and the demonstrated lack of concern over economic growth by the current leadership of Burma, it is questionable whether Western powers can apply enough pressure on the Burmese leadership to expedite the downfall of the military dictatorships by only using political and economic sanctions.

It is felt it is time for Western governments to seek other options towards improving the situation in Burma than the use of economic and political sanctions. It is easy for individuals in the West to take the moral high ground and refuse to cooperate with a government that is almost universally considered repressive and more concerned over retaining power than improving the lives of its citizens. But the Western governments should consider the costs and benefits to all parties, including the citizens of Burma, of continuing a general policy when there are few indications that the policy will achieve any measurable objectives. There may be options between the extremes of supporting a brutal dictatorship and attempting to completely isolate all of the people of the country from all contact with the Western world. Although Aung San Suu Kyi is rightfully highly respected in the Western world, concern over her welfare and opinions should not block out all other concerns for the welfare and opinions of the millions of other people living in Burma.

The situation in Burma is complex, and all indications are outsiders have a limited ability to promote positive change. When dramatic events in Burma bring the country to the world’s attention for a few days or weeks, the easy option for leaders of Western democracies is to impose “sanctions.” There is no significant effect on Western economies and the announcement of sanctions appear to appease the demands of Western populations for a response to the brutality of the regime, but soon the spotlight shifts to other parts of the world, and therefore few people stay interested in Burma long enough to review whether the policies and sanctions had the desired effect or not. Although Western politicians may play a political price for not responding to a crisis in Burma caused by the suppression of demonstrations for democracy; it is unlikely that Western politicians will pay a price if their responses are not effective in the long-term. It is suggested that if the international community wants to take a more effective approach towards the situation in Burma, it takes a more complex look at the situation and consider both ideal and more “realistic” approaches to promote positive change. Isolation and sanctions have not had the desired effect; is it time to give engagement a chance?
               

Dr. Scott A. Hipsher

-------------------------------

Dr. Hipsher has worked, studied and lived in Southeast Asia for many years. Currently Dr. Hipsher is working with an international agency in Thailand to support refugees from Burma. He has written a number of academic articles as well as the books "Expatriates in Asia: Breaking Free from the Colonial Paradigm" (forthcoming, 2008) and "The Nature of Asian Firms: An Evolutionary Perspective" (Lead Author) both published by Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited.

-------------------------------