The international society is divided over the question of how to relate to Burma. While Western countries, including the EU and the US, have argued in favour of political and economic isolation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and also the People´s Republic of China and Japan are all of the opinion that an open dialogue and ‘constructive engagement’ will take us further, faster. (10-DEC-04) 

This article was written by the freelance journalist and Burma expert Tom Kramer for the special Burma inlay following the Norwegian magazine X, # 6, 2004. It is republished here with the consent of both Tom Kramer and the Norwegian Burma Committee, one of HRH?s sister organisations in the Human Rights House in Oslo.  

The response of the international community to bring about political change and national reconciliation in Burma has followed different approaches, and has been divided over goals and strategy. Western countries, such as the US and some EU member states, have generally advocated a policy of international political and economic isolation. Others, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states, the People´s Republic of China and Japan, have argued for engagement and feel that change should be stimulated through dialogue and ‘constructive engagement’. The failure of the international community to formulate and implement a coordinated and common policy has weakened its efforts to create change in the country.

No more hope for dialogue within Burma
Today the political stagnation in Burma continues. After the talks between opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the military started in October 2000, initially the immense pressure from the military regime on the National League for Demcoracy (NLD) decreased to some extent. NLD offices in Rangoon were allowed to reopen, and public attacks on the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi in the state press ceased. A number of political prisoners were released, among them many NLD members. In May 2002 the SPDC lifted the restrictions upon the movement of Aung San Suu Kyi after 19 months of house arrest. Her release was welcomed inside Burma as well as abroad, and gave hope that further reform would take place. Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed to travel through the country, and visited Mandalay, Mon State, Shan State, Rakhine State, Chin State and Kachin State. However, the talks between Aung San Suu Kyi and the SPDC have stalled. Some observers contend that they never seriously began, and never moved beyond the stage of confidence building. On 30 May 2003 hopes that the talks could be revived and move on to meaningful political dialogue were shattered when a convoy of Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters was attacked by a government-organised mob. In the incident, which among opposition groups quickly became known as ‘Black Friday’, an unknown number of NLD members were killed and injured, and Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested and has been detained at an unspecified place ever since.

Power struggle
“With the ongoing repression, the opposition in Burma is almost paralysed, and they can do very little”, says Aung Zaw, an exile Burmese journalist, and the editor of ‘The Irrawaddy’, an independent magazine covering Burma and Southeast Asia. “I think the NLD and other opposition parties in and out of Burma will continue to play a vital role in moving Burma in the right direction. But what they need is new leadership and a new strategy.” Meanwhile, the Burmese military regime, or the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) as it now calls itself, seems to be firmly in control. A recent shake-up in the military saw SPDC chairman Senior General Than Shwe, considered a hardliner, strengthening his position by removing General Khin Nyunt, who was holding the position of Prime Minister. Khin Nyunt was seen by some as relatively less of a hardliner and more pragmatic. He was also the initiator of the cease-fire agreements with most of armed opposition groups, and the architect of the so-called ‘roadmap to democracy’. Although the regime has publicly stated that it will commit itself to the agreements, it is yet unclear what the consequences for possibilities for political change in Burma will be. “The recent sacking of Khin Nyunt just means that there is a power struggle among them, that is all”, says Bo Kyi, a Burmese human rights activist who lives in exile in Thailand. “It is always a bad sign for democratic change in Burma as long as the junta holds power. As long as guns and money prevail over the law, how can we build democracy?”

International sanctions welcome, says Burma?s own opposition
Bo Kyi is one of the founders of the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP). The organisation was set up in 2000 by former political prisoners. Bo Kyi spent 7 years (1990-93 and 1994-1998) in the infamous Insein jail and Mandalay prison for political activities. Apart from supporting political prisoners with food and medicines, AAPP also monitors the situation in jails and work camps all over the country. The organisations also tries to keep track of all political prisoners, estimated by AAPP at some 1.500, and campaigns for their release. AAPP is one of a wide range of Burmese organisations in exile that try to promote political change in Burma. Many of them are based in neighbouring countries, mainly in Thailand. They focus on international advocacy and lobby activities on democratisation and human rights. Most of them advocate international isolation of Burma in the economic, political, and social field, based on calls or political positions of the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi. The NLD has called on the international community to implement economic sanctions against the SPDC to force it to the negotiation table and towards substantive political reform. “As long as the junta imposes sanctions on its own citizens, I will support international sanctions on Burma”, says Bo Kyi.

The EU
Organisations such as AAPP have developed strong links with lobby and campaign groups in Asia, Europe, and the US. They have successfully campaigned against foreign investment in Burma, leading to the withdrawal of several international companies, including Carlsberg, Heineken, and more recently, Triumph. These international campaigns have managed to raise media attention, especially by making use of new mediums such as internet, and put Burma firmly on the human rights agenda of the international community. The European Union (EU) last month (October 2004) strengthened its sanctions regime with a ban for European companies to invest in Burmese state companies. However, an exception has been made for the oil and gas industry. This is highly controversial, as oil and gas sector provides the regime with hundreds of millions of dollars annually of much-needed foreign exchange. The EU earlier had adopted several political sanctions against the military government, including an arms embargo, a visa ban for high-ranking SPDC members and their families, and it later also imposed a freeze on the funds held abroad by such persons. The EU also objected to Burma’s entry into ASEAN, and all high-level EU-ASEAN meetings were cancelled, until a compromise was reached in 1999. More recently the EU opened the door for an increase in humanitarian aid to Burma, especially on HIV/AIDS, but maintained its sanction regime.

The US
The United States of America (US) has since 1997 barred all new US investment in Burma due to the lack of democratic reform, continuing human rights abuses, and the lack of cooperation from the regime to combat the growing drug problem. In 2003 President Bush declared that Burma, together with Haiti and Guatemala, “failed demonstratively to adhere to their obligations under international counter-narcotics agreements and to take the measures set forth in U.S. anti-drug law”. The US banned travel to the US by high-ranking Burmese officials, and the US Defence Department has halted the importation of clothing made in Burma. Following the May 2003 events the US further increased its sanctions regime in July 2003 when US President George Bush signed into legislation the banning of import of goods from Burma and freezing the assets of the military government in the US. These political and economic sanctions by the West have met with different responses. “Because of sanctions by the EU and the USA, the junta has no access to support from the IMF, World Bank and other financial institutions”, says Aung Zaw. “Burma remains a pariah, and thus some are saying that in the long run sanctions will force the junta leaders to make appropriate change. I will say that sanctions are working but they are also hurting the people.”

-Continue to boycott us, even if it hurts
The point of view is reiterated by a political activist in Rangoon: “Yes the sanctions hurt us, but at least they also hurt the generals. But the international community should have a more realistic policy, and they should implement sanctions that are really targeted at the military.” Now the EU has done exactly the opposite. By excluding the capital intensive oil and gas sector, which is the most important foreign exchange earner for the regime, it has in effect not only taken the angle out of its own policy, but has also put the focus of the sanctions more on the labour intensive sector, which is also hurting the people in terms of losses of jobs and income. But some feel all pressure to get rid of the regime is welcome, saying they are the main reason why people suffer in the first place. “People in Burma were living under appalling conditions before the US and the EU implemented sanctions”, says Bo Kyi. “The root cause for the suffering of the people is that the junta used half of the national budget for its military, and only 10% for health, education and other social sectors.” “I have heard more complaints and disagreement over sanctions over the past two years – I think it came from regional players, officials, foreign scholars and the regime itself, but not from the Burmese public” says Aung Zaw. “The Burmese people want prosperity and peace, but equally they also want this regime to go.”

Regional responses
Unlike the case of South Africa, at the moment it seems unlikely that any of Burma’s neighbours will join the sanctions policy. India, the People´s Republic of China, and Thailand all have too much strategic interest in Burma. Following the events of 1988 and the new ‘open door’ policy of the SLORC, most ASEAN nations, specifically Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, were keen to invest in Burma, and adopted a policy of ‘constructive engagement’. This policy was seen by critics as simply a guise to exploit Burma’s economic resources, and carry on business as usual without making efforts to promote political change. Burma was admitted into ASEAN in 1997, in spite of much criticism from the USA, EU, and Burmese opposition groups. “Many Asian countries are dictatorships and semi-dictatorship ones. We are fighting not only the junta in Burma, but we are also engaged in a regional battle”, says Bo Kyi. “However, these countries cannot stand on themselves. They also have to deal with the EU and the US and other continents for regional development and security. If the EU and the US implemented sanctions in a more practical way, Burma’s problem would become a real regional problem. At that time, regional leaders will also have to negotiate with the junta to create change.”

Patience running out
Burma’s relationship with Thailand remains tense with Burmese accusations that Thailand is supporting armed opposition groups. Thailand in turn blames Burma for failing to control the production and flow of narcotics, especially methamphetamine pills, into Thailand. This has led to several border conflicts in 2002. The current Thai government has been keen to restore relations with Burma, mostly for economic reasons, and has increased pressure on Burmese opposition groups and migrant workers in Thailand. But it seems that also in Asia some governments are loosing their patience with the SPDC. “During the last 15 years, ASEAN kept on defending the regime and the result was they all got burned”, says Aung Zaw. “ASEAN leaders are disappointed and now the news is that ASEAN leaders do not want Burma to host the 2006 ASEAN meetings, followed by the Asia Regional Forum (ARF) meeting in 2007. This is going to be quite an embarrassment for ASEAN. I think some ASEAN leaders are quite disappointed and worried about the recent [leadership] changes in Burma.” Among the regional powers, the People´s Republic of China is Burma’s most important strategic ally. It is an important trading partner for Burma, and the People´s Republic of China has made huge investments in the Burmese economy. the People´s Republic of China is also a major supplier of military hardware. The SPDC’s relations with India have improved in recent years. The Indian government is worried about China’s growing influence in Burma, and has other concerns including the presence of several ethnic minority armed groups that are active on both sides of the Indian-Burma border. At the same time Indian support for the Burmese democratic opposition is decreasing.

A Common Policy
While change ultimately has to come from political actors inside Burma, the international community could play an important role by creating conditions that could facilitate this. “The international community can still do a lot on Burma, as long as they have the will”, says Aung Zaw. “With the ongoing deadlock and the hawkish leadership change in the country, it is a good opportunity to all of us to push for change because the top leadership change in Rangoon meant that the regime is unstable.” Meetings on Burma by the international community in South Korea, the United Kingdom, and most recently in Japan, have yet to result in a coordinated and common international policy on Burma to solve the political deadlock. Yet it is of great strategic importance to develop a joint agenda to bring about political change in Burma which is supported by the whole international community. “I think if the international community has a cohesive, united policy in Burma, we will see change in Burma”, says Aung Zaw. “But we need international figures and world leaders to get involved.”