October 2, 2007
Column: Why sanctions will not fix Burma
On my first visit to Burma in the early 1990s, I met an elderly man who had fought with the British in the second world war – and who rolled up his sleeve to show the scars left by a Japanese machine gun. The old man was scathing in his contempt for his country’s military government. But when I asked him if he wanted tougher sanctions against Burma he looked alarmed: “No,” he protested, “we are far too isolated already.”
Fifteen years have passed since then and the military junta is still in charge – and once again has resorted to murderous repression in the streets. The western world is aghast. At a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week, Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, got a wry laugh when he announced that something must be done, but he had no idea what that something might be. Under such circumstances, “something” usually turns out to be economic and political sanctions.
Pushing through new sanctions would be an understandable reaction to the horrifying sight of the Burmese military massacring its own people. But sanctions would probably achieve nothing in the short term – and be actively damaging in the long term.
Read the rest of this week’s column (FT.com subscribers only). Comments can be made below.
“BURMA’S PROTESTING PEOPLES NEED ***AUTHENTIC*** SUPPORTIVE ACTIONS- NOT COPOUTS- FROM DEVELOPED WORLD/ASEAN NATIONS”
A legitimately assertive & coordinated developed world/Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) nations’ strategy towards Burma is needed.
Developed world & Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) nations’ politicians & bureaucrats can either play hardball with Burma’s leaders, or ‘they can go home’ to continue their too-often practice of false-image self-aggrandizement while decadently->>> never endingly->>> discussing sanctions & the like over tax-payer paid-for drinks in tax-payer paid-for 6 star conference hotels….
Playing hardball calls for REAL-ACTION, not only continuing previous tactics: nations’ leaders/bureaucrats periodically pontificating emptily in public forums; or standing on street corners with signature tablets, asking passers-by to ‘support the end to human rights abuses’ in “XYZ” country.
Hardball tactics against the Burmese junta ideally would include developed world/ASEAN nations submitting an ‘ultimatum for transition to democracy’ to the Burmese junta, & accompanying this (or else after receiving refusal(s) from Burma’s general’s) would require threats of (or actually):
- militarily seizing a couple of Burma’s strategic airports, & perhaps, 1 or 2 seaports; +
- inserting enough commando units to effectively guard a dozen or so of Burma’s most prestigious monasteries/holy sights- where Monks reside- from the Burmese military; &
- militarily isolating, with airpower- Burma’s new capital city; &
- demanding the Burmese junta immediately embark upon (developed world/ ASEAN nations’) supervised talks with protestors on how the country will be most efficiently moved to a democratic system…
Russia would have nothing to lose & everything to gain prestige & international-relations wise by supporting the above tactics, either in principle or by participating.
Japan providing logistical support to the above could go a long way to rectifying regional sensitivity towards Japan due to WW II occurrences.
With its extensive history as well as allies and Commonwealth colleagues in the region, the United Kingdom is in an unparalleled position to take leadership of the above international strategies against the Burmese junta.
The United States lend/leasing several of its naviy’s ships + their full complement of weaponry/aircraft) to the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy- such as 2 of the US’s ‘medium-sized’ aircraft carriers,
- USS Makin Island (LHD
(nearing commissioning)
- USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) (commissioned 2001)
would enable meaningful multi-national participation establishing an extensive naval based air-power presence off the coast of Burma, necessary to carry out above tactics.
The US is too preoccupied & man-power committed in Iraq + Afghanistan & is perceived as ‘persona non gratta” by too many around the world for it to be productively seen as taking the lead in any hardball tactics against Burma’s generals.
But it could still constructively avail/its naval/air resources to above types of strategies against the Burmese junta.
CHINA OUGHT TO BE MADE TO FEEL SAFE & NOT CRITICIZED WHILE REMAINING ON THE SIDELINES OF BURMA ISSUES.
Developed world & ASEAN nations ought to be striving for, at best, China’s acquiescence from any UN Security Council votes… as well as its non-participation in any military endeavors that may or may not be prosecuted by the developed world/ASEAN against Burma.
While a properly functioning democratic, rule-of-law political framework is desirable for any country, China with its vast size & enormous, ethnically-varied population needs to be able to economically develop more extensively & become more homogenous before it can reasonably be expected to attempt the changeover to full-democracy.
China has a perceptible requirement to be able to shift to full-democracy from the position of a developed cohesive nation- which it presently isn’t- & at least not one in which 2/3 of the country is populated by largely illiterate, not-worldly-knowledged, unaccustomed to democratic structures, agrarian, peasant-type peoples…peoples without enough of a grasp of democratic systems, or wider-world generally, to enable them to be able to utilize their franchise + a fully-democratic political system effectively.
China’s ‘Communist’ Party leaders are right to be concerned that full-democracy too soon could result in chaos across the country…. & by extension the rest of the world. They are right to impugn that 2/3 of China’s 1.3 billion people- through no fault of their own- do not have the ability to avoid being manipulated by unsavory elements seeking right-wing dictatorial powers…
China’s leadership- which is encouraging their nation’s speed of light economic development & its greater political and legal integration with developed nations- are worldly-aware enough that they surely realize their pivotal nation should, ideally, significantly intervene in Burma.
But they likely also acutely recognize the extreme risks for China, internally, if it did.
Due to China’s diverse & very fragmented peoples, with their endemic ignorance of ‘how’ a democratic country can work- from the civic on up to national govt level-China ought to be left out of the Burma problems as much as possible, as any encouragement- or enforcement- of democracy in Burma by China could cultivate chaos in China… down the road.
Burma’s protesting peoples warrant immediate, firm & SUBSTANTIVE TANGIBLE ACTIONS from developed world/ASEAN nations.
With a little common sense, this could be demonstrated militarily- with effective results both within Burma & for its region- without developed world/ASEAN nations conflicting with the region’s natural leader: China
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | October 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm | Report this commentnear Vancouver, BC, Canada
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com
“ALONG WITH THE USA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AUSTRALIA & ASEAN NATIONS SUCH AS INDIA, INDONESIA & THAILAND OUGHT TO ‘LEAD’ IN ASSERTIVELY OPPOSING THE BURMESE JUNTA”
India, Indonesia, Thailand & other ASEAN nations ought to be actively encouraged to play a legitimate part in any military components of international strategies against the Burmese junta.
India, similar to other major ASEAN nations such as Indonesia, has been striving to attain the status of a leader & shaper of geopolitical politics since the end of the ‘Cold War’.
As part of this drive, India has, during the last 6 or 7 years, been assertively lobbying for it to be granted a permanent seat on an expanded UN Security Council.
Contrary to the suggestion that India would glower (hostilely) at outside military involvement into Burma, it ought to be considered that India would, by (either) leading (or co-leading along with another ASEAN nation such as Indonesia) such an initiative- with generous developed world nations’ assistance- put itself firmly on the world stage as a leader & shaper of geopolitical politics, rather than remaining in its traditional position (esp in a crisis): on the side-lines.
India ought to be meaningfully brought in as an active participant in the Burmese problems. Same with Indonesia, & esp Thailand due to the positive example it sets for the region & wider-world by the regular use of its armed forces internally- functioning in the reverse purpose to Burma’s military during the previous 2.5 decades- throwing out corrupt, unrepresentative governments.
Due to their common border India could serve well as a launching point or points for over-land expeditionary forces into Burma, should this become necessary, after developed world/ASEAN nations first lead or co-lead the hardball strategies proposed above.
Russia would have nothing to lose, & everything to gain prestige wise by supporting the above tactics either in principle or by participating. By supporting hardball strategies- with a military component- against the Burmese junta, Russia would, similar to India, be repositioning itself- POSITIVELY- on the world stage, as both a leader & a constructive shaper of geopolitical politics.
As well, both India’s & Russia’s trade relations with developed world (+ a large majority of other) nations could only benefit- in the short & long term- from these 2 countries’ assuming a military interventionist position re Burma.
Due to China’s glaring non-homogenous internal regional economic development status; its exceedingly divergent levels (province to province & city/village to city/village) of the incorporation of democratic rule-of-law structures; & perhaps most importantly, its diverse & very fragmented peoples with their endemic ignorance of ‘how’ a democratic country can work- from the civic on up to national govt level->>> China ought to be left out of the Burma problems as much as possible, as any encouragement- or enforcement- of democracy in Burma by China could cultivate chaos in China… down the road…
The objective of developed world nations re China’s possible role(s) with the current horrendous Burmese problems ought to be only to ‘make China look good, or ‘understandably acceptable’ to its peoples; or at the least-> don’t embarrass China/use it as a whipping-boy for developed world nations’ shameful failings- & hypocrisy; & attempt to enable China to feel safe moving further internally to full-democracy.
Burma’s protesting peoples warrant a positive change from the usual cop out international political strategies towards their country’s military junta.
With a little boldness- this could be constructively demonstrated militarily- with effective results both within Burma & perhaps most importantly->>> for its region, without developed world/ASEAN nations coming into conflict- either directly or philosophically- with the region’s natural leader: China.
Roderick V, Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V, Louis | October 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm | Report this commentVancouver, Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com
I am a complete loss to understand that on the distressing situation in Burma, China is being pilloried, which India is getting a free ride. India is enormously important to the Burmese ruling Generals, but so far has escaped criticism. It needs to be noted that the India of Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Krishna Menon, would not be supporters of the murderers who now rule Burma. If the present political leaders of India were capable of shame, they would be ashamed of themselves. It is nevertheless to be hoped that they too will try to convince the Junta ruling Burma to change their ways.
Posted by: C. Alexander Brown, Rockcliffe Park, Canada. | October 6th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Report this comment“INDIA OUGHT TO SHOW IT HAS ‘INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP CAPACITY’”
The UK’s foreign minister/ministry staff- working with Japan’s & Australia’s counterparts- ought to be actively investigating ways that India could be brought in to the Burmese problems, co-leading COORDINATED international strategies against the Burmese junta.
Without taking a responsible, assertive and ACTION BASED position regarding the current unconscionable problems in Burma, international onlookers will be right to have severe misgivings about India’s future purposes & roles in the world.
If India can not stand up and ‘do the right thing’ in response to a crisis situation- in its own neighborhood- its appropriateness for ‘promotion’ on the world stage to the status of a permanent member of the UN’s security council, would be ludicrous.
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | October 9th, 2007 at 9:10 pm | Report this comment(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com