From today's Times:
World Agenda: sad truth is nothing much has helped in Burma
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6325298.ece]
...But the attention devoted to her struggle raises the question: what, if anything, can the rest of the world practically do to bring about political change in Burma?
...The sad truth is that nothing very much has helped in Burma, and there is nothing obvious left to try. The two extremes of policy are engagement - as pursued by Burma’s neighbours in the Association of South-East Nations (Asean) - on the one hand, and isolation, practiced by the US and EU, on the other.
...Several of Asean’s members have rotten human rights records of their own. Part of the reason they have embraced Burma as a member, one suspects, is because, compared to the Burmese junta, even the communist dictatorships of Vietnam and Laos look progressive by comparison.
Officially, they argue that the friendly encouragement of neighbours is more effective in bringing about change than the reproach of governments half a world away. But 12 years after joining Asean, Burma has made no genuine progress towards democratic reform.
But sanctions have done no palpable good either – and there is a strong argument that, whatever inconvenience they have caused for the junta and its cronies, they have done great harm to ordinary Burmese. An unofficial tourist boycott, encouraged by NGOs such as the UK Burma Campaign, and apparently approved of by Ms Suu Kyi, has put off tourists for decades, and has impoverished Burmese waitresses, cyclo drivers and guest house owners, as well as the junta's crony businessmen who run the five star hotels.
...The problem with sanctions is that, however effectively they are applied by Europe and the US, the countries with most influence on Burma have little interest in taking part. For China and India, Burma is a highly strategic sphere of influence in which they compete for long term advantage.
...One alternative is to drop sanctions altogether, and hope that in the commercial free-for-all that follows, the passion for growing rich persuades the generals or their cronies to liberalise politics in their own interests. The other is to adapt the sanctions policy, and opt for so-called “smart” sanctions - a term much discussed as the Obama administration undertakes a review of Burma policy.
Advocates such as the Burma Campaign UK argue that a wider range of measures would bring meaningful pain to the general. These include tighter sanctioning, but also visa bans for regime related figures (including, for example, the judges in the current case); better co-ordination between EU countries and like-minded governments; a ban on foreign investment in oil and natural gas (which are not fully sanctioned); and greater diplomatic pressure on China, such as at the EU-China summit in Prague....
