Global IssuesPOLITICS-BURMA: U.S., E.U. Mull New Burma Policy
They may be far from ditching the sanctions imposed on Burma, but there are emerging signs that U.S. and European nations might be open to reviewing a new approach to tackle one of the world’s most oppressive dictatorships.
At a recent regional ministerial meeting attended by ranking foreign affairs figures from Washington D.C. and European capitals demonstrated they were mulling over a policy shift towards Burma, which is also known as Myanmar.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton figured on one occasion during the regional meeting held in the Thai resort-island of Phuket from Jul. 22 to 23. She shook the hand of Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win the way she had with other foreign ministers from the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN), a 10-member regional bloc, after the U.S. government formally endorsed an ASEAN peace and security treaty.
During a press conference, Clinton made an appeal for the freedom of Burma’s pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, saying her release 'would open up opportunities, at least for my country, to expand our relationship with Burma, including investments in Burma.'
But that was not all.
Scott Marciel, the U.S. ambassador for ASEAN affairs, was also in Phuket to conduct a nearly 90-minute meeting with Nyan Win, according to informed sources.
Such gestures are indicative of a marked departure from previous policies towards Burma, pushed by the previous U.S. administration under president George W. Bush. Under him, a stick was wielded at the Burmese junta and the country was described as an 'outpost of tyranny.' And Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, pointedly refused to shake hands with her Burmese foreign affairs counterpart.
The current U.S. administration under President Barak Obama sounded its shift in dealing with military dictatorships like Burma since its early days in office. In February, during a trip to Indonesia, Clinton announced that a 'policy review' was needed in Washington’s engagement with Burma. 'Clearly, sanctions haven’t worked,' she said.
A similar sentiment is being echoed within the E.U., where a sanctions policy has placed restrictions on engagements with the Burmese regime on the 27 countries from the regional bloc.
'The current policies are undermining the realities on the ground,' a European diplomat told IPS. 'We understand that there is no point in not talking to the (Burmese government), if you want to influence them and make change.'
'Today, two or three member-states are still pushing for this failed policy,' added the diplomat, who requested anonymity. 'Officially, because of the restrictions, there cannot be political contact beyond the E.U.’s political director.'
This quest for a new approach to engage with the Burmese regime has been taking shape in the wake of some noticeable cracks in the iron grip with which the junta controls the resource rich, but impoverished, country.
'In the last few years many Western governments have realised that the past policies of sanctions have not worked. But many are not sure what will work,' says Thant Myint-U, a respected Burmese historian and author of the widely acclaimed book, ‘The River of Lost Footsteps’. 'Western engagement has the potential to reshape the landscape. And that means being present in the country,' he explained during an interview. 'The Obama administration is doing a very good job taking time to think carefully a new approach to restart a dialogue with the regime.'
Some human rights groups who have been trenchant critics of the regime welcome the discussions unfolding in foreign policy circles as the U.S. and European governments question the 13-year sanctions regime imposed on Burma.
'The debate needs to be had with far more detail about how it is working and how more effective it could be,' said David Scott Mathieson, a researcher on Burma for the New York-based Human Rights Watch. 'It is time to evaluate their effectiveness.'
'But removing the trade sanctions without concessions from the Burmese government would be a folly,' he told IPS. 'At the same time, there has to be a dialogue. Isolation never works. Isolation [would mean] playing into the hands of the Burmese government.'
The sanctions regime imposed on Burma followed a 1996 call for such punitive measures by the Nobel Peace laureate Suu Kyi, who has spent over 14 years under house arrest and is currently being held in a Rangoon prison as she faces further charges in a bizarre trial drawing to a close.
The E.U. responded to Suu Kyi’s appeal the same year through its 'Common Position' on Burma and has extended it periodically. In addition to economic sanctions, the measures included an arms embargo, visa bans on Burmese military officials and a freeze of Burma’s assets in Europe. The U.S. policies were imposed in 1997, placing limits on investments in Burma and closing the lucrative U.S. market for Burmese exports. Last week, the powerful U.S. Senate passed a bill to extend by another year sanctions on Burma.
Such measures, however, have won little support from ASEAN, whose members include Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. In fact, ASEAN welcomed Burma as a new member in 1997 and declared that 'constructive engagement', not sanctions, was a more effective way to reform in the military dominated country.
ASEAN’s policy towards Burma, also known as Myanmar, found little favour among the Burma’s pro-democracy movement in exile. The latter favoured the sanctions imposed by Western governments as the ideal weapon to taken on the notoriously repressive regime that came to power through a coup d’etat in 1962.
It is a view that pro-democracy activists continue to maintain. 'The current sanctions can be an effective tool and can be used as means to move the regime step by step towards reform,’’ says Khin Ohmar, head of the Network for Democracy and Development in Burma, a group made up of Burmese political activists living in exile. 'They (Western governments) should not give up anything until they get something in return.'
© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service