| The case for By Zaw Oo Policy advisor to the Burmese exile government Many governments have used sanctions on Burma to modify the regime's deplorable behavior in the areas of human rights and democratisation. These sanctions all share one clear objective: to place the military regime on notice that it cannot continue to ignore the aspirations of the people, and that they must seek a peaceful solution to resolve the political deadlock in Burma. The solution begins with a genuine national dialogue on democratic transition, which the current talks between the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can presumably lead to after 18 months of confidence-building. The sanctions reinforce both the legitimacy and possibility of such dialogue in Burma, and they provide effective tools to advance the dialogue process. Pressure The goal of these sanctions is NOT severe economic destabilisation aimed at toppling the government. They serve as a pressure mechanism to persuade the regime to recognize the crisis in the country and the need for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. They serve as part of the overall international strategy to facilitate a tripartite dialogue in Burma. Sanctions make international persuasion more effective by: Serving as a strong deterrent in preventing large-scale human rights violations and in protecting some vulnerable groups in Burma. Sanctions have also deprived the regime of an important source of foreign exchange earnings. Since the US imposed a ban on new investments in 1997, no new foreign-funded projects have been approved. However, the impact of sanctions on the population is minimal because foreign investments in Burma concentrate on natural resource extraction, which has very little trickle-down effects in terms of creating employment and small business opportunities within the overall economy. Flexible lever Under the severely restrictive political circumstances, the leaders of the democratic movement can use sanctions as leverage in negotiations. On the other hand, the SPDC can naturally react to sanctions policy strongly, and they could bargain for the early removal of the sanction regime before it begins the dialogue. In responding to this SPDC bargaining position, the international community can offer incentives for joint problem-solving initiatives, such as humanitarian co-operation on HIV/Aids campaigns, without prematurely withdrawing effective sanction leverage. If the SPDC responds positively to these incentives, the international community should consider relaxing disincentive components of its policy. Such a framework can tie the disparate strands of international policies to interrelated core goals and set priorities so the emphasis on dialogue is sustained. The role of the international community in bringing change to Burma is important. The role is a multi-faceted one with full use of available policy tools - humanitarian assistance; joint problem-solving incentives; new commitments; diplomatic boycotts; sanctions; the threat of sanctions; or any combination of the above - and it may require fine adjustment on the weights of those elements. The ultimate test of effectiveness of this approach lies in how well the international players can co-ordinate to obtain the best policy mix to bring the SPDC to the dialogue table. Zaw Oo is Hurst Fellow at the School of International Service, American University. He is a policy advisor to the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the Burmese exile government. The opinions expressed here are all his and do not represent the NCGUB. | The case against By Ma Thanegi Rangoon-based journalist The ideas behind the use of sanctions in their simplest perspectives are: The usual argument for sanctions is that they only hurt the government concerned and that it is their fault in the first place for being "bad" so that sanctions inevitably had to be imposed. My argument against sanctions is that they hurt the people more than the government, and that there are other ways to bring about change other than the idealistic and futile strategies of sanctions, boycotts and isolation. Where is the 'justice' Undeniably there are grounds for frustration and bitterness but what is more important: to bring about good changes for the sake of the people or to satisfy emotions? The indignation concerning "justice" and "fairness" is surely noble, but when the results of it hurt the people, where is the justice? Is it fair that people are made whipping boys? After long years of futility, is there still no other alternative than to once again, for the nth time, rage against the government? Ineffective Myanmar for 30 years was in self-imposed isolation. Isolation now from one half of the world is not going to have much of an impact. Myanmar is fertile, it has rich natural resources. Sanctions from one half of the world are not going to starve the country. The low-income unskilled people - most of whom do need jobs to feed their families on a daily basis and keep a roof over their heads - will be the ones most hard hit without employment opportunities. They are the ones without savings or the skills needed for high salaries. Worse, when boycotts take place, these labourers face the danger of losing the jobs they already have. The wealthy owners of these factories may lose money through boycotts but is this fair exchange, that tens of thousands of people - especially young girls - face the dangers of poverty in order that a handful of entrepreneurs may lose some money? Slave labour lies To accuse (such as in the S.926 Bill introduced to the 107th US Senate in 2001) that all products from Myanmar are made with unpaid slave labour is a ludicrous lie, which can be easily checked out by anyone waiting outside the factory gates to ask the workers themselves. Such lies, however, are necessary to pretend that this pressure will not hurt the people. The pretence is the main thing; truth is not important here. Sadly, what seem to be of even less importance is that the people may lose their livelihoods. Another excuse about sanctions is that the economic management is in a mess so sanctions make no difference anyway. A few stable and sound investors can help put in place a smooth running economy. They can have the financial clout needed to urge good changes. A hundred small companies scurrying around to make money would hardly care about long-term changes nor would they have the financial power to change anything. Alternative strategies To go back to the two basic concepts of sanctions, why do they exist at all when we see the punishment hurts the people most, and the pressure falls only on their backs? Imposing sanctions, especially on a country without a lucrative market, oil reserves or nuclear weapons is an easy step to take, no matter that history has shown that it does not work. Alternative strategies may not be politically correct nor popular media-wise, but what is more important, realistic changes for the sake of the people, or a popular image of being correct? How long must the people be held economic hostage? If there is a sincere will to bring about good and realistic changes, then emotions or self-glorification should be set aside, however unfair it may seem. Strategies that do not work and at the same time hurt the people should be reconsidered in the name of "fairness", which, after all, is the battle cry of democracy. |