The latest weaseling actions of the ruling Burmese military dictators have been widely condemned, and rightly so. The regime specifically broke a solemn promise to the United Nations by secret arrests of people it considers to be dangerous dissidents, known in most countries as democrats. It further cut off a beaten-down population from the information and cross-border contacts of the internet. It has completely stalled the talks with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, after promising they would lead to reconciliation. Any of these is a shameful act. Taken together, they show that the Burmese regime has no intention of reform.
All of this presents a difficult problem for the United Nations, the decent members of the world community and especially for Burma's neighbours.
There is only so much pressure that can be put on a brutal dictatorship without harming the innocent people it is repressing. US and European government sanctions have proved to be largely tokenism. The generals who rule Burma have little need for US bank accounts, and little taste for visiting Europe. Still, it is discouraging when governments openly aid the Burmese dictators in search of profits, influence or both.
China has long been a master at supporting Burma and providing aid, even as Beijing claims it does not interfere in any country's internal affairs. No other government has quite matched the hypocrisy of the Chinese, but several Asean neighbours have come close. Singapore has long provided financial services to highly questionable Burmese businessmen known to be close to the ruling regime.
The Thaksin government contracted to install satellite communications that benefited Shin Corporation, while supplying sweet loans to Burma to finance the deal.
Now New Zealand has joined the enablers of Burmese dictatorship. Prime Minister Helen Clark argued unpersuasively yesterday about a Thaksinesque cellphone project by state-owned Kordia. It may have been a small project, but the New Zealand firm installed mobile phone equipment for Myanmar Post and Telecommunications. Mrs Clark argued that the facilities would be used by democrats to get the news of anti-regime actions out to the world. It is difficult to believe Mrs Clark is so isolated from reality that she thinks a regime that closed down the entire system of internet blogs to stop one democratic writer, would allow others to send photos and images on their own cellphone system.
Daw Suu Kyi, who has long supported commercial boycotts even if they ultimately harm Burmese people, said her sham talks with government liaison minister Aung Kyi have gone nowhere. This should not surprise anyone, but it should serve as a warning. The word of the regime has little meaning.
As reported last Saturday in these pages, Burma ''is playing hardball'' with the United Nations. It has expelled a permanent representative, refused permission for UN officials to travel _ and of course it has lied to UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari about talks, about Daw Suu Kyi and about arresting dissidents.
The way forward is difficult. But it is increasingly hard to credit calls, such as that by Australia's ex-foreign minister Gareth Evans last week. In a report for the International Crisis Group (ICG), Mr Evans played down further sanctions, emphasising the need for incentives to the Burmese generals to reform.
Burma may hate megaphone diplomacy, but there is evidence it works. For example, the regime stopped killing monks when the murders attracted world attention last year. Deserving support is the ICG call to hold an international meeting in Indonesia, along the lines of the one that kick-started talks on Cambodia in 1988. Pro-democracy neighbours like Thailand have a responsibility to support diplomatic pressure on Burma. But democratic countries like Japan, the United States and members of the European Community have a duty to keep the pressure. Most especially, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon must use the bully pulpit to urge the dictators to change. Without all this, the generals simply will not reform.