Burmese Ties: Burma strategy must be reconsidered (part II)
source : The Nation
The latest moves against Rangoon are more symbolic than realistic, writes Vorapun Srivoranart in the second of a two-part series.
The fresh sanctions slapped on Burma by the International Labour Organisation were hailed as a potential blow that could knock out the military regime and pave the way for a democratic government. However, the reality is not so simple, and it is dangerous to blindly believe a transition would be automatic and smooth.
The ILO measures could be seen as the latest "stick" to punish the junta. But doubts exist over its effectiveness. Questions have been raised as to how serious the cost of sanctions could be to the military government and whether they would be more than what the regime could afford. In addition, the decision is non-binding and the international approach to Burma lacks unity.
In fact, it will mean little if countries that have a significant role in the Burmese economy - China, Malaysia and Singapore, for example - do not go along with them, meaning the junta will still have a lifeline.
Meanwhile, there has been virtually no discussion at all of what would happen if the sanctions fail. What will the international community do if change is not forthcoming as quickly as anticipated?
In this case, a serious, thorough reconsideration of past efforts should be conducted. Has a decade of sanctions worked? Has the regime been weakened by the "fragmented" measures? In economic terms the answer would certainly be "yes". Decades of self-imposed isolation, the collapse of the socialist system and the suspension of aid and preferential trade agreements have had a serious bearing on the fragile Burmese economy. The moves to woo foreign direct investment is an indication of Rangoon's recognition that something must be done or else their grip on power will be threatened because, as history suggests, economic crises often precede political crises.
Burma has resorted to its own trial-and-error methods, which have proved hazardous. Moreover, there is no independent business class, historically a prime mover for liberalism. Over the past decade the military has penetrated every single sector of the economy, establishing de facto state capitalism. This has helped to check any agents for change.
In politics and security, the scene is not rosy at all. "[The junta] is getting stronger and stronger every day," said a renowned Burmese expert, Robert H Taylor, from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The regime maintains a stranglehold on all opposition groups and continues to practice a zero-tolerance policy towards dissent.
After a decade of consolidation, the junta has spread its tentacles into every aspect of life in the country and turned the military into a separate caste. On the social front, years of sanctions have brought a humanitarian crisis to the ordinary Burmese. It has shut their eyes to the world and subjected them to a stream of state propaganda.
A strong devotion to Buddhism has also hindered any impetus for change since people think of a better life in the next world and try to live through their current misery, according to Sunait Chutintaranond, a Burmese expert from Chulalongkorn University. "There is no foreseeable change, nor an implosion," he said.
A decade of the "stick" has not helped, so what is needed now is a more subtle form of "carrot" that would eventually usher in changes, Taylor said. A decade of boycotts has left the international community, except for China, with no leverage for change. "The sad thing is that nobody in the West cares about Burma anyway," Sunait said.
Most efforts against Burma have been driven by domestic interest groups, which makes them inherently prone to flaws. There are many reasons for imposing sanctions: a wish to punish, a wish to set an example or simply a wish to be seen to be doing something. But if the international community is to play a positive role in fostering a more open and prosperous Burma, then it must develop a coherent strategy that allows different actors both inside and outside the country to work together, or at least towards the same goal.
"If there is to be change it ought to be from the outside," Taylor said.
Sunait believes the movement must come from the inside with influence from the outside.
"Change will not come easy, but it doesn't mean Burma cannot change," Sunait said, adding that an implosion cannot be ruled out, which does not necessarily mean the military will be overthrown.
Burma is not South Africa, and any attempt to draw an analogy to prop up the sanctions argument is misleading. The apartheid regime in South Africa had an economy connected to the global economy. Its existence relied strongly on outside support and there were strong internal forces, all conditions that are lacking in Burma today.
It is also important to note that the apartheid regime managed to muddle through for decades until the United States weighed in. According to a Bangkok-based diplomat, the West knows the real situation in Burma but has decided to stick to empty rhetoric, which is more appealing than action to the world at large.
"Speaking about a transition is hard, but people know the difference between dictatorship and democratic government," Sunait said. Therefore, it is easier to pretend to believe there will be "a simple solution to a complex problem".
As a symbol of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi is "too important to leave out" when talking about Burma, the diplomat said.
According to Taylor, change will only happen if the generals get comfortable and think they won't lose out: witness the fate of dictators like Pinochet, Marcos and Suharto.
There are three main conditions for change, Sunait said. First, there must be a way to convince the junta that it is better to relinquish power than risk the consequences of trying to hold on at all costs. Second, a way must be sought to prevent them from losing face and dignity. Last, their ingrained habit of enjoying omnipotence must be broken.
"These three factors must be negotiable or else there will be another bloodbath," he said.
Taylor, on the other hand, said change is possible only if the economy is allowed to develop.
"The end of a revolution is a very long period," said Taylor.