Burma: Isolate or Engage?

[KJS]

Hey all,

I am hoping for some insight on the good arguments on both sides of the isolate v. engage debate in regards to rouge, repressive regimes. I am thinking of Burma, who Friday had hired goons and soldiers attack the opposition leader, killing monks and students. The government in turn arrested Aung San Suu Kyi, saying she is now in protective custody, but not saying where exactly. They also shut down all her party offices and all universities and high schools in the country.

This is just the latest in a series of repressive measures by the ruling military, who have ruled in the current incarnation since 1988, when they shot dead almost 3,000 people demonstrating in the streets of the capital (in contrast, 2 people died in Tianeman Square). They held elections in 1990, which Suu Kyi's party won, but never honored the results. They have about 1300 political prisoners locked up, are involved in heroin and meth trade, etc.. These guys are just plain bad news in every sense of the word, domestically and geo-politically.

Since Friday's events, many groups are calling for stricter sanctions, by the EU especially. The US and Canada already have an investment ban and pretty broad visa ban on the generals. This camp says hit 'em where it hurts, because the money invested in Burma goes right to the generals, very little makes it to the pockets of the people, many of which can hardly afford rice nowadays. Isolate 'em economically and they'll budge is the reasoning.

The other camp says the more you invest, the more they will open up. They need to have a well-fed, well-paid populace with access to some way of moving up economically to have the time and resources to press for change. Sanctions only hurt the people, who have less access to wages when no one is opening new plants, starting new agro projects, etc..

I can think of cases where sanctions have made an impact (South Africa), have not worked (Cuba) and I can think of places where engagement has worked to a degree (China, they still arrest people for posting anti-gov stuff online).

What do you guys think? What policy would you champion for Burma if you were a head of state?

Thanks,

KJS

PS. I work at a Burma-mag but this is not work related at all. Pure curiosity. Don't tell my boss I surf 2+2 at work please.

[nicky g]

I would say isolate, given that that's what the elected opposition have asked for. I think it's a bit rich of EU leaders to be getting on their high horse about this one. I remember several years ago Massachussets state government passed a measure that would forbid them to do business with companies that dealt with the junta. The EU took them to the WTO and forced them to get rid of the policy in the name of free trade, which made me sick. Tony Blair is a major hypocrite on Burma.

[MMMMMM]

So how would you feel about a nice quick regime change;-)?

[nicky g]

Lol, I thought this was coming. Maybe. you can be pretty sure it won't happen, though. The West barely pays any attention at all to the Burmese generals, despite their lofty ideals in regards to the axis of evil.

[HDPM]

This is an obviously difficult question because of the examples you gave. Sometimes engagement works, sometimes it doesn't. But for engagement to work, there must be some mutuality of values between the competing forces. Say what you will about the rotten South African apartheid system, the people and leaders of the country wanted to live in an advanced western manner. They shared many of the values that the countries imposing sanctions did. Castro OTOH doesn't. And Castro gets help from countries that don't boycott. Anyway, I think when there is a military dictatorship physical force is a good thing. These governments have no moral right to exist and the people running them will often only stop when they are killed or confronted with a lot of force. That does not mean the US should run in and force a regime change, even if doing so would not be immoral. Ideally the people of Burma could muster enough of a revolution to overthrow the military government. The reason I am a lunatic gun rights supporter is because of regimes like Burma. No military dictatorship can survive a well planned revolution by a reasonably armed and angry populace. People with individually operable weapons can overthrow a better armed government. Sheer numbers and resistance can prevent the military from having any power. So I guess I'd support sending a whole lot of weapons over and seeing what happens. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif Revolutions are often failures, but there have been some notable successes. And anytime a totalitarian regime is killed off it is a good thing. For instance, the only good thing I can say about the communists is that they know how to treat royalty.

[KJS]

HDPM,

Good points as expected. One of the isolation problems for Burma is that there share a border with China, who loves nothing more than pouring money into the country and is never one to criticize anyone for their internal politics. So, even stronger sanctions by the EU and US would not be totally destructive if China does not get on board. China did change its stripes regarding N.Korea so maybe there is some glimmer of hope. Lots more Chinese live, invest and work in Burma than N.Korea though.

I doubt it would even come close to actual conflict if the US really wanted regime change in Burma. I think a credible threat would be more than enough, especially if they allow the generals to continue to get fat off drug money, which I don't support but usually happens.

KJS