Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > 2+2 Communities > Other Other Topics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 06-04-2003, 12:11 AM
KJS KJS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Posts: 158
Default Burma: Isolate or Engage?

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.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.