U.S. should move beyond just using sanctions in its relations with Burma

The China Post

BY NEHGINPAO KIPGEN
Special to The China Post
In an apparent shift from the
policy of traditional sanctions, the
U.S. Congress created a post for
policy chief for Burma to increase
pressure on the military junta.
In response to this unprecedented
action, the White House
announced the nomination of
Michael Green for the post on Nov.
10. Whether this maneuver brings
vigor to the Burmese democratic
movement is a question that
remains to be seen.


Green, who has served as a
senior director for Asian Affairs
under the Bush administration,
should have noticed the quandary
over the Burmese political
imbroglio, especially the futility of
conflicting approaches by the international
community.
According to this legislation, the
policy chief will consult with the
governments of China, India, Thailand
and Japan, members of
Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), and the European
Union to coordinate
international strategy.
Years of sanctions after sanctions,
this is a new birth in the
American policy toward Burma.
Sanctions, however, still remain the
popular way of punishing the rogue
regimes and governments around
the world.
When it comes to Burma, sanctions
have little impact on the
military regime due to engagements
by neighboring countries,
notably China, India and members
of ASEAN.
A solution to Burma’s problems
greatly lies in two possible ways:
Popular Uprising and Intervention.
Popular uprising have been tasted
twice in 1988 and in 2007. Both
events were brutally crushed by the
military with force.
The word intervention can be
engagement or sanction. There is
no doubt about the U.S. sanctions
hurting the military generals and
also the general public. Had there
been a coordinated international
approach, Burma could have been
different today.
It must be difficult for the U.S.
government to abandon its traditional
policy of isolating the
Burmese generals and start
engaging with them. But they have
to realize that sanction alone is not
effective in resolving Burma’s crisis
when there is engagement on the
other end.
While sanctions are in place, the
new envoy can start initiating a
“carrot and stick” policy by working
together with key international
players. The one similar to the
North Korean six-party talk model
should be given emphasis on
Burma.
The six-party talks involving the
United States, European Union,
ASEAN, China, India, and Burma
should be initiated. In the beginning,
the military generals and
some other countries might resist
the proposal, but we need to
remember that the North Korean
talk was also initially not supported
by all parties.
The hard work of the U.S. in
North Korea is now paid off with
North Korea being removed from
the State Department’s list of terrorists,
and in return, North Korea
promised to shut down and dismantle
its nuclear facilities.
It was not only the sticks that
worked but also the carrots. The
U.S. offered energy and food assistance
to the North Korean
leadership. A similar initiative
could convince Burma’s military
generals to come to the negotiating
table.
Now that the U.N. Secretary General
is heavily involved in the
process, the U.S. can garner
stronger support from the international
community. Without such
move from the U.S., Ban Ki-moon’s
‘Group of Friends of the Secretary
General on Myanmar’ will yield
little.
The most effective U.N. intervention
would happen when the
Security Council decides to take
action. This scenario is bleak with
China and Russia vetoing the move,
and likely to do again if Burma
issue comes up in the Council’s
agenda.
The creation of U.S. special
envoy and policy chief for Burma is
a widely welcome move. With this
new position coming into place, the
U.S. should start moving beyond
imposing sanctions.
Nehginpao Kipgen is the General
Secretary of U.S.-based Kuki
International Forum
(www.kukiforum.com) and a
researcher on the rise of political
conflicts in modern Burma (1947-
2004).