Does US Plan Greater Engagement with Burmese Regime?

http://www.irrawaddy.org/print_article.php?art_id=15135

COMMENTARY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By AUNG ZAW Wednesday, February 18, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the new administration in Washington is reviewing its policy on Burma, prompting pundits to wonder whether that means more US engagement with the military government.

“We're looking at what steps could influence the current Burmese government, and we're looking at ways we could help the Burmese people,” Clinton said in Japan, the first stage of her Asia tour.

Clinton, on her first foreign tour since taking over at the State Department, also said the new US administration hopes it can build a Burma policy that is "more effective" at promoting reform and encouraging political and economic freedom.

It is too early to say whether the US will depart from its tough sanctions-backed policy.

Some critics are saying that the US will soon engage the repressive regime in Burma. Time will tell, but what is needed now is the formulation of a comprehensive Burma policy involving the input of partners and key players in the region.



Greater engagement by the US with Asean nations and Burma’s powerful neighbors, China and India, could help in the construction of a new Burma policy to encourage change in Burma. But, after 20 years spent covering Burma, I hold my breath.

US policy under the Bush administration was seen as strong and outspoken, although its critics say it was based on a go-it-alone policy that shunned cooperation.

The policy failed to get much support when the US pushed it at the UN or at the regional level, and it suffered because of Bush’s disastrous policy in the Middle East.

With the arrival of a new administration, it is hoped that President Barack Obama and a State Department led by Clinton will receive more support from Burma’s neighbors in influencing the regime to undertake genuine political and economic reforms.

Under Bush’s forceful Burma policy and the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act 2008, the US imposed direct sanctions on military leaders in Burma and their business cronies. In addition, the act commissioned a “US Special Representative and Policy Coordinator” for Burma to work with Burma’s neighbors and develop a more proactive approach.

If US policy towards Burma is more proactive and not short-sighted, it will definitely receive support in the region. In this case, the US doesn’t need to stick to a sanctions policy alone; it could also, without compromising its objective, find a way to open a dialogue with the regime in order to achieve its aim of a free, peaceful and prosperous Burma.

Although some US actions and policies have been criticized as symbolic gestures or “megaphone diplomacy,” Washington’s stand on human rights and democratization have been highly recognized in Burma and beyond.

When the oppressed Burmese need outside help and moral support to challenge the regime, they look not towards China, India, Thailand or Asean, nor even to the UN and some Western governments, but to Washington.

With or without US support, however, the Burmese people will continue to fight and challenge the regime and its repression. The plight of more than 2,000 political prisoners demands their continued engagement for justice.

The trouble is that, in dealing with the regime, the West is at times no different from Burma’s opportunistic neighbors. They are sometimes confused and misinformed.

In January, two ministers from Scandinavian countries visited Burma.

Denmark’s Minister of Development Cooperation, Ulla Tørnæs, and Norway’s Minister of Development and Environment, Erik Solheim, were the highest ranking European officials to visit the military-ruled country in more than two decades.

Denmark has contributed US $11.4 million and Norway $7.7 million to the Cyclone Nargis relief fund through the Tripartite Core Group (TCG), made up of representatives of the UN, Asean and the Burmese regime.

Ulla Tørnæs told the Danish newspaper Politiken at the conclusion of the visit: “It is quite clear to me that Burma is one of the world's poorest countries, and that neither can we nor should we neglect it. We must make an effort, although we know it will happen step by step.”

In an earlier message, Tørnæs said economic sanctions on Burma and a tourism boycott were counterproductive and suggested the country would benefit from more tourists and trade with the world.

Such a bold statement should be welcomed. However, the Danish minister should also realize that many of Burma’s problems are man-made and lie in the hands of generals who should be held accountable. Burma urgently needs a political solution and the two issues cannot be dealt with separately.

Apart from sanctions-bashing, Tørnæs doesn’t come up with a comprehensive, broader Burma policy and it is doubtful whether her argument will be bought by many inside and outside Burma—let alone by US Secretary of State Clinton.

Tørnæs is no Clinton, whose formulation of US policy on Burma commands serious attention. The policy should invite many different opinions, but it should not be forgotten that divisions between Western governments over Burma only create a greater opportunity for the generals to prolong their iron rule.


Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org