The national prison of Burma-Sneaking In Where Thugs Rule

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/the-national-prison-of-burma/?apage=1

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 4, 2009
MYAWADDY, Myanmar

Before entering Myanmar from Thailand, you scrub your bags of any hint that you might be engaged in some pernicious evil, such as espionage, journalism or promotion of human rights.

Then you exit from the Thai town of Mae Sot and walk across the gleaming white “friendship bridge” to the Burmese immigration post on the other side. Entering Myanmar (which traditionally has been known as Burma), you adjust your watch: Myanmar is 30 minutes ahead — and 50 years behind.

Already Myanmar’s government is one of the most brutal in the world, and in recent months it has become even more repressive.

A blogger, Nay Phone Latt, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. A prominent comedian, Zarganar, was sentenced to 59 years. A former student leader, Min Ko Naing, a survivor of years of torture and solitary confinement, has received terms of 65 years so far and faces additional sentences that may reach a total of 150 years.

“Politically, things are definitely getting worse,” said David Mathieson, an expert on Myanmar for Human Rights Watch living on the Thai-Burmese border. “They’ve just sent hundreds of people who should be agents of change to long prison terms.”




A new American presidency is a useful moment to review policy toward Myanmar, and the truth is that the West’s approach has failed. The Burmese junta has ruled despotically since 1988, ignoring democratic elections. Since then, sanctions have had zero effect in moderating the regime.

I have vast respect for Aung San Suu Kyi, the extraordinary woman who won a Nobel Peace Prize for standing up to the country’s thugs. But the best use of her courage right now would be to accept that the trade sanctions she advocated have accomplished nothing more than further impoverishing her own people. As with Cuba and North Korea, isolating a venal regime usually just hurts the innocent and helps the thugs stay in power.

Instead, the best bet is financial sanctions that specifically target individuals close to the regime — and, even more, a clampdown on Myanmar’s imports of arms.

“It would be very difficult to get an arms embargo through the Security Council, but that’s something that really goes to the heart of any military regime,” Mr. Mathieson said. “You lock them out of the tools of their own self-aggrandizement and repression.”

President George W. Bush tried to help Burmese dissidents, but he had zero international capital. The Obama administration, in contrast, has a chance to lead an international initiative to curb Burmese arms imports and bring the regime to the negotiating table.

Myanmar’s weapons have come from or through China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Singapore, and Russia is even selling Myanmar’s dictators a nuclear reactor, Mr. Mathieson said.

In crossing from Thailand to Myanmar, you pass through a time warp. You leave the bustle and dynamism of Thailand and encounter a stagnating backwater of antique cars and shacks beside open sewers.

I found it difficult to interview people in Myanmar, because I was traveling as a tourist with two of my kids (and my wife is sick of me getting our kids arrested with me in dictatorships). But we dropped in on the Myawaddy hospital, which was so understaffed that no one stopped us as we marched through wards of neglected patients.

The most flourishing business we saw on the Burmese side belonged to a snake charmer who set up temporary shop outside a temple. The moment a crowd gathered, an armed soldier ran over in alarm — and then relaxed when he saw that the only threat to public order was a cobra.

In Mae Sot, Thailand, I visited with former Burmese political prisoners, like the courageous Bo Kyi. They are at risk of being killed by Burmese government assassins, yet they are campaigning aggressively for change.

Equally inspiring are the Free Burma Rangers, who risk their lives to sneak deep into the country for months at a time to provide medical care and document human rights abuses.

One gutsy American working with the group, who asked that his name not be used for security reasons, communicated with me by satellite phone from his hiding place deep inside Myanmar. He knows that the Burmese government will kill him if it catches him, yet he stays to gather photos and other evidence of how Burmese soldiers are drafting ethnic Karen villagers for forced labor and are raping women and girls. One recent case described by the Free Burma Rangers involved a 7-year-old girl who was raped, and then killed.

The courage of these people seeking a new Myanmar is infectious and inspiring. In this new administration, let’s help them — and see if with new approaches we can finally topple one of the most odious regimes in the world.

・/p>

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on February 5, 2009, on page A31 of the New York edition. Past Coverage
THE WORLD; Aftermath Of a Revolt: Myanmar's Lost Year (October 5, 2008)
Exiles Try to Rekindle Hopes for Change in Myanmar (August 6, 2008)
WORLD BRIEFING | ASIA; Myanmar: Sanctions On 3 Companies (May 2, 2008)
U.S. Imposes More Sanctions To Press Myanmar's Rulers (February 6, 2008)
Related Searches
Myanmar Get E-Mail Alerts
Embargoes and Economic Sanctions Get E-Mail Alerts
Freedom and Human Rights Get E-Mail Alerts
United States International Relations Get E-Mail Alerts


February 4, 2009, 10:33 pm
The national prison of Burma
By Nicholas Kristof
My Thursday column is from Myanmar, one of the nastier countries left in the world today. I was only able to get into Myawaddy, a town right next to Mae Sot, Thailand, and interviews are difficult because of the repression, so I can’t claim any comprehensive view of what’s going on there — but it was nice to get a glimpse and to bring back this video.

I’m sure plenty of readers who follow Burma are going to be horrified by my opposition to general sanctions, such as those on the garment industry. My feeling is that those have just made life worse for ordinary citizens, and that isolation simply strengthens the regime. Instead, I’d like to see targeted financial sanctions on people close to the leadership — and, especially, a big push to curb arms sales to Burma, and to embarrass those who do sell weapons to the Burmese regime.

So what do you think? Do you agree that general sanctions have failed and that it’s time for a new approach? Do you see any other way of undermining the Burmese regime? Any suggestions for the Obama administration on Burma? Please post your comments on the column or video here beside the column itself; since they are open there, I’m closing comments here.

UPDATE: Comments have been closed by the column, so I’m reopening them here.
E-mail This Print Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Yahoo! BuzzPermalink
Burma, Myanmar Related Posts
From Nicholas D. Kristof
Who’s the Worst Dictator?
Six Months Since Cyclone Sidr
Chinese Silence on Burma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous post

Deputy “Secretary of Food”
Next post

The Senate discovers women
6 Comments
1. February 5, 2009
4:10 pm

Link
Dear Mr. Kristof,

Thanks for putting “Myanmar” in the news, though like many commenters on the column I too believe you (and the Times as a whole) should certainly refer to “Burma” instead. Much has already been said, but I want to highlight three things.

First, targeted sanctions are a good idea, but they’re not a new idea. In fact, they are already in place, and they have already been renewed. Ample demonstration of this fact is a google search away. Second, your support for an arms embargo, as you mention in your column, is currently untenable in the UNSC. It would be a worthy goal, but as a suggested replacement for sanctions, as you suggest it can currently be, is by your own logic not supported.

Third, sanctions discourse vis-a-vis Burma suffers for many reasons, some of which (like poor comparisons to other countries) you exemplify in your column. I would point to Jared Genser’s comment as laying down a good context for re-thinking your stance on sanctions in Burma. But I still believe - and perhaps you recall me making this point when we met for the Rhodes selection process - that the most significant reason to continue support for sanctions may be the strategic imperative of maintaining solidarity with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s in-country opposition. Breaking with her leadership - ostensibly for a form of economic engagement we currently have no reason to believe will work - is extremely poor judgement for would-be international allies. It is entirely the wrong message to send to those in the country, to those for whom political transformation is more than a sporadic topic of journalistic tourism. The problems in Burma, finally, are political. They have been and remain as such. They are not exclusive of economic considerations, but they are very much the root of what we find in Burma today. To echo another commenter, sanctions, especially the targeted sanctions currently in place, are not the cause of Burma’s problems. Than Shwe’s dictatorship is.

Nevertheless, I’m glad to see you made it to Mae Sot - the erstwhile, current, and future home of several commenters on the column. I hope Bo Kyi gave you a good introduction to the AAPP facilities. I also hope that next time you’re in Mae Sot, you do activists like Bo Kyi the favor of listening closely, of learning to understand the dynamics of Burma’s opposition movement. Your long-held and inflexible anti-sanctions rhetoric needs serious revision.

— Geoffrey Aung

2. February 5, 2009
7:10 pm

Link
Dear Mr. Kristof,
I’ve been studying and visiting Burma since the mid 80’s and for the last 7 years and have been working in Thailand and have also worked in Burma during this time. I have concluded that the policy of sanctions must change.
Sanctions can only work in a carrot and stick scenario. Here the stick has no power and for the generals the carrots have never been clear.
The sanctions against Burma might have made sense if this was a country whose rulers had an interest in increased relations with the outside world or had a fear of being isolated. However, since 1962, Burma has had a policy of self imposed international isolation.
In 1962 when the military took over there were military led governments all over Asia, who were often no less repressive than the Burmese government. So, why have neighbors such as Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea been able to develop into the economically developed democracies they are today while the Burmese people suffer in squalid, repressive third world conditions?
A quick and simple answer might be to think where the people of China might have been today if the reaction to the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown had been international isolation and sanctions. Go back further to the Nixon visit that is credited with opening up China. This was when China was under Moa, acknowledged to be one of the greatest monsters in modern history.
The net effect of the international policy of isolation has been zero as to the stated goal of changing the government and it has been economically devastating for the citizens of Burma.
Now with the recent (late 90’s) discoveries of huge gas fields, revenues are only increasing for those in power as their neighbors (notably China and Thailand) are only too happy to be customers. The stick (sanctions), simply has little meaning to the generals.
If China and other neighbors (notably, India and Thailand) seriously joined the boycott and worked hard to force the military to give up power the goal of the sanctions could possibly have a chance. But the reality is that China and others will never adapt this strategy and I feel we are kidding ourselves, thinking we are having any real impact other than contributing to the suffering.
There is no easy, perfect answer that will solve the problem, but if we really care about peace and prosperity (without war and suffering) for a population, I believe it’s time to seriously re-think the situation. The present path hasn’t worked, it’s time to change course.
Kevin McGivern (US citizen)

— Kevin McGivern

3. February 5, 2009
7:19 pm

Link
I have visited Burma briefly on a few occasions and I believe that the more contact there is with people from outside the country the better. The Burmese people are isolated and lack human contact and perspective from people outside their country. By all means, keep out big business, oil companies, arms suppliers, governmental advisors, but at a basic human level let people get to know each other. The more tourists, travelers, students, journalists the better, I say.

— Derek Davies

4. February 5, 2009
8:08 pm

Link
Nicholas, there is always The Marines and nation building.
Same for the repressed countries of Africa. Today I listened to an interview on NPR, of a woman who had been an NPR correspondent covering Afghanistan. She now spends two weeks a month there doing humane work. She spoke about how the appointed officials had become corrupted. Well, I say became corrupted. They were corrupt before the became “officials”. She told of people having to stop at a checkpoint every mile or so and pay some cop in order to move on. She told of people so disgusted with their own officials and police that they said if they knew of a Taliban ambush waiting for the police they wouldn’t warn the police. They hate them so much.

My point here is that some countries may never be able of handling self government because power seems always to go to those who seize it and consolidate it for their own use. We send troops and billions of dollars and when we leave - or as in Afghanistan while we are still there corruption and oppression flourish and the common folk are no better off. See Haiti.
There are too many evil, corrupt people in too many countries for us to go knock off. They would just be replaced by the next guy in line. Economic sanctions don’t work, as you said because the corrupt leaders will always get what they need while children starve and people are dragged off in the night never to be seen again.
The rest of the so called free world is happy to sit on their hands and let us do the dirty work. France and Russia even seem to profit and enjoy feeding and catering to tyrants. Perhaps France long ago came to the realization that tyrants exist, just like evil, everywhere, and aren’t ever going away so just take their money, provide goods and arms to them and realize that what you sell is benign when it leaves your hands. It becomes evil when used for evil.
Derivatives, sub-prime mortgages, enormous bonuses to Wall Street big wigs and corporate CEO’s, Bernie Madoff, the cops getting paid off on the beat, human trafficing through our porous borders, drug trafficing through our porous borders. political appointees not paying taxes and yet getting the job. U.S. Presidents who lie under oath! And dance away to make millions after they leave office. Then there is W. Liberals want to put him in jail for life but your own Charles Rangel is as big a crook as they come. Tom Daschel!
Nicholas, if left to their own devices people such as I just mentioned and the wealthy out in the Hamptons, down in Palm Beach, over in Malibu would all be no better than the despots who run places like Myanmar or Afghanistan. Let the rest of us eat cake.

John Summers
Jacksonville, Florida

— John

5. February 5, 2009
8:17 pm

Link
I visited Mae Sot and crossed into Burma in late January 2009.
My perspective on economic sanctions (rubies and jade) are that they only drive the trade underground - hurting legitimate Thai importers and traders more than anyone else. And, sadly it didn’t help that this policy came from Mr. Bush who had a really low respect level in Thailand already.

In the end it seems that change in Burma will only come from within Burma - and people will probably have to die to get it done.

— Tom of Maine

6. February 5, 2009
10:32 pm

Link