I have put off writing this post for a couple of days, because quite frankly it is a mouthful. Many issues will be taken up regarding Burma in the coming days and weeks and everyone has their hand in the pot; UE, UK, US, ASEAN and perhaps the UN. On the immediate surface these issues may not sound completely related but I would argue they are, all the while hoping I don't sound like a paranoid activist who has completely lost faith in the democratic establishment. I may seem to drift a few places, but I will try to bring it all together.
Let's start with trade.
The EU has agreed to hold FTA discussions with ASEAN as a bloc. The Burma junta will take part in these talks.
Trade between the two groupings amounted to nearly 140 billion dollars in 2005.
The EU is maintaining that they will not deal with Burma directly. But it could be argued that the door has been opened. Clearly there is opposition,
"The cause of Burma's political dilemma is that the military is still ignoring the role of representatives chosen by the people in democratic elections," Dr San Aung, an exiled member of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), told The Irrawaddy. "We need a coordinated policy from the international community to push Burmese generals to create more democratization."
The same week, the UK has reopened the debate on sanctions. For the most part, they are in line with what many activists have been saying for some time.
The British sanctions policy was not targeted specifically at the regime, the committee found--and, as a result, "hits the economy generally and consequently hurts the ordinary Burmese people."
...
The committee thought sanctions "may even be counterproductive when a target regime responds by increasing its internal control over resources."
So does this mean that the UK will make greater effort for a more constructive and dynamic approach which does target the junta? I have decided I am against the current sanctions, for the reasons stated. The junta is only empowered by their isolation, and that isolation is dwindling as others, such as India, follow China's lead and invest and arm the Burma military. China is important, a year or two ago the EU came under a storm of criticism when they moved to drop the arms embargo against China. This only confirms what China wants, to be Accepted as the dominant power in SE Asia on an international basis, this brings in trade. Money is more powerful than morals and there is money to be made in Burma, China and India are demonstrating just that. Despite the inaccuracy of currency rates the Burmese Kyat is almost equal to the U.S. dollar right now, a few thousand times more valuable then a couple years ago, though that may fluctuate dramatically.
And U.S. support for sanction makes no sense when our largest trading partner (also our largest trade deficit) is China which is the life line to fanatical oppression.
Still, it's true, sanctions are not effective. Does that mean the international establishment will become more productive or exploit that fact to cash in on SE Asia? I personally feel that has been China's strategy for some time now, lure in Europe. They are not slow to build up an international base to legitimize such actions. No one is aggressively engaging with Africa like China.
Also, It seems more to me like it is so easy to support sanctions just because no one has any better idea's. But it also seems like that makes sanctions an easy way for the US to stand behind ideas of Democracy without it affecting our wallet - regardless of the actual outcomes.
What is the U.S. up to right now? They have dipped their toes into the matter just enough to get the small-pond-like ripples in the media...with the obvious.
The State Dept. has released a statement just ahead of the end of Daw Suu Kyi's current sentence under house arrest - Human Rights Experts Urge Release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Plus the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN is saying the U.S. is not done taking the issue of Burma to the UNSC, despite the fact that the last attempt was perhaps one of the most futile in UN history. We all knew Russia and China would veto, but we try to stay optimistic and take advantage of any movement as a reason to discuss the issue. I'm sorry I have lost my "cup half full' outlook for this post.
So the final question is, with everything going the junta's way, will they feel more confident extending Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's sentence, or, might they just release her in hopes of gaining more of what their are getting, authentication.
