The ongoing battle for moral and discursive supremacy on Burma issues has now made it to the pages of Foreign Policy In Focus. It has recently carried a three-part debate between David I. Steinberg, Director of the Asian Studies Program, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, and Kyi May Kaung ”a Burmese dissident, artist, poet, and political analyst living in exile”.
Their arguments need to be read more widely. Each provides a position statement:
David I. Steinberg, “Minimizing the Miasma in Myanmar”
Kyi May Kaung, “Sanctions and Burma: Shades of Grey”
……………………………………………………………………………..
They then launch some final volleys in “Burma Strategic Dialogue: Responses“.
Steinberg writes:
It is simple hubris to maintain that only expatriate Burmese can be the forum through which conditions in, and progress on, Burma/Myanmar can take place, or that they alone can act as the arbiters or explainers of internal Burmese conditions. Indeed, because conditions are so controlled there, the case for direct access is enhanced. Expatriates are important, but are not sufficient.
And Kyi May Kaung counters:
In the end, whatever Steinberg says, he remains an armchair academic, afflicted with Rangoonitis.
Read the full articles: it is relatively rare that such opposing points-of-view on Burma “engagement” are put so forcefully and with such passion. If anybody wants to weigh in to this debate, please send me an e-mail – I am more than happy to devote a post to any reader’s thoughts or arguments.
Thanks to Cheri, from Burma Gateway, for drawing my attention to this important exchange. New Mandala readers keen to keep up-to-date with Burma events and activities (particularly from an Australian perspective) should bookmark her site and return often. It is a treasure-trove of useful information.
I like this debate, but I do not take side because I haven’t done my own critical study on this subject. This subject has been bugging me for about 6 years (because I am post-1988 generation).
I used to be a supporter of pro-democracy groups. But after 5-6 years of my life working them some organization in Thailand and listening to what they say, I lost my confident in them. They are not critical. Their writings are one-sided which doesn’t pay enough attention to the limitations of their arguments, strategies and effectiveness. I used to support economic sanction. But no more. Why? Because when I supported it, I didn’t have any clue. I just follow pro-democracy groups. I bet there are many who are following the leading groups like I did. One active proponant of economic sanction told me that economic sanction might not work, but this is one strategy to do the job. I.e. they have something to do atleast.
I think pro-saction groups are making arguments without any empirical evidences. I havn’t seen any critical studies about sanction produced by pro-sanction groups. There are many self-publishing articles. Of course, they are more subjective and based on sanction vs. no-sanction. Some of them are just opinion of the writers.
I am not taking side, but I won’t believe in economic sanction unless I see evidence.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
I have to give credit to Steinberg for bringing up the issue of ethnic minorities in Burma, which I personally think is the critical issue to ultimately resolving Burma’s political problems, and note that Kyi May Maung doesn’t address it. That would be one area I would like to see both of them discuss in more detail.
Howeever, I can’t figure out what Steinberg is trying to say when he writes “The issue of legitimacy may internally also be disaggregated: how minorities, for example, regard a central regime may be quite different from the views of the majority Burmese population. ” Really? In my talks with both populations in Burma, I’m pretty sure that with regard to the current central regime it isn’t disaggregated: both groups don’t think it is legitimate.
Also, I’m not sure I buy Steinberg’s contention that sanctions are meant to cause economic collaspe. As Kyi May Maung points out, Ne Win had already done an outstanding job of that. Especially in the aftermath of 8-8-88, the military regime was bankrupt, and desparate to raise funds in order to stay in power. That is why it sold off its natural resources and tried to gain foreign investment. Sanctions weren’t meant just to cause collapse, but rather to keep the regime from consolidating power.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Steinberg says embargo doesn’t work so we should engage but he doesn’t say just how engagement should be shaped to push the generals in a direction even Steinberg says is necessary.
But Kyi May Kaung is off to simply dismiss Steinberg’s viewpoint on the grounds that Steinberg isn’t inside Burma. Such dismissals undermine Kyi May Kaung’s arguement.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
I personally agree with Steinberg’s viewpoint–sanctions have done nothing more than show the U.S.’ commitment to democracy in Burma and alienate the ruling military regime in the Western world. Although both make some overly general claims, I think it’s ludicrous for Kyi May Kaung to use the argument of a documentary to represent the view of all Burmese, that “they don’t want tourists.” Also, it’s unfair to depict that NLD represents the Burmese people in general, because it does not–a multi-party parliamentary government (a collaborative one, not a one-party government) was elected, with NLD receiving most of the seats. SNLD (Shan Nationalities League for Democracy) won 23 seats, all from Shan State constituencies (21 NLD seats were also won in Shan State), and even the military-backed NUP won 10 seats. All too often, people focus only on an alternative in which the NLD receives governmental power, which limits a wealth of other options.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
Nov 11, 2009.
This debate never goes away.
Steinberg recently orchestrated a “policy review” in DC but did not invite people like me who disagree with him.
Sanctions are meant to send the junta a strong message — no more no less.
Anyway, all the “engagement policies” will do no good because junta just keeps on with its human rights abuses. It has carried on military campaigns against all the ethnic groups and is attacking its own people, if you haven’t heard.
Anyone trying to be in this debate should do their own research.
The anti-sanctions clique has accepted money and other perks like free trips from the spdc, so hardly have a good reputation, but they keep trying.
Kyi May Kaung — please don’t miss-spell my name!
Quality comment or not?
1 
0