Daw Aung San Suu Kyi answered your question

In a 1994 interview with a U.S. congressman, during a period of house arrest, she was asked about her role and her vision for Burma:

“Democracy won’t solve all our problems – I have always said this. Establishing democracy here is only a beginning. It is not a perfect system but it is better than all the others. In liberal democracies, people always think of talking first and fighting last. If you fight first, you just end up fighting to exhaustion. The word “parliament” comes from the word “talk.” It is better to talk than shout, but shouting is better than shooting.

We can have democracy the Asian way, the Burmese way. Whatever system develops here will become unique to this country. Democracy is not the same in the US [as it is in the] UK. There will always be differences. But some fundamental principles are abiding.”

It seems to me that most are calling for action to be taken through moral obligation to our fellow man, or at least some notion of positive liberty. However, how can this be achieved without first accepting that not everywhere values the notion of liberalism? Where universal values are not necessarily all on the same page. Especially considering the political histories of colonialism and the propaganda machine of the Junta which abuses this history and won’t let its’ citizens move on.

Of course, and perhaps imperialistically, as a liberal I believe that all are liberal by default and whether the individual knows it or not is a matter of social conditioning. The social conditioning in Burma is not such that a moral obligation through positive liberty can be used to justify UNSC action because it would infringe on Burmese citizens negative liberty; an essential element to freedom. (If you have read this far and haven’t the faintest as to what I’m talking about with positive and negative liberty please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_negative_rights and http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/)

One could argue that Burmese citizens political liberty was totally abolished in 1988 and therefore international action in the name of positive liberty is justified because Burma had determined itself through democratic elections and would consequently not infringe upon the negative rights of Burmese individuals as they had collectively determined their path democratically. However, this position does not account for the last 19 years and the conditioning and beliefs of those under the Junta’s framework. What do we liberals say? “Oh sorry, it’s been a long time since 1988 we know, but brothers and sisters – we’ve come to liberate you all the same. Hope the Junta wasn’t so bad, want a scone?! (…in the form of IMF loans)” ? We ‘liberals’ have condemned those in Burma for almost 20 years to live under the Junta when we had a legitimate liberal pretext for regime restoration in 88. Now, with this procrastination and often seemingly oblivious diatribe from us – we want to do it now because there were some demonstrations?! This is almost 20 years of blood stained history for 1 week of demonstrations to remind us that some peoples liberty is being abused. Considering we view liberty as bestowed upon us naturally, this completely highlights a polemic between those in detention for what they believe and us where positive liberty is being used as a mask worn by those with guilty hearts. That is not the right way to sell an idea.

So rather than be disenfranchised by all of this political and inhuman hypocrisy, to be of some use we must remember what is really “Most Wanted”, and for me, that must be to engage with the Junta on their terms. If we forget the political arguments and remember the peoples who have nothing to do with this, it is their futures in an increasingly connected world that is being neglected by those already connected. This requires immediate action and we can do it now. Reasoning that it would look bad for us to engage will make future global integration for Burma that much more difficult the longer our leaders leave it. There is a distinction between self-determination and corruption which is totally blurred by nations acting bilaterally – why is the UN given authority on this one issue to suddenly make it clear?

The Junta must be overrun with ideas, irrespective of whether or not they listen initially. Wouldn’t the quickest solution be that we should pander to their desires till they no longer care? Maybe this is not moral, but we ‘liberals’ should not start pretending to be on an international scale for the sake of negative liberty infringing on exceptionalised moral obligations. According to Amnesty International, there are 54 countries where there are politically related detainments and tortures. Where are their protests in Sydney, Canberra, New York and so on??

http://jotman.blogspot.com/search/label/Burma%20-%20reports%20on%20the%20Hidden%20Crisis

Serf –
Some more about Yamaguchi on my blog:

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-japanese-ambassador-to-rangoon.html
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2007/10/japanese-embassy-in-rangoon-99.html