Those New Mandala readers who follow debates about economic sanctions against the Burmese government will be intrigued by this current flare-up in Australia.
The president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sharan Burrow, is lobbying for Jetstar to stop its flights to the country. All of the usual arguments for beefing up sanctions against Burma are trotted out. According to Burrow, “We [Australia] now should be part of increased sanctions, increased pressure to make sure that everything is done to bring this military rule to an end”.
It is precisely because (limited, Western, symbolic) sanctions do not bring this (or probably any) military dictatorship to “an end” that after two decades of such rhetoric the Burmese government is arguably as strong as it has ever been.
What is needed is less of these tired rhetorical flourishes. Perhaps Australia’s Union heavyweights could, instead, fund a study, starting from first principles, into the efficacy of sanctions against the Burmese government. The existing research around this question suggests that sanctions against Burma are “folly”, “caused hardship for ordinary Burmese people without significantly impacting the State Peace and Development military regime”, and have “proven to be a failure on all fronts”. None of these analyses are particularly new but they should, together, raise some serious questions for those hoping to justify an ongoing sanctions policy.
Or, if we’re too busy to read some of these deeper reflections on the topic, we could just run with the assumption that (limited, Western, symbolic) sanctions do not work except in (limited, Western, symbolic) ways.
If the goal is to unseat Than Shwe and the boys then, based on the modest available evidence, I am happy to hypothesise that the quickest way to change the terms of military rule in Burma is to make it politically viable for all the Jetstars (and McDonalds, KFCs, etc, etc) to make their Burma push. Tough-minded Western investors, competing with their Japanese, Singaporean, Thai and Chinese counterparts, will probably change Burma far more quickly than any sanctions we could ever consider.
My guess is that some of those changes would be “good”, others would probably be “bad” and a fair few would be simply indifferent. But would such an approach lead to political change in directions that are appealing to Australia’s Union bosses? I would bet on it. For many of us, this is, I’d suggest, an unpalatable realisation.
I am open to anybody who can put the counter-case, with evidence that shows how (limited, Western, symbolic) sanctions will “bring this military rule to an end”.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Charles F. // Sep 29, 2009 at 1:28 pm
The sanctions have so far failed.
The generals and their families can obtain anything they want from the shops in Singapore, which includes western made products.
They use the money given to them by firms such as Total, which could care less about sanctions.
The American govt., in the form of Senator Jim Webb, and head of the U.S. State Dept., Hillary Clinton, have now allowed Snr. Gen. Than Shwe to travel to the U.S. Upon his return to Burma Than Shwe will no doubt crow about how he outlasted the puny sanctions.
Anyone thinking that this new opening will moderate the generals is sadly deluding himself – they have been given the green light to continue their oppressive policies. The genocidal war being waged against the ethnic minorities will undoubtedly increase.
Another big loser will be China. Clinton and Webb have just dealt Than Shwe an ace. He will use it to trump Chinese threats on their common border.
2 aiontay // Sep 29, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Charles F is correct to point out that western sanctions have never been as draconian some would like to believe. There is a Lonely Planet guide to the country after all which basically suggest that more travellers will bring political change; we’ve seen how well that has worked out. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily follow that western sanction would work if only they had been and are stricter. Still, it should keep in mind that where there is real money to be made in oil or mining or whatever, sanctions have basically been limited, as the post noted.
I’m also a bit confused because if I remember correctly Thailand has plenty of KFCs and McDonald’s but based on what I read here democracy isn’t exactly flourishing these days. Is the solution to Thailand’s political problems another fast food franchise?
The quickest way to unseat Than Shwe wouldn’t be more burgers, but more bullets. Give the Kachins, Karens and Wa, and anyone else that wants to fight the regime all the guns and ammuntion they can use. The aftermath may not be pretty, but that is the only realistic way to change the regime’s behavior. Not that the American, Austrialian or European governments would ever go that far, so the future of Burma looks like more oppression with burger and fries.
3 Jacqueline M // Sep 29, 2009 at 2:19 pm
More important and immediately effective would be an end to the double economy functioning within Burma. So long as the profits that the government is receiving, from Total yes, but more from Thailand and soon to be China, from natural gas exports are declared at the official and highly inflated rate the country’s economy will appear to be weak and susceptible to sanctions. In reality, as Sean Turnell has written most convincingly, the economy is in surplus and the government is able to maintain their underdeveloped economically crippled image while funding a new capital and obtaining a nuclear reactor.
Superficial appraisals of Burma’s economy maintain the idea that sanctions can achieve anything in Burma. The government has proven itself most adept at overcoming any economic hardships, first with aid funding and now with gas profits, and if sanctions have achieved anything it is to make the government more insulated from their effects. Sanctions have instead encouraged increased relations with North Korea, Russia and Iran for their diplomatic and economic protection.
4 Bamar // Sep 29, 2009 at 2:19 pm
One can argue that “Sanctions have worked”. The generals are now openly asking for sanctions to be stopped, it shows they are hurting. It may not be the result that the world wants, there is now a sliver of hope, at the very least a dialogue has begun.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803761.html
Myanmar’s prime minister, General Thein Sein, on Monday demanded an end to economic sanctions in an address to the UN General Assembly.”Sanctions are being employed as a political tool against Myanmar and we consider them unjust,” said Thein Sein, the highest-ranking Myanmar official to address the General Assembly in 14 years. “Such acts must be stopped.”
5 Dylan Grey // Sep 29, 2009 at 2:46 pm
First of all Charles F., Than Shwe has certainly not been allowed to travel to the U.S.
His Prime Minister, Thein Sein, is currently at the UNGA – perhaps you confused the names? This is the first time someone of that rank has visited the U.S. in 14 years. Additionally, concessions were made for the Foreign Minister, U Nyan Win, who was allowed to leave the usual 25km radius of the UN building in NYC; he spent a day visiting the Myanmar Embassy, the White House, and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C.
Back to the main point…
The recent announcement of the U.S.’s new game plan for Myanmar has been interesting for a lot of long-term watchers. What remains to be seen is whether engagement, just as much as sanctions have been, will itself remain “limited, Western, symbolic”. It is hard to put much faith in a country whose foreign policy has been so flawed and so harmful towards the people of Myanmar for 20 years. While little diplomatic concessions are being made by each side (the release of Yettaw, the granting of meetings with Sen. Webb and both Than Shwe and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi vis-a-vis the visa grant to Thein Sein, the D.C. concessions), it remains to be seen what of the new engagement policy will remain (like much of the Obama administration’s foreign policy) only rhetoric, and what will be actualized.
As for Australia – the interesting part to me is that Australia’s foreign policy towards Myanmar is at times the most progressive of the Western countries (no blanket sanctions, only targeted financial/travel sanctions), but at the same time when it comes to business investment, DFAT maintains a strict “not promoting, but not condemning” policy that allows a lot of room for failure. Any Australian business can come to Myanmar and partner with unsavoury mega-companies run by cronies. DFAT would be better to promote small scale investment in industries where family and small businesses can be invested in, rather than allowing (with a hands off approach) big Australian companies to provide characters like Steven Law and U Tay Zar with more cash.
6 Tom // Sep 29, 2009 at 3:13 pm
This just popped up on my radar moments ago and I laughed heartily today when I read a story on Agent France Presse that said:
Zetty Brake, a spokeswoman for the Burma Campaign Australia, said most Myanmar residents would be unable to afford the flights.
“The people that are using these services from Burma are people with links to the regime,” she told AFP.
I’m not disputing most people can’t afford the flights, but anybody who has flown on the Jetstar services to Singapore would know a large proportion of passengers are leaving Myanmar to try and earn some money that they will then send back to their families. Remittances such as these are a crucial “lifeline” for hundreds of thousands of families and people working in Singapore can earn significantly more than in Thailand.
Besides, well connected people would be flying Silk Air, not Jetstar.
It’s sad to see this kind of rubbish still being trotted out.
7 Charles F. // Sep 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Dylan Grey is correct – I confused the names.
8 Gollum... or Sméagol?! // Sep 29, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I think it’s impossible to go back to ‘first principles’ for a study because there are no ‘first principles’ in international relations (which would be the area of study when talking about sanctions.) Unless we’re talking about a principle of all states developing democractic institutions (a self determining process)…
I think really there can only be the ‘first principles’ of a state and one of those first principles is self determination. However, maybe that’s what you are highlighting with regards to the Unions’ (or at least Shazza’s) myopic position – that to even fund a study looking at the ‘efficacy’ of sanctions would educate and prove to them that sanctions are inadequate, since they would (or are?) be unwilling to listen (or read from) to.. say an expert?
For me, sanctions go hand in hand with Myanmar’s rhetoric of self-determination. If there was no anti-neo-colonial self-determining rhetoric from the Junta, then I don’t think there would be ’symbolic’ sanctions because there would be a different paradigm for Myanmar to forge its development in. The current sanctions ultimately play into the Junta’s favour because, with my limited eye, they don’t attack anything that the Junta hasn’t made a justification for which directly supports (their own) ’self-determination.’ So yes, “Western” foreign policy toward Myanmar seems to just sadly mirror the Junta’s own sad agenda…
9 Susie Wong // Sep 30, 2009 at 2:45 am
Today, Kurt Campbell the assistant secretary of state for Asia, said a long-running policy review by the U.S. had concluded that the Myanmar leadership was eager for dialogue. The U.S. intends to pursue that interest but insisted it would keep sanctions and keep pressing the military regime on democracy. However, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, the Chairman of East Asia Affairs, subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee thinks the current policy has isolated Myanmar people from the international community and made it hard to bring cultural and political change to the country.
There are various reasons why ASEAN countries, China and India refuse to follow the U.S. economic sanction approach. It has been perceived that the U.S. applied double standards in single out only Myanmar when Thailand’s democratization has also been manipulated by the military. Imposing economic sanctions based on democratic values and norms without taking into account the strategic ramifications, has push Myanmar toward acquiring nuclear weapons in defending its sovereignty and regime change from the superpower. This perceived threat definitely is working against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In other words, the U.S. foreign policy increases the spread of nuclear weapons.
In addition, before imposing a certain form of politics, the stage of the country’s economic base should be taken into consideration. During the Cold War era, while the countries under the U.S. Sphere of Influence underwent the industrialization process following the export-oriented model, Myanmar leaders joined the non-aligned camp and rejected market economy development. While Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea recognized their economic policy mistakes and adjusted during the 1980s-1990s, Myanmar didn’t do so due to its preoccupied with internal problems. As a result, Myanmar falls behind its neighboring countries in term of economic growth. During the transformation period, laying the market economy infrastructure, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines had authoritarian regimes. These countries now have a higher gross national product yet they still have difficulty in transition to democracy as we see in Thailand. Foreign policy that puts the emphasis only on the political culture of democratic norms without taking into the consideration the political economy of the economic base would only be seen as naive and bullying a smaller, weaker country.
Lastly, with dominant historical legacies and a wealth of natural resources, Myanmar is one of the major de facto powers in Southeast Asia. In order to understand Myanmar leaders’ psychology and perception, it is important to understand the country’s historical experiences. Myanmar experienced a direct colonial rule under the British, this had a strong imprint on Myanmar leaders’ emotions and pride to the point that they changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. President Obama states that the U.S. will not rely only on military measures but will include diplomacy, development, and intelligence instruments in the projection of its foreign policy. He emphasizes the importance of making the world understand U.S. principles and values in opportunity, liberty, progress, and mutual respects among nations.
I believe understanding Myanmar economic background, the role of pride, and the ramification of nuclear proliferation, would avert future serious disaster in Southeast Asia region.
10 Hla Oo // Sep 30, 2009 at 2:59 am
ACTU’s Burrow doesn’t really seem to know what she is talking about. If Jetstar is forced to pull out it will just help Tiger Airways get more business out of Burma as Singaporeans don’t give a stuff about Burmese politics.
Sanctions hurt both Generals and ordinary Burmese, but definitely and brutally harsher on the poor workers. When US and EU abruptly stopped textile imports from Burma it destroyed overnight a steadily growing industry that employed almost quarter a million Burmese women and girls. Many of the unemployed females ended up in so-called entertainment industry as karaoke girls or massage parlor girls or worse as prostitutes.
The so-called Burmese exiles now enjoying newly found comfortable lives in the West and ruthlessly calling for harsher sanctions should have known that particular case of human suffering.
11 Moe Aung // Sep 30, 2009 at 9:47 am
Charles F.,
A green light it is as far as the generals are concerned to carry on business as usual. Give them an inch, and they’d feel vindicated and even exonerated, more confident than ever.
aiontay,
The quickest way to unseat Than Shwe wouldn’t be more burgers, but more bullets…. Not that the American, Austrialian or European governments would ever go that far, so the future of Burma looks like more oppression with burger and fries.
The first I agree with. The second, I’m not sure if they’d hold back once some ‘Contras’ appear on the scene to suit some ‘Reagan’, although this scenario is only ever likely against left wing Marxist governments and never against right wing military dictators, never mind the parallels in the way democracy and human rights get short shrift.
Bamar,
I agree about the sanctions having a palpable effect on the regime, otherwise why would they so badly want them lifted? For one thing, they would dearly love to take their wives shopping to Oxford Street and Manhattan, Harrods and Tiffany’s, rather than to Orchard Road. They’d rather send their offspring to Oxbridge and Ivy League too than to Singapore or Moscow. It’s definitely a thorn in their side. It goes hand in hand with seeking legitimacy through the imminent sham elections to carry on business as usual regardless, and even more business literally their way.
Dylan Grey,
Major trading countries to promote small scale investment in industries where family and small businesses can be invested in sounds great and laudable in theory but it’s probably asking too much. Even in their domestic situation they’d pay lip service to small and middling businesses to win their votes, but they are all too ready to sacrifice this very important sector whenever the economy goes pear-shaped, so that big business, those pillars of capitalism, can fight another day.
Tom,
Jetstar reminds me of a recent proposal by the Burma Campaign in London to stop student visas allegedly because only those who have connections to the junta can afford to come. Some of them may be related though not close family, but a blanket ban?!
Gollum… or Sméagol?!,
Your assertion that anti-neo-colonial self-determining rhetoric from the Junta is responsible for the sanctions, if I may say so, is pretty superficial. Rhetoric begets rhetoric, and actions produce reactions. Relentless repression and widespread and systemic human rights abuses hardly count for rhetoric no matter how the regime justifies itself. The sanctions are limited, Western, symbolic because it is by its very nature anti-business, going against the grain of the sacred tenets of free trade and open markets, and being compelled to put people before profits.
Hla Oo,
Both blanket and mistargeted sanctions will have an adverse effect on the populace. A very blunt instrument when not properly thought out and intelligently employed.
12 Bamar // Sep 30, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hla Oo,
I am not sure what the Sharons & Zettys are trying to achieve, when the very person they are rallying to help is making gestures for sanctions to be lifted. I feel like a person being manhandled to sit down when I know standing up will be good for me and I need help to stand up not forced to sit down.
Moe Aung,
Ah, you forgot to mention, DavidJones, Myer, ANU, Monash, UTS. Do you know Than Shwe’s daughter is getting her PhD from Beijing University?
13 Moe Aung // Oct 1, 2009 at 5:43 am
Bamar,
My sincere apologies to all. How very insensitive of me! I am so sorry. I’m bound to blame it on the old colonial ties and the Anglo-American dominance of today’s world order for the bias. Than Shwe’s daughter will find that the Chinese are keen to learn English which I’m sure she would have preferred to Mandarin herself. The regime has sent hundreds of army officers to Moscow to study, so we’d have ‘Moscow Men’ instead of ‘Barkeley Boys’ that graced Indonesia’s military in the 6os ushering in the Suharto era.
One positive thing that has come out of this now substantial Burmese diaspora, whether by choice or driven by circumstances thanks to life under our dear generals, is that we have broadened our horizons far and wide which can only be good for the future. Still it is a disgrace that our universities, whatever passes for higher education these days, have yet to offer courses on Indian, Chinese or SE Asian studies.
14 aiontay // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Moe Aung,
Maybe foreign governments would support an armed opposition, but it will still be oppression with burgers and fries.
15 Moe Aung // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:42 pm
aiontay,
I get the feeling you are right once they manage to get their own kind of people, their placemen like Allawi and Karzi. We’d still have burger and fries with ASSK I’m sure, hopefully without the power corrupting her. Whenever a new ruling class/elite forms, like the military in Burma or the nomenclatura of the old Soviet bloc, the people get short shrift.
16 In the same breath: Burma, China…Thailand // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:57 am
[...] Mic Looby, who co-authored the 2001 Lonely Planet guide to Burma, has weighed into the ongoing debate about Burma sanctions. It is well worth reading in full. One of the key paragraphs launches a [...]
17 Moe Aung // Oct 3, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Susie Wong,
A belated thanks for your post. You put it in a nutshell. Even more impressive how well you understand the country, if you are not of Burmese origin. Hopefully you haven’t come to the conclusion that the generals must not just be understood but appeased like our own Thant Myint-U.
18 Success for the Burma sanctions campaign? // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:22 pm
[...] that such a sanctions push, particularly at this late hour, does anything but reinforce the “limited, Western, symbolic” character of so much of our Burma policy [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.