Adding their voices to the current debate about sanctions against the Burmese government, Alison Vicary and Sean Turnell have used an opinion piece in The Age to argue that “[l]ifting economic sanctions now would not only embolden Burma’s present reform-shy regime, but also greatly deleverage the ability of the US, Australia and like-minded countries to influence future events”.
In sum, this is one of the better, and pithier, defences of sanctions policy that you are likely to read. Comments from New Mandala readers are very welcome here.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Dylan Grey // Oct 6, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I was not impressed with this article by Vicary and Turnell/ Burma Economic Watch. I usually look forward to inciseful economic commentary from Turnell and team…
Perhaps because of its format (op/ed in mainstream newspaper), this article washes over the nuances of sanctions policy.
The way it is written is confusing… I think that the differences between the U.S. blanket sanctions policy and Australia’s targetted sanctions policy need to be explained in the article in order for the reader to comprehend the authors’ statement.
The recent debate that has been discussed is different in Washington than it is in Canberra… the conversations that have been happening as of late have been in reaction to the U.S.A’s decision to re-orient their policy towards some of as yet, undetermined form of ‘engagement’. The possibility of easing on sanctions would certainly be a bargaining chip to use once negotiations get much, much deeper, but is certainly (as stated by Mr. Kurt Campbell) not on the cards for the time being.
When it comes to Australia, I don’t think that anyone in their right mind is promoting the removal of Australia’s targetted financial and travel sanctions towards the generals who run Myanmar, and their business cronies. I highly doubt that Canberra is going to let Than Shwe or U Tay Zar visit Surfer’s Paradise on holiday anytime soon.
Australia maintains a policy that is neither encouraging or discouraging towards Australian businesses investing in Myanmar. This is a seperate debate, and on that was discussed on New Mandala earlier this week after the Burma Campaign Australia released some comments on boycotting some Australian companies.
I am very surprised that these major differences in sanctions and investment policies were not discussed in The Age article by Turnell and Vicary.
Additionally, the article fails to discuss how U.S. and E.U. sanctions have hurt farmers, villagers, and small business owners. While yes, there are things like ‘national prestige’ projects, and large industry projects such as those in the oil and gas sector, there is a thriving business class in Myanmar that no one cares to discuss, who are suffereing majorly from bans on exports of textiles, seafood, and other agricultural products to the west…
2 Bamar // Oct 7, 2009 at 12:13 am
Vicary /Turnell is correct in saying that the disastrous turnaround of Burma’s economic woes has nothing to do with sanctions imposed, it further went on to say that it was chronic economic mismanagement, might I add that it is due to chronic political naivety and tunnel-vision simple-mindedness as well.
It just happens to be very convenient for the junta to put the blame on sanctions and the opposition as the source of their woes.
Fifty years ago, when the Ne Win regime took over, the xenophobic regime isolated itself from everyone and refused all aid, including and especially from China. The current regime is now at the other extreme end. It has opened itself up to whoever would like to engage with them, China, India, Russia, South Korea, North Korea, Iran, ASEAN …
I do not agree with Vicary/Turnell that lifting sanctions will greatly deleverage the power of the West to influence the regime. What leverage have they got anyway? If there is a ghost of a leverage, it could be now when it is combined with other circumstances. Yes, the financial targeted sanctions are hurting; the junta feels threatened by the fast growing influence and its economic dependence on China; the junta is displeased with China’s reluctance to cooperate with its ambitions to unite/control/eradicate the cease-fire groups; Than Shwe is getting old and will be looking for his future security and that of his off-springs; most of all the military regime is very “Sino”-phobic and will always be.
3 Moe Aung // Oct 7, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“a simple-minded looter, destroying what it can neither create nor understand.”
A very apt description of the junta, since all the brain power seems concentrated on staying in power and enriching themselves at the expense of an entire nation.
A well-targeted and nuanced approach in both engagement and sanctions is called for if leverage is to be effective, and I agree with Bamar that the right moment is now when both instruments are to hand. What kind of mileage this will have in dealing with the utterly inflexible junta however remains to be seen. It will go through the motions alright as usual, but anything substantial? At least the US will try and likely more successful than the UN.
A recent comment by a Chinese official is apt when he said the Sino-Burmese relationship has been Machiavellian, driven by (surprise, surprise) self-interest.
4 Susie Wong // Oct 9, 2009 at 4:16 am
I have different perspectives for the following reasons.
On Michael Green:
1. The “all against one”(in Green’s word “strength of numbers”) against Myanmar, is the strategy that no one will adopt. Thus far, Vietnam, Laos, and Kampuchea have exercised veto power within the ASEAN to ally with Myanmar. The Indian military is ongoing engagement with the Burmese Army. China will continue to protect its national interests in its immediate sphere.
2. Taro Aso of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was seriously defeated in the last election. The LDP ideas of changing the Japanese constitution article 9 to re-militarize Japan and its objective to block China access to the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal is an offensive strategy that majority of Japanese disagree with.
3. Obama Administration is pursuing “yes we can at home, and no we can’t abroad,” that’s why the U.S. signed a friendship treaty with ASEAN on July 22, 2009. The U.S. has learned its military lessons from the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
4. It is wrong to corner Myanmar and threaten its regime change with the words like “territorial integrity of Burma,” “coordination on humanitarian relief.” No wonder why Myanmar opts for nuclear. Greeen’s approach is counter-productive to the international security regime of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
On Sean Turnell:
1. I disagree with Turnell that “Burma’s economic problems require fundamental political reform to solve.” Turnell should have review the literature on how ASEAN countries under the U.S. sphere of influence develop its market institutions. In Thailand, with the assistance of the U.S., Dr. Puey Unphakorn (Giles Unpakorn’s father) as the Central Bank Governor had laid the economic fundamentals by coordinating Macroeconomic policy both Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy with the First National Economic Development Plan which enabled Thailand to transform from exporting of natural primary products to exports of value-added manufacture goods. Myanmar has not gone through that process, I am sure that the World Bank can assist on this matter because Myanmar economic problems require fundamental economic reform to solve.
2. There is no reason to single out Myanmar when kickbacks, rent-seeking are still a usual business in Thailand after over 30 years of market fundamentals was in place.
In conclusion, Obama Administration shows U.S. leadership by overturning the unproductive policy towards Myanmar. Isolationism only brings fear and causes nuclear proliferation. International trade will bring opportunities and creates jobs for everyone.
5 Moe Aung // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Susie Wong,
Burma’s economic problems do have a political basis – the lack of both political will and vision that you rightly referred to (never mind democracy and human rights issues, a benevolent autocrat will do just fine, thank you very much) on the part of a regime that shows no sign of redeeming themselves and remains convinced that the military must continue to shape the future of the country.
I agree they don’t have a monopoly on kickbacks and rent-seeking albeit a rather extreme example, and that isolationism and going nuclear have a causal link. Obama’s policy of careful rapprochement is a pragmatic and sensible carrot and stick approach, not all stick and no carrot or vice versa, and yes, international trade will bring opportunities and creates jobs for everyone, at least some trickle-down.
The regime however controls all economic activities on a whim, and shows little willingness to share the national pie. Admittedly it has broadened its social and political support base by creating a crony business class but an overwhelming majority has yet to reap the rewards of its rather belated conversion to open markets and globalisation after a fashion. If the ‘roaring’ trade it carries on with its neighbours and other friendly nations is anything to go by (’isolation’ is only half-isolation and Westerly), I don’t see Yangon sparkling in the night or the Burmese holding daily feasts for their monks or pwe festivals any time soon.
6 Susie Wong // Oct 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Whether you like it or not, the Myanmar military is correct in seeing themselves as the institution to shape the future of their country at present time. If you review the literature of the late late comers (meaning third world countries), the authoritarian nature of the State is essential at the beginning of its transition from a third world developing country to a newly industrializing country. Those developing countries under U.S. sphere of influence followed this model and they are successful to a certain degree depending upon the internal context. South Korea Park Chung Hee (1962), Thailand Sarit (1957), Indonesia Suharto (1965), the Philippines Marcos (1962), etc. These countries started their First Economic Development Plan roughly about the same time. The process was to have a strong State (authoritarian) to control internal security and domestic politics, while having technocrats to lay the economic infrastructure toward market economy. Singapore Lee Kwan Yew and South Korea are examples. They managed to move from dirt poor developing countries to the first world with high GNP per capita and their population are educated with core intelligence. Thailand would have been developed by now had Dr. Puey Ungphakorn were in charge throughout the process. The values, worldviews, character and the abilities of leaders of course matter. I am sure Myanmar leadership can distinguish the difference between Dr. Puey Ungphakorn and Lee Kwan Yew from Phumipon, in choosing the leadership composition for the economic development.
Once you have all the economic fundamentals in place then you need to democratize in order to achieve two purposes: the participation of economic elites in politics and the income distribution to the public.
Economic growth and social development take time. However, with the present day information technology, globalization, and the attitude of the U.S. leaders to engage with Myanmar, I think the transformation could be rather fast. After all Myanmar had shown that she could go nuclear so quickly. Economic growth will solve Myanmar political problems substantially, I am sure it is high in the leadership agenda.
7 Moe Aung // Oct 10, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Susie Wong,
Your faith in the good generals and ‘economic determinism’ is so touching your insightful summary of Burma elsewhere (Burma sanctions: limited…) has rather lost its shine. You conveniently failed to mention the political upheavals also shared in all those examples you listed. Singapore is effectively a one-party state, and I agree (as in a benevolent autocrat) that an authoritarian system can be very effective for economic development given the political will, an efficient state machine and the absence of checks and balances. Stalin caught up with the West enough to be able to defeat Germany, the most advanced industrialised European nation at the time.
And here’s the rub: the participation of economic elites in politics and the income distribution to the public. As in the topic of the other thread referred to above, it will be limited, symbolic….
8 hclau // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:11 am
Not a single change (for the better) has been achieved through the last 50 years of saunctions applied by the west. All saunctions do is to impoverish the general population of the country that it is imposed upon. The ruling class is never affected.
Has an objective (or objectives) for imposing a saunction been ever expounded clearly and specifically? I have never seen one except for “slogan” type aims.
To me, it is time to end saunctions and begin engagements, It is hard to dictate to avlarge educated middle class population.
9 aiontay // Oct 11, 2009 at 11:50 am
Was the Burmese Way to Socialism imposed by the US?
10 Bamar // Oct 12, 2009 at 3:28 am
I wish I have as much as just a teeny weeny bit of Susie Wong’s faith in the “Myanmar military”. From the examples you stated, South Korea was under Park’s authoritarian rule for 18 years (61-79); Thailand under Sarit’s for 6 years (57-63); Indonesia under Suharto’s for 32 years; Philippines under Marcos’ for 21 years; Burma under Ne Win’s for 26 years (62-88) and Than Shwe’s for 17 years giving Burma a total of under authoritarian rule for 43 years! Than Shwe is neither Park Chung Hee nor Lee Kwan Yew, don’t forget he is a ruthless mass murderer who kills young innocent students, his own citizens, monks….. just to hang on to power.
It is not a matter of “whether we like it or not…”, it is a matter of we wish what you said were true for the sake of the people of Burma.
11 Moe Aung // Oct 12, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Bamar ,
Well said. It’s not what we like, it’s what they are – not just irredeemably selfish and greedy at the expense of an entire nation, but ruthlessly and relentlessly repressive and violent in order to stay in power for eternity.
12 planB // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:10 am
Bamar
Marcos, Suharto, S Korea, Tai WAn never enjoy the benefit of sanctions. You can throw in China too.
Contrary to sanctions, “All” benefited form massive western aids despite of similar atrocities commited by respective dictators.
The difference?
After all the # of years of their respective tyranny, in the end they all become “extinct”when the respective population become better off economically and education wise “remove them”.
At present Myanmar is headed towards N. KOrea’s fate if not for Buddhism.
As for China, the government can be as repressive as any most repressive one when it choose to be but do not most instances.
WHy? “Economy STupid”.
Why fight if one can buy off with the largest bank account presently in the world.
13 planB // Nov 3, 2009 at 4:05 am
AS for Turnell and Vicary:
Let me pose you these questions
1)Is it ethical for an economist to be advocating policies that justify any actions “against” or “for” a sector of economy beyond analysis that will provide (+) result or avoid (-) future?
Let alone a country’s?
2) Is it an economist job to describe a government as worst than parasitic without having even visit that country.
3) Is there any economic principles and Historical facts that support economic sanctions that can change the behavior of any government.
If Turnell and Vicary answer these question honestly to themselves they might just realize how low they have sunk from their Ivory Tower view of the real world.
14 planB // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:02 am
Truth or Fiction?
The Mundane ones:
1)”There are no effective property rights in Burma, contract enforcement is non-existent,”
2)”Most of Burma’s leading corporations are owned by serving and retired military officers, and the country is judged by Transparency International as the second-most corrupt in the world.2″
The Serious Ones:
1)”Burma spends a mere 1.4 per cent of GDP on health and education, less than half that spent by the next poorest member of ASEAN,”
2)” and secondary school has become the preserve of children of the (relatively) well- off. Universities (when they are allowed to open), almost exclusively belong to the ‘connected’ elite”
These are but some examples of some absolutely unproven from first few pages alone.
15 planB // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:22 am
Any academic who put these kind of ” statements ” out there either have an “Academic Balls of STeel” or blinded by the extreme prejudice.
That will make Turnell and Vicary plain old garden variety SPDC hater who claim to fame is bashing SPDC for the past decades.
Even giving them the benefit of the doubt of an idiot proof 99 to 1 in their favor of SPDC hurt the people 99% of the time.
Is it justifiable that the 1% is caused by their advocacy is OK?
That is not even mentioning the the insane cascade of vilification that followed after such inaccurate statements which were repeated used as absolute truth that cause so much sufferings.
Please read the contrasting responsible article by fellow academic and realize the gravity of Sean Turnell and Vicary committed against thE Burmese people.
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.