David Scott Mathieson, the Human Rights Watch “Burma-watcher”, has written an essay on Australian approaches to Burma. From certain perspectives I expect this would be considered a parochial matter. But my sense is that the current debate here in Australia around, crudely, “sanctions” and “engagement” is one that speaks to the wider yearning for a more effective set of policies towards Southeast Asia’s most famous military dictatorship.
Mathieson makes a number of very fair points about Australia’s “well-rounded” policy on Burma and offers some useful suggestions on “diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and sanctions”. He also takes aim at the recent pro-sanctions lobbying of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Burma Campaign Australia. Regular New Mandala readers will recall that I have also questioned their intevention in the Burma sanctions debate (here, here and here). Mathieson introduces a handy turn of phrase when he reflects that the current campaign for tougher sanctions “hark[s] back to the consumer boycotts of the 1990s”.
As far as I know, the few serious reflections on that era of sanctions suggest that, by almost any measure, they were profoundly ineffective. If the pro-boycott/pro-sanctions advocates are hoping to win this debate I think they will need to do a better job of persuading us that there is more than “limited, Western, symbolic” value in their arguments.
Standing up for human rights in Burma is, without any doubt, a big and important job. But the experience of decades suggests that finding good levers for improving the lives of ordinary people in Burma is the really hard part. Earlier efforts to beef up sanctions have only left us puzzling at their limited impact, and the ongoing stalemate they have left behind.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Charles F. // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sanctions and boycotts don’t work unless you have 100% participation.
ALot of countries made noises about boycotting Burma, but then engaged in secret, back room deals.
2 David Brown // Oct 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm
convincing the countries that purchase Burmas resources, eg Thailand, China, to make their payments directly into the Burmese national accounts (in Kyats) rather than into the US$ accounts of the Burmese Junta would be a real good start
then there would be more visibility on how much money is withheld from the Burmese people by the Junta… and the international community would have a better handle on the size and type of problem
3 Matt // Oct 28, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Nicholas -
Mathieson makes an important argument that I’m not sure has been addressed:
“Removing the sanctions too fast sends the wrong message, especially when the SPDC makes their repeal such a prominent condition for negotiation. Sanctions, therefore, have a prime usefulness, and should be scrapped only incrementally in line with significant concessions from the regime.”
Sanctions haven’t worked, to be sure. Does this automatically mean the reverse is true – that lifting them, now, would be more effective? In some contexts, I think so. In others, I think not; timing is an important consideration.
An aside: is it necessary to lump people together as “pro-boycott/pro-sanctions advocates”? A boycott and sanctions are not necessarily the same, nor are the positions of many people engaging in this “debate,” on New Mandala and elsewhere. We might be better off having a discussion, and not pushing people to one side or the other.
4 Nicholas Farrelly // Oct 28, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Thanks Matt,
This is helpful input. I’m not sure, either, about what language best serves the purpose of this discussion. Fight, boycott, sanction, oppose, pressure, moderate, engage, deal, apologise, legitimise, support, defend — this is the language that has been inherited. And its not quite a spectrum…not quite a perfect circle. As the character of the terrain changes there are, I accept, important changes to the vocabulary that could be required. I am, as ever, open to suggestions about how we best characterise the positions that we see; and how we best calibrate the various “levers” (pressure points, friction points, influences, etc, etc) that are being debated.
A natural “problem” with much of what we currently discuss is that two decades (plus) of baggage colours the interpretations. Are there good ways of side-stepping that? I am keen to explore the possibility that there might be.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
5 Matt // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Nich -
Perhaps we’re better off referring to the arguments themselves, rather than assigning/attributing them to particular, imagined “sides.”
What do you think about the above Mathieson quote regarding timing? As I said before, I think this has to be a consideration and I’d be curious to hear what you think about it.
- m
6 Nicholas Farrelly // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Matt,
Thanks for this.
Of course, I agree with Dave Mathieson’s general point about the importance of timing and calibration in any effort to soften/remove sanctions. In the medium term there is surely something to be said for easing off, if that is smart, at the telling moments. But I wonder what happens if that proves unsuccessful. I have a lingering sense that any “limited, Western, symbolic” sanctions are relatively easy for the Burmese government to manage. They have played this game for many years now; much longer than most of those who plot to unseat them. But are there unexpected moves (summed up, in one sense, by my long-standing speculation on what an influx of Western multinational interest might mean…) that could unsettle the international/domestic situation that the SPDC has come to enjoy. Most of the countries that are currently sanctioning the regime are wealthy, attractive and innovative places. Perhaps we shouldn’t discount what those attributes can mean when the carrots and the sticks are used more aggressively, and with more attention to taking new risks.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
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.