The problem is that engagement with Burma has been tried many times before, and always without success. Nor is it the first time the regime has promised to free Suu Kyi, or that Suu Kyi has expressed her willingness to meet the generals. The patterns are all too familiar, the accommodating noises from the generals eerily similar to those uttered before.
- Extracted from Graham Reilly, “Burma engagement offers false hope”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 November 2009.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Susie Wong // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm
The problem with Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and Albright, is that they do not have much understanding of Asian culture and the post-Cold War strategic landscape, so they see Aung San Suu Kyi issue as helping another woman from male chauvinism, something like woman to woman. They also are unable to distinguish the impact of economic ideology to political choice. I mean if the U.S. uses a threat of economic sanction or financial incentive toward Thailand, that foreign policy instrument would work immediately. The same instrument would be ineffective in Myanmar because Burmese elites have different economic and political values and worldviews from the Thai elites. I don’t think we can apply one standard cookie cutter of rational choice without taking context, values and perception of the other side into consideration. Myanmar cannot yield to the demand of the U.S. because the issue involves Myanmar security. In other words, Hillary Clinton analyzes Myanmar from individual and national level of analysis while Myanmar considers Aung San Suu Kyi at the international level of analysis with national security concern. Hillary Clinton made a wrong calculation. She didn’t have genuine intention for an engagement beyond rhetoric.
2 planB // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:10 pm
After 2 decades of relentless vilification, sanctions and constant threat of being topple the west have the audacity to assume that just by saying “let’s talk” will make SPDC salivate for west’s trade.
The SPDC survived albeit at the expense of the citizenry.
DO you think the west might like to even admit that fact let alone dignify the damages in terms of sufferings of the maost vulnerable?
SUsie Wong you are correct. Hillary is a good example of the west do not know Burmese or even care to know.
Sanctioned for 2 decades expecting result of engagement in western term for 2decades more?
As I see it there is no genuine engagement effort by the west.
Yet
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.