Feb 8th 2011, 16:09 by R.C. | JAKARTA
EVER since national elections in early November and then the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the pro-democracy opposition, from something close to 20 years' in detention, Myanmar-watchers have been waiting with bated breath to see which way she and her party would jump on the tricky issue of sanctions. At last, it seems, we have something of an answer.
Maintaining Western countries’ sanctions against Myanmar and its military regime were for many years a rallying cry for human-rights activists and opposition groups. Recently though there have been calls from within that community to reassess the policy in the light of what some see as progress towards greater freedom and democracy—such as the elections, the meeting of a first parliament in 20 years, to say nothing of the release of Ms Suu Kyi herself. The pressure has been mounting. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has called several times for sanctions to be lifted. More pertinently perhaps, five of Myanmar’s “ethnic-based” opposition parties recently argued for the same.
On February 7th Miss Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), issued a statement to the effect that—after a lot of consultation and discussion—they have decided that sanctions should stay. At least for the moment. The length of time it took for the NLD to say this reflects the fact that the issue has become a subject of live debate within the party. Nonetheless, the NLD was quite clear about the fact that the progress that others have claimed to see is in fact a sham; the regime, they say, should not be rewarded for doing so very little.
The NLD rebutted the charge that the sanctions serve only to impoverish the ordinary people of Myanmar—the very people that the NLD professes to represent—rather than to penalise the regime. One NLD official, Tin Oo, was quoted as saying that after extensive research the party had found “that sanctions affect only the leaders of the regime and their close business associates, not the majority of the people.” So, that would appear to be that, then.
But not quite, I think. The NLD must be aware that it will have disappointed many policymakers and business interests in the West who have been hoping to return, if only to offer some counterweight to China and Thailand in their accelerating exploitation of Myanmar’s natural resources. Accordingly, the NLD has given itself some wiggle room. Spokesmen say that the party is keen to “listen” to the people who argue that sanctions ought be lifted, and to have more discussions. We haven’t seen the last of this matter.
On this blog our correspondents across Asia survey its many fast-changing parts, from Afghanistan to the Pacific islands, stopping at all points in between to take in politics, business, pan-Asian themes and local arcana.
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Sanctions probably do hurt the top generals and their business cronies a bit, mainly because their children like to travel to the West (perhaps sanctions prevented Than Shwe's grandson from buying Manchester United? lol) but to be fair, the NLD and Suu Kyi should also ask for the same kind of sanctions (including a strict arms embargo) from China, North Korea, Thailand, Singapore (where the generals stash away most of their cash), South Korea, Malaysia, India, ... Otherwise it's all double-standards, hypocritical and ineffective. I've never heard Suu Kyi criticise China publicly for supporting the junta, even when US Senator Webb asked her that question directly, during his remarkable trip to Burma.
Anyway, sanctions won't work if there are enormous gas leaks and other leaks between Burma and the neighbouring countries, especially China. Even some Western companies (like Total) knew how to get around them.
It seems it's all more of the same in Burma.
Let's take a look at the track record of international sanctions: have they worked against North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Burma, or China (before Nixon)? Sanctions hurt the dictators a little, but the ordinary people a lot, and they serve as an obvious scapegoat when the dictators inevitably mismanage the economy: blame it on the sanctions!
The local political groups that called for sanctions to be removed – which included not only five ethnic-based political parties mentioned here, but also the two largest opposition Burmese parties, the National Democratic Force and Democratic Party – did not do so because of any supposed progress on human rights or political reform.
Their argument was based on three points. Sanctions have failed to induce positive change, have hurt ordinary people more than the generals and, perhaps most importantly, their removal could be used to improve dialogue and national reconciliation between stakeholders, ie. the opposition and the military.
I think the parties were correct on at least the first two of these, and the NLD has once again shot themselves in the foot for not recognising the damage sanctions have caused, let alone the futility of imposing them. The leadership has simply shown how disconnected from the general population they are.
Perhaps Tin Oo could also explain why the NLD (or anyone else) cannot cite any example of sanctions having influenced any decision by the regime since they were first imposed more than a decade ago. I challenge Tin Oo to produce any Myanmar employee of any NGO in Myanmar who supports sanctions. Sanctions have achieved nothing other than to exacerbate the suffering of the ordinary Myanmar people and to serve China's geo-strategic interests. They are a cruel and disgraceful failure.