The Obama administration recently announced the results of its long-awaited Burma policy review. On the face of it the outcome is sound. The United States will maintain existing sanctions on Burma's brutal regime, while attempting a dialogue with the generals. The combination of engagement plus pressure is precisely the package long advocated by Burma's democracy movement and its jailed leader, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Whether team Obama has the conviction and fortitude for successful negotiations is an open question.
For many years the policy debate about Burma has been polarized and oversimplified, constructed as a false choice between engagement or sanctions. Critics of sanctions regard themselves as pro-engagement, and accuse sanctions advocates of seeking to isolate the regime. But the goal of sanctions isn't isolation, the goal is to deprive the junta of legitimacy and to provide the country's democracy movement with greater leverage. Ever since 1988, "dialogue" has been Aung San Suu Kyi's mantra. The regime could not have a more reasonable opponent, and she recently has reiterated her call for dialogue in a letter to the dictator, Senior General Than Shwe. The purpose of sanctions and other forms of pressure, if properly targeted, is to get the generals to the negotiating table.
The broad thrust of the Obama administration's new Burma approach is therefore welcome. The debate should not be about whether to pursue engagement or pressure, but rather what type of engagement, with whom, and what form of pressure. There must be
no repeats of last month's decision, for example, to waive the U.S. visa ban and allow Burma's foreign minister to sneak into Washington, D.C. He had a chat with Democratic Senator Jim Webb but, to our knowledge, had no conversation with administration officials. One of Southeast Asia's most brutal generals was allowed to inspect repair work at the Burmese embassy and go sightseeing. It was the worst of all worlds. Either the United States should maintain the visa ban on potential war criminals or invite them to join open, frank, direct, and accountable dialogue.
Indeed, only high-level engagement with Than Shwe would have any effect, as he alone makes the decisions. Friendly chats with middle-ranking officials will achieve nothing. Engagement must also include Aung San Suu Kyi, the democracy movement, and the ethnic nationalities. Clear benchmarks are needed. All talks should be co-ordinated with other actors, particularly the United Nations and the European Union, in order to present a united front of international opposition.
Pressure must be maintained if engagement is to have any chance of success. Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, told a Senate hearing last week that "lifting or easing sanctions at the outset of a dialogue without meaningful progress on our concerns would be a mistake." Precisely. It was a clear rebuff to the regime's new best Ameican friend, Senator Webb, who wants to lift all sanctions immediately,
Campbell was ambivalent about the regime's planned elections in 2010, saying only that he would "assess the conditions." But the conditions are very clear. Aung San Suu Kyi is barred from participating, and has been given another eighteen months under house arrest to keep her out of the way. Last year's sham referendum on a new constitution tells us exactly how the regime intends to behave. Most importantly, the new constitution--upon which elections will be based--is a profoundly undemocratic document, intended only to preserve military rule. It does nothing to protect human rights or recognize Burma's ethnic groups. A Burmese activist calls it "a marriage proposal from a rapist." The Obama administration should urge the regime to amend it.
|
