Why would the EU need to appease Burma? Like most Western governments, the EU in the early 1990s and 2000s was very open to policy advice from the opposition. But after 15 years (which is three or four life times for most elected governments), the EU started to question the soundness of the opposition’s strategy, which was based mainly on confronting and isolating the Burmese regime.
We have to remember that during the period that Burma has been in conflict with itself, Europe was rediscovering itself by reconciling differences, opening borders and trying to resolve most conflicts through negotiations. The EU began to develop its own Burma policy based on democratic principles, but also exploring ways to help resolve the problems so that democracy can prosper in Burma.
No one can accuse the EU of not being comprehensive. It takes years to develop a policy and it requires the elected governments of twenty-seven nations to unanimously agree. But since the EU was no longer 100 percent in agreement with the Burmese opposition, especially those in exile, some people started claiming that the EU is soft on democracy and human rights and that it is lop-sided in its approach to the regime. The EU could never abandon democratic principles even if all the 27 governments agreed, because the people of Europe would never accept it. Therefore, we can rest assured on that point. We need to instead examine ourselves first to see if we are being democratic before blaming others.
I believe the EU will continue to engage the government of Myanmar [Burma]. It will help build up the capacity of both civil society and the civil service (health, education, livelihood, poverty eradication, economy, environment, etc.). The concept is that without an empowered civil society, people’s rights will not be fully protected. Similarly, without a functioning non-corrupt professional civil service, no government can deliver essential services to the people.
The EU may lift sanctions if they are satisfied that the reforms are genuine. Releasing political prisoners would be one of the factors it would consider. But sanctions are not the cornerstone in EU policy. The key is genuine policy dialogue and cooperation to bring about a democratic, just and open society. The IMF and the World Bank may want to provide greater technical and financial assistance. But given that US presidential elections are next year, I very much doubt much can be expected from the US until that is over. Burma is just not a priority.
Q: You once backed the sanctions policy on Burma and now you are seen as a proponent of engagement. What made you change your mind?
A: People get emotional when sanctions are discussed. It becomes a debate about whether wrong-doers should be allowed to prosper or be punished. While sanctions may have that moral aspect to them, sanctions were seen mainly as a political tool when we (the NCGUB, National Council for the Union of Burma, National League for Democracy-Liberated Areas, etc.) first discussed them in the early 1990s. The various governments also enacted sanctions to achieve political goals. The question is, were the goals achieved? If not, we should discontinue them. We had proposed sanctions because we wanted the regime to talk to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We had hoped that a compromise could be reached, and that democracy and human rights would be restored. The facts are that short of a military intervention (which will not happen), there will never be enough pressure on the military to make them compromise. Applying more sanctions is like trying to fill a leaky balloon with air. It will never get filled. It is not a question of rewarding the generals by lifting sanctions.
Sanctions also paralyzed the international community. Nobody wanted to take the initiative for fear of being labeled as undemocratic and supporting the regime. We needed the international community to be more active in other ways to help bring about change. The paralysis was not useful to us or helpful to the people of Burma. That was why I no longer supported sanctions. When we cannot get what we want in exactly the way that we want it, we need to find a way to get what we want given the circumstances. For example, U Thein Sein is talking with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. They seem to have reached some kind of understanding. They seem prepared to compromise. Is that not what we initially wanted? Yet some of us are still asking for more sanctions. What do we want? We have become so reactive and negative that we counter everything without evaluating whether or not it has any merit. I once said in 2005, that if we want real change in Burma, the Tatmadaw will have to spearhead it because it holds the power. The government of U Thein Sein is now spearheading reforms.
E-MAIL
PRINT
COMMENTS (14)
