Calls by Burma’s opposition National League for Democracy and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi for continued sanctions have met with increasing criticism recently, with charges that they are systematically weakening the country's economy.
It is theoretically true that limitations on trade, investment and foreign aid have led to macroeconomic instability and even deterioration. But the question remains: could Burma's economy boom if Western sanctions were lifted?
Burma observers, including critics from the anti-sanctions camp, would surely reply in the negative. They must agree that the suffering of the Burmese people has been almost exclusively caused by decades of economic mismanagement and lack of vision.
Policy decisions are determined according to the whims of junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his number 2, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, who has assumed a prominent role in economic matters. Economic decisions are often based on strategic, military factors, and the state bureaucracy have to enact them whether they like it or not.
While monopolizing the country's economy, the ruling generals have rewarded personal friends and family members with preferential treatment. Certain companies close to the junta's top leaders have been given special import permits and preferential lending.
Special favors include preferential tariff rates and customs duties; preferred access to natural resources; monopoly privileges in certain lucrative areas of commerce and industry; special considerations in the issuance of licenses and permits; subsidized prices for land, buildings, petrol and diesel, gas, electricity and water; preferential exchange rates; and preferential treatment on government contracts.
The country’s military—the tatmadaw—is involved in many commercial activities via the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd (UMEHL) and the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC). Foreign firms seeking to set up joint ventures have reported that affiliation with UMEHL or MEC proves useful in helping them receive the proper business permits.
"Nonetheless, entering into business with UMEHL or MEC does not guarantee success for foreign partners,” said a US State Department report. “Some investors report that their Burmese military partners are parasitic, make unreasonable demands, provide no cost-sharing, and sometimes muscle out the foreign investor after an investment becomes profitable."
Many investors have already withdrawn from Burma because of a hostile investment climate and disappointing returns.
Meanwhile, the tatmadaw and their cronies, in seeking to avoid Western sanctions, have turned to involvement in the informal economy, including private banking networks, smuggling, barter trade, unrecorded agriculture production, corruption, and illicit activities, such as narcotics production.
If Burma’s military rulers had any vision and the will to develop the country’s economy, they could follow the lead of Vietnam and China, which have instituted economic and political reforms and begun a path towards international reintegration.
At the same time, in response to a junta statement that “confrontation, utter devastation, economic sanctions and total isolation do not benefit the country or the people,” Suu Kyi informed the authorities through official mediator Aung Kyi that she "was ready to cooperate and issue a joint communiqué to prevent these problems [misunderstandings] from happening.”
Sanctions should indeed be lifted, but the Burmese regime must first agree to share power with the democratic leaders.
So far, there is no sign that the Burmese regime wants to change its current policy by releasing Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and starting dialogue with the opposition. Without tangible political improvements, Burma cannot hope to reduce the pressure exerted by the international community.
There's no arguing that you are right about disease in its literal sense, but sadly wrong about your own diagnosis of Burma's ills and hence the intervention you prescribe in the metaphorical sense. Best stick to what you do best as an individual like you said, and good luck.
Thanks for the blessing. We shall overcome as sure as day follows night.
plan B Wrote:
09/04/2009
Disease is disease. Intervention is needed for the immediate benefit of the sufferer or to prevent the long-term effect of global catastrophe. Logically promoting as well as advocating ideas that will immediately have an effect, as opposed to clinging to ideas that will further propagate the present deteriorating healthcare situation, no matter who is to blame. If I can change even one person’s point of view, I know I have done well.
Illusions? Thanks for admitting indirectly that an irreversibly failed nation status is only one step away. Be it the same old policies or another disaster. Then I shall have to again say “a plague on both of your houses.” The like of yours and the junta’s. Sleep well, but be very afraid.
Moe Aung Wrote:
08/04/2009
plan B,
Since when are those who have no control nor any say over their country's future ever able to achieve anything? You are free to entertain any number of illusions about influencing/doing business with the generals.
If you don't think the Burmese nation believes their state has failed miserably already, you are justified in telling us to be very afraid. So tell us something new.
Much as your faith in the junta's ability to rehabilitate itself for the greater good is touching, your poor esteem for the Burmese nation's own strength to deal with their problems themselves without relying on the great white saviors is also quite telling.
There are always those who'd rather we didn't see the wood for the trees, who'd rather we got bogged down in specifics and lost sight of our goal. The 2010 sham elections will prove one such major distraction when we should be concentrating on building and strengthening our bases and networks, improving our resources for effective mass action.
plan B Wrote:
04/04/2009
I suppose you would like to attribute this incident and similar ones entirely due to the junta's failures: http://www2.irrawaddy.com/article.php?art_id=15439 [The Life-and-Death Dilemma of a TB Patient]
TB and malaria control in Burma has long been the focus of the WHO and other health organizations through funding. Do sanctions affect that funding directly and indirectly? Even you cannot deny the fact or gloss over the result.
Lest I failed to emphasize the intent, be very afraid. The drug resistant TB strain is the result of under-treating the original TB. The incidences are increasing. So are malaria and AIDS.
Remember all the examples of failed states? Uncontrollable diseases, due to poor education, lack of available drugs, weakened individual resolve, corrupt government, apathy-filled opposition groups whose only wish is the downfall of the ruling authority so they can gain control. All the elements of this failed state scenario are present. All we now need is another natural or created disaster to start this unending vicious cycle. Yes, be very afraid.
Moe Aung Wrote:
03/04/2009
Plan B,
My appreciation for your personal effort in improving the lot of ordinary folk within Burma has been mentioned elsewhere a number of times. Like I said before, it's nothing personal, even if I've rather enjoyed this forum all the better because of you.
No, I never said the angel was your term for Aung San Suu Kyi. Just naturally came to mind from your "sleep with the devil" metaphor, thanks.
I agree the present policies aren't working. Our difference is the whys and the wherefores. Agreed too that change must come, but not just change for change's sake.
Change will come when People Power grows real teeth, when the three sons come together - students, monks and soldiers. Urban industrial workers, farming folk, public sector workers, civil servants, not least ethnic nationalities - all must come together for the final struggle of liberation. It's time Burma stood up on its own two feet, help or no help.
plan B Wrote:
02/04/2009
Ko Moe Aung,
So be it. I hope you will never be anyone’s fool but your own.
To me, everyone has to be someone’s fool. Who is the fool always depends on the vantage of the viewer.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Knowing this adage, I can clearly say that the present policies aren’t working. As for my advocacy, hindsight has yet to happen—unless, of course, you can dig up a perfect historical match.
Even assuming your pessimistic, bordering on cynical, predictions come true, I would have known I did my best for a few that need my help immediately. I know I will not be blame for complacency.
There is no glory in neglecting present individual suffering while waiting for a better situation. You miss one opportunity today, you might have a similar one tomorrow, but it will never be the same.
I might have used some terms that I can see coming back to haunt me. One term I never use is describing Aung San Suu Kyi as angel. That is your invention. I suppose that makes me anti-Aung San Suu Kyi, or worse, pro-junta. Now, whose fool am I again?
Moe Aung Wrote:
01/04/2009
plan B,
Fresh recruits are hardly the best source for any useful information regarding the real life and the state of morale among the rank and file. Young Burmese from peasant stock and the urban poor have always looked to the army as a major employer - and to prove their machismo. Fragmented armed resistance will never bring about the downfall of the regime either.
Your plan B is really quite straightforward. However you dress it up, those "two unsavory facts" boil down to this:
1. "Sleep with the devil" (your words again), meaning work with the generals.
2. Ditch the angel, meaning Aung San Suu Kyi, because she is a "stumbling block," a "divisive symbol" (more from you), getting in the way of progress.
You deny being the generals' advocate, but in practice, who better to do the job, since you manage to sound the moderate liberal voice of reason? People can easily see through the likes of Okkar, Sandar, Naingmya, etc., but not plan B. You could have fooled me.
plan B Wrote:
31/03/2009
How will one support the citizenry?
There are indeed a lot of homegrown organizations, none of them political, inside Burma. Without a change of present policies, these institution cannot survive much longer. One can imagine the help that can be directed through these organizations which can make a much bigger difference with very little compared to the INGOs, whose budgets, I believe, are self-serving.
In order to identify these organizations, one must be on the ground on the look out for them, at an individual level as well as organizational level. Once identified, funding can begin, or rather, sanctions that affect their usefulness can be reconsidered.
The above scenario will entail a dialogue with the present Junta at a diplomatically respectable if not equal level. After all, this will be a new chapter that will benefit mainly the citizenry. This is a critical point. Let's not lose this chance to help. That is the essence of Plan B
plan B Wrote:
31/03/2009
Ko Moe Aung,
the heart of the present debate, after all the blame is assigned, boils down to what to do next in support of Burma's citizenry.
Assistance must be directed towards institutions that have projects that will help the welfare of citizenry. That is the objective.
There are two main political realities and subsets of other problems that must be addressed in order to even begin realizing that objective. These two unsavory facts to most people are:
1) The need for the permission of the junta to direct the assistance, and the need to recognize that some of those institutions that have beneficial projects are either run by organizations related to the junta or outright belong to the military. This is especially evident in the public health part, as well as infrastructure projects.
2) This will indirectly legitimize the junta as a true overseer of Burma's well being. It will also politically negate the long-held support of democracy at any cost embodied by Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. A huge moral price to pay.
plan B Wrote:
31/03/2009
Armed struggle? If you have been to Maymyo lately and listened to the conversation at teashops among the fresh recruits, you will realize that it is not happening from within. Even the KNU, the avowed group of anti-Burmese, are talking about a possible armistice with the army.
As for resistant from without, it's just that --without.
Ever consider the cost of armed struggle against a government to its citizenry? Negotiating, prodding is still workable. Advocating armed struggle because of personal distrust is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Moe Aung Wrote:
30/03/2009
plan B,
It's time for plan C - a common program that all of us disparate groups with diverse interests, Burman and all our other nationalities, can put aside our differences for the time being, and work towards a common goal - the overthrow of the junta by effective mass action combined with armed struggle.
We can then have genuine dialogue among us and prove to the scaremongers that Balkanization is the last thing on our mind.
Moe Aung Wrote:
28/03/2009
plan B,
Frankly, none of us is interested in claiming “I have endured the unendurable, and suffered the unimaginable.”
“… if the junta can be persuaded to lessen its grip.” It’s a cliché, but I hate to say you’ve got the chance of a snowball in hell.
Another cliché: Hope springs eternal. That’s all we have to keep us going. So that makes not just the two of us but tens of millions.
plan B Wrote:
27/03/2009
Ko Moe Aung
This is to clarify my position. I have no connection whatsoever, except for education and health care, with military personnel inside Burma. I object to your reference to “your general’s job.”
I do not wish to have my opinion tainted with the suggestion that I am a junta stooge.
There is potential good that will benefit the people of Burma educationally and health care-wise if the junta can be persuaded to lessen its grip. My hope is a change of policy will make this endeavor possible.
Moe Aung Wrote:
27/03/2009
Plan B,
"I have no personal economic stake in any shape or form, inside or outside Burma. My involvement is with everyday Burmese on the ground at my own expense, health-care and education-wise." Thanks, but it's nothing personal.
"Let us start filling up Burma's completely empty cup first: "People have no cup, and the generals' are brimming over, unless you see any society as monolithic. Any sign of even a trickle-down?
"Presently their behavior is as repugnant as it is, can be excused as being based on ‘survival instinct.’” Generous to a fault. Why they get off scot-free on the basis of survival is in itself repugnant when they deny the rest of us [the chance to] survive with some human dignity.
"... the adage that one should not say anything bad about others if one has nothing good to say." Same faulty, but nice liberal logic. So we are lucky to be alive.
"... remove herself from consideration as an immediate candidate." Better still, why not remove altogether "the stumbling block ...divisive symbol."
plan B Wrote:
27/03/2009
Ko Moe Aung:
Please do not lose sight of a forest for a few trees at this point. I empathize with your view. I have seen with my own eyes what you have described. Let's look forward as we weep for our losses. There will be a time where you can make exceptions to all that I have stated. For now let us fill the empty cup of Burma first in terms of healthcare, education and economics.
As you suffer much you will be one of the few who can claim "I have endured the unendurable, and suffered the unimaginable." Time for Plan B.
Moe Aung Wrote:
26/03/2009
Plan B,
"...any suggestion other than sanction is unthinkable/ undoable attitude that is tied to Aung San Suu Kyi is literally killing the people in Burma more!"
That is really the pits. I get the distinct feeling that literally killing the people in Burma is your generals' job.
"...the people are suffering more than the junta."
Really? I wonder why? Can't have anything to do with the priorities the junta sets, the choices they make for themselves and those denied to the rest of us, in a sea of dollars they've hoarded for themselves, robbing the nation blind, can it?
Yet they want more, and a lot of well meaning people appear to be falling for it so the junta can carry on business as usual, happily repressing and exploiting, arresting and gunning down those who protest or express any kind of dissent forever more.
"Negotiation cannot begin until one side stops faulting the other for all ills."
So those pinned under the boot must be the first to stop yelling "Foul" for more sham dialogue or none. Great.
plan B Wrote:
26/03/2009
In my own defense, I'm advocating the economic well-being of the people first. And as for your retort on China and India being examples of half-empty glasses: Let us start filling up Burma's completely empty cup first, and then complain about it being half empty later.
Incidentally, I have no personal economic stake in any shape or form, inside or outside Burma. My involvement is with everyday Burmese on the ground at my own expense, health-care and education-wise.
Plan B Wrote:
26/03/2009
All these points seem like random suggestions, which I would like to summarize as follows:
Anything that fully focuses on the plight of Burmese people without appearing to favor Aung San Suu Kyi will inevitably bring the junta to bear the full burden. That in turn will assure that they behave reasonably, since there will be no excuse not to. Presently their behavior, repugnant as it is, can be excused as being based on "survival instinct." No Asian country would like to see one of their own buckle under non-Asian pressure!
Lastly, one must admit that a lot of projects that are being accomplished by the junta under such duress from the West need to be recognized by all if talks are to resume at a respectful level. This is akin to the adage that one should not say anything bad about others if one has nothing good to say. So say bad things about the junta but do not forget the good things. That goes for the good and bad of sanctions, too.
Plan B Wrote:
26/03/2009
Aung San Suu Kyi can be a voice for unity again by doing the unthinkable and rather sacrificially admitting that she went wrong by relying on outside help to rally her cause. Admit sanction didn't work and, better yet, remove herself from consideration as an immediate candidate. I realize this is a far-fetched scenario. What's the point? The point is to put the junta on the spot where they have to reckon with everything that happens from now on in Burma, instead of shifting the focus constantly to Aung San Suu Kyi's decisions or detention. That has been the stumbling block to all pragmatic suggestions so far. As long as Aung San Suu Kyi puts a claim on ruling Burma, she will be the focus, not the suffering Burmese people. Once she relinquishes that claim, the political dealing can begin to benefit the citizenry.
Again I am not going to defend my "support the middle class" statement. It took over 40 years for Taiwan to turn around. Might I remind you that the atrocities the Chiang Kai Shek government committed have not even been mentioned yet.
Plan B Wrote:
26/03/2009
Ko Moe Aung
Let's talk about Aaung san suu Kyi.
She has given much and suffered even more. She is indeed a potential leader. She is also a symbol.
However, as much as she has united as of now, she is a cause for delay in any engagement with the present junta.
Let's face this fact: The junta is here to stay. Without accepting this obvious fact, one cannot move ahead and make more pragmatic decisions.
As such, Aung San Suu Kyi presently is a divisive symbol. Going out on a limb, I am not going to say whether she has ever been accepted as a leader by all even after the election result favor the NLD overwhelmingly in 88. As far as I can tell it was more a rejection of the junta than an acceptance of the NLD. She failed numerous times to compromise with the junta. For that she has had to endure what has been done to her. No, she does not deserve what she is getting presently. Hardening attitude towards the government, which has proven its staying power, and hoping for outside help is not prudent.
Moe Aung Wrote:
25/03/2009
Plan B,
Many middle-class people, especially after a while in the West, buy into this "economic determinism," where the nurturing of the middle class and civil society is the key in development and modernization. It's true you may see the fruition of a democracy of sorts after some time with a bit of luck, mainly dependent on the military, who will dominate all major decision-making and set the framework and the boundaries.
None of those countries mentioned is a shining example of democracy, and look no farther than India, the world's largest democracy, and China, the world's most economically successful authoritarian state, where public squalor exists cheek by jowl with astounding and ostentatious private wealth. It's already happening in Burma under the aegis of our generals, the yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots, the principal product of capitalist globalization that we all share.
I've never been a fan of ASSK, but rally round and defend her we must. Change is welcome, but not just any change.
Plan B Wrote:
25/03/2009
Let us talk about the effect of sanctions in a quantitative sense. Personally I admit there is no correct way to quantify the effect. Maybe that has been the problem. No body dares!
For argument's sake, let's say sanctions are effective in cutting the junta's $$. The junta has already circumvented such an initial effect through dealing with countries that do not support the sanctions. Can we bring these countries along? Obviously not. So what has been the result of sanctions up until now? Complete Junta defiance and a "do what they want" tendency -- e.g., Naypyidaw!
Who pays? The people. In terms of health care, education and otherwise. Without a healthy, educated mass, even if democracy is instituted today, the chance of success will be wanting.
Somewhere, somehow down the line, negotiating with the junta, a terrible government by any measure, will have to take place. ASSK's suggestion of sanction is not leading anywhere near that.
I have said the unspeakable: Negotiation cannot begin until one side stops faulting the other for all ills.
plan B Wrote:
25/03/2009
Ko Moe Aung
The only exception to your previous article that I might add is the people are suffering more than the junta. At this point any effort made on behalf of the people WITHOUT adding more suffering at individual or international level is needed. I have been on the ground in Burma quite a few times. That is why I am desperate in my appeal to change this present policy. However, faced with any suggestion other than sanction is unthinkable/ undoable attitude that is tied to ASSK is literally killing the people in Burma more!
Moe Aung Wrote:
24/03/2009
Plan B,
I agree politics, especially government, is where compromise or collaboration, particularly co-optation, is an art form. You won't sleep with the devil unless you expect a hefty return, I guess. You reckon you will from the junta? Somebody had to impose sanctions, if only on moral and ethical grounds, to make a point and convey a message that you couldn't get away with murder, literally in this case. It was never going to be more than half-effective, since it was not a concerted effort, and you only need one or two neighbors busting sanctions.
It's hurting the junta enough in practice to give it such a priority that they've been willing to make moves such as half-hearted amnesties and sham elections to have the sanctions lifted. Would they do these from the goodness of their heart?
So your 'dead horse' I'm afraid is a very poor metaphor for this. Sanctions are instead a major 'thorn in their side'. That's why they so badly want it removed.
Okkar Wrote:
24/03/2009
I'd rather be a voice that cast doubts than lose my voice by following the crowd. In a true democracy, it is these voices that cast doubts that kept governments and politicians alike in check.
plan B Wrote:
24/03/2009
As far as Okkar is concerned, if he is an advocate of the junta, let him be. Doesn't The Irrawaddy trust its readers to make that judgment? Ridiculing and belittling other comments will only bring the quality of this forum down. Let him lie, let him be the doubt caster. It will show through. In a true democracy, that is the price one has to pay.
Yes, Ko Moe Aung, a stiff price to pay, yet worth every cent: The freedom of speech.
Let us not be dismissive of each other. I apologize if I appear as such, especially agreeing with BL concerning his Dakota's Wisdom.
There are indeed lots of way to support the middle class. It has been done in Taiwan, S. Korea and The Philippines. Great results in the first two, variable in the last. Lots of failures in Africa. At lease it was tried there. Burma is one disaster away from heading towards a failed state scenario due to the sanctions-compounded health, education and lack of infrastructures problems.
It is time for Plan B
plan B Wrote:
24/03/2009
Lastly, do not dismiss an idea that has proven itself over and over again: Supporting the middle class.
There are examples of successes in various stages if you will look for them. Dismissing without new alternatives --- well, I will let you decide which part of BL's well-written "Dakota's saying" exemplifies your comments.
As for how and what or why to support middle class, I will defer to the experts in various governments.
If there was one in Denmark there must be quite a few in every government. The prevailing attitude is such that anyone who suggests change is labeled a junta sympathizer. Well, that is exactly what the present government in Burma likes to see.
Plan B Wrote:
24/03/2009
Ko Moe Aung,
With regards to The Irrawaddy being nobody's mouthpiece, I am beginning to agree with you. In the past, at least a dozen of my comments were neglected and all others that blamed the present government for even the most minute incidents were printed. I am truly surprised that my 3 comments were printed. Let us hope Irrawaddy will continue to print views from both sides.
Plan B Wrote:
24/03/2009
"A panacea no doubt in Western orthodox thinking. Look no farther than China, where the middle class is going from strength to strength, cheek by jowl with increasing poverty and squalor thanks to their totalitarian rulers' neglect of the public sector and health and safety in the work place. And don't they treat their neighbour Burma well"
China may not be a democracy by any measure, but she has set herself up economically successfully. Yes, at the expense of Burma. Which the present failed policy has contributed to that effect.
What do you really know about building democracy where your idea is "keep beating the dead horse," or better, declare that the "dead horse is really not dead." People are suffering because the junta can do whatever they have been doing for the last 40 years in spite of sanctions advocated by ASSK.
I am not a junta advocate and never will be.
Anything other than sanctions will do at this point. Remember that in politics sometimes you have to sleep with the devil.
Moe Aung Wrote:
20/03/2009
Plan B,
The Irrawaddy is nobody's mouthpiece. Shooting the messenger I thought was Okkar's job. Name calling aplenty from both sides of the fence. Fence-sitters by nature lack the dedication and passion. They love to fudge and make convoluted arguments that get you nowhere.
R2P is history. They blinked. They missed a small window of opportunity for a surgical strike on Naypyidaw (which the rest of the nation would have welcomed, including many in the army) while the Chinese had their hands full in the wake of the Sichuan quake.A single spark can start a wildfire. No invasion necessary.
"Support the middle class and things will take care of themselves."
A panacea no doubt in Western orthodox thinking. Look no farther than China, where the middle class is going from strength to strength, cheek by jowl with increasing poverty and squalor thanks to their totalitarian rulers' neglect of the public sector and health and safety in the work place. And don't they treat their neighbour Burma well?
Plan B Wrote:
20/03/2009
Why can't the Irrawaddy be like this news site, where your comments are uncensored and checked by readers who report abuses?
Name calling against the junta is permitted. However, comments supporting the junta or suggestions against ASSK are censored.
Plan B Wrote:
20/03/2009
This is the continuation of last comment supporting BL.
Now the junta only builds what they want to stay in power.
Those who talk about R2P (dead horse buyer) know that this is the most ridiculous thought. Burma has known no peace from within until recently. R2P! So justify the junta's iron grip even more?
The basic tenant of Democracy is the middle class. Support the middle class and things will take care of themselves. Relying on one person to deliver Burma is not going to work. Those countries who advocate continuing the present policy are those who obviously prefer the status quo.
I realize any suggestion of working with the junta will either not get printed by this forum (lots of democracy here!), or attract lots of flaming (see comments by Okkar).
Well "the plague be on both your houses" (Shakespeare: Romeo & Juliet), Irrawaddy, if you fail to faithfully execute your duty to bring different view.
Plan B Wrote:
20/03/2009
To BL
I could not agree with you more. After 40 plus years, not 20 years mind you, one might think we will need to change strategy. There was a blip a few months back when the brave Denmark PM suggested such, and she was almost called a heretic.
This is the fact:
People in Burma are suffering secondarily due to the present policies of the military government.
However the sufferings are compounded or made worse by the Western government sanctions (dead horse). Look at all the responses--the majority of the printed responses still support sanctions.
As a result compounded by the natural disaster we are now seeing an eventual "failed state" in the making.
Worsening health care. Burma traditionally relies on the WHO and UNICEF heavily. That support is gone.
Worsening education. The junta loved uneducated people, be it outside (the dead horse beater) or inside.
Deteriorating infrastructure. Again Burma depends heavily on the UN and World Bank for building roads, communication etc.
Okkar Wrote:
20/03/2009
Glad to see my comments stirs up angry and hostile defense from opposition camp. It seems like they have been rattled by the questions that I raise, they all came out of the wood work to defend the NLD. While they put up strong arguments and condemnation to the regime, no one has really answered the question with regards to the reckless strategies of the NLD. The sad truth is, neither the NLD nor their uneducated supporters have a clue how to lift Burma out of the poverty pit! They don't have any solution nor credible strategy for post-regime Burma, all they want is power, and that is all the care about. They are happy to make promises that they can't keep along the way and they don't care who suffers from their mistakes, which makes them no different from the very regime they are supposed to be fighting against.
BL Wrote:
19/03/2009
Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in the case of Burma we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Demand more dead horses.
3. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
3. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."
4. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
5. Arranging to visit South Africa to see how they rode the horse when it was alive.
After 20 years, it is time to take an assessment of what has been achieved - and what has not been achieved. The paper "Limitations of the Global Human Rights Paradigm" from Pederson should be discussed.
But I think that with 20 years of experience under its belt, the regime has learned to circumvent the Western sanctions and they have not brought the regime to its knees.
It is time to find a better strategy for change.
Kyi May Kaung Wrote:
19/03/2009
I agree with Yeni, who seems to understand economics better than most journalists.
It is more than the lack of development
"almost exclusively caused by decades of economic mismanagement and lack of vision" on the part of the SPDC.
It has not grown economically because of a system of central planning and control that was first set up in 1962 by Gen. Ne Win, the grand daddy of them all, and then exacerbated by the factors Yeni describes, which started after the Slorc's so-called "open economy" after 1988.
What will happen if sanctions are suddenly lifted? As they did not have much effect anyway, trade may grow a little but it won't be as much as if the SYSTEM were changed -- in a Chinese or Vietnamese way which involved Special Economic Zones and lifting of compulsory delivery quotas on rice, etc., and long term leases for farm land to real farmers.
Give me a break, I am tired of people writing about economics when they know no economics.
Thura Wrote:
18/03/2009
We must accept the realities.
The junta has a very strong control over the country. They can successfully oppress the opposition with little international pressure. They have a rather stable income from gas exports. Natural gas resources have enabled them to get a better position in dealing with China, India, etc. Like it or not, you need to give up your dreams of 100% democracy, and be prepared to give the junta a major role in politics to compromise with them.
Achieving 100% democracy is, in the coming few decades, almost impossible. Burma needs to embrace a hybrid-democracy, or Indonesia-styled democracy, or whatever it is called, in order to break the current stalemate.
I think the NLD should accept the realities, and move forward in a realistic direction.
Moe Aung Wrote:
18/03/2009
Why have sanctions been ineffectual? Because they've been inconsistent, uneven, full of loopholes, and more importantly, because of the full scale 'sanctions-busting' by the states that are not party to any of this. Is this so hard to understand?
Lift the sanctions and add fuel to the hellfire of repression, deprivation, contempt for rule of law and justice, and massive inequity already plain for all to see. Yes, more of the same for the rest of us, more gazillion dollars for the generals to feather their nests and keep their own private army to keep us down.
If they had no qualms about reneging so shamelessly (soldier's honor? Whoa!) on the results of the 1990 elections before the entire world, why would they honor the results of another sham election if - heaven forbid - it doesn't go their way?
sandar,
So it's only fair the opposition should take part, bound and gagged, in everything rigged up by the junta, and shouldn't yell 'Foul'. You've earned your dollar; not minimum wage?
Kaw Thaw Wrote:
17/03/2009
Burma is reaching a dead-end, and the world has used up all its resources and brains to try to influence its regime. Even the world's only superpower has admitted the limited leverage the international community has over Burma. Nothing can influence its regime. The only way out is we have to fight fire with fire. We can't afford another half century of waiting for the result of sanction or engagement to be materialized. We the Burmese people are already a dead pig, so why are we still afraid of boiling water? After all I think we have to be realistic with the fact that power can only be wielded from the gun barrel. That's why the regime is sticking to that tactic no matter what.
e.r. Wrote:
17/03/2009
The author's analysis is obvious to any honest observer. Many in the anti-sanctions camp argue as if sanctions had always and universally been enforced. Everyone knows that both premises are absolutely untrue. Western sanctions have been in place for little more than a decade and before sanctions the situation for Burmese people was quite the same. Moreover, investments and money are entering Burma from neighbouring countries. If the generals would improve the lives of their people they could easily do it. Instead, they prefer to fill their strongboxes. These two simple facts are enough to put an end to every speculation or manipulation.
It's not sanctions that make the difference for Burmese people in an economic environment like Burma's (monopolized by the junta and its cronies): just regime change could make the difference. Burma is, in my opinion, one of clearest examples in history of economic mismanagement by an absolute dictatorship. All the rest is fiction (or lies).
sandar Wrote:
17/03/2009
Aung San Suu Kyi is the main source of economic sanctions. Like it or not, there are many of her sayings in various interviews/ statements (all these interviews/ speeches/ statements are recorded) about her call for economic sanctions. Now she denied it. She lied to the people of Myanmar shamelessly. Nobody will denounce her desire for power (everybody wants power) but if she wants to be a state leader she needs to be honest in her saying. The whole world knows that she is lying. But she pretends to be “a good saint” cleaned of all sins. She is visibly very much afraid of getting out of her comfort zone of “victim”.
I can only hope that she will not end her life like Taslima Nasrine one day.
NLD should review their failed policies. NLD should update their policies. NLD should work hard in order to re-gain people's support. NLD should rethink their strategy of always showing they are “victimized.” It is no longer workable.
The lifting of sanctions in my view will largely depend on the ability of the new government that will be in place after 2010 elections according to the constitution.
Thu Ri Ya Burma Wrote:
17/03/2009
The lifting of sanctions won’t change Burma’s economy too much, especially during the global economic downturn. To improve Burma’s economy, an open-door policy and economic reform might work. Get right people in the right place; we need experts, no corruption, no mismanagement, no wrongdoing, etc. Otherwise, don’t even think about it.
Thura Wrote:
17/03/2009
Why are many people here sticking to a policy that has produced no positive result in the past 20 years?
Those who supported the sanctions must accept the fact that the sanctions did not produce the intended results in the case of Burma. If you plan to continue to support these sanctions, you must provide more realistic reasons for sticking to the policy that has not worked in the past 20 years.
sandar Wrote:
17/03/2009
The articles, as well as most of the comments, have no insight. Some do not even dare to suggest the NLD to take up armed revolution, as if they are not aware of 50 years of failed armed struggles of various ethnic groups.
The international policy makers will notice that, in effect, there is no vision for the future in the pro-opposition society of Myanmar [Burma]. The very excellent thing given by the opening of the comments session is that it will make them (the international policy makers) understand the mindset of the opposition they are supporting with blind eyes (just for the words: “democracy” and “human rights”). Western countries think and believe that these words belong to their culture. Therefore whenever these words are concerned, they think that they have to defend them in order to protect their interests.
If NLD or the international community will wait until now for the “talks” between the junta and opposition to lift the sanctions imposed on Myanmar, they can wait another 20 years. The “talks” will never happen. Everybody in Myanmar knows it, the NLD knows it, and the exiled community knows it.
NLD wants a review of the constitution, they said. We, the people of Myanmar, did not know that. If they wanted a review of the constitution, why didn’t they attend the National Convention in 2004? They were invited by the junta. The ethnic parties were also invited to the NC by the junta. We only learned that they had refused to attend the NC because their leaders were not released. Now they are giving a different version of events. You need to be extremely consistent in each word you say if you want “power” to govern a nation.
Salai Bawi Wrote:
17/03/2009
I agree with the idea that economic development will bring about democracy in Burma. This is a development model in East Asia.
But the Burmese regime has to open up the economy. It's time to abandon the stupid things they have done to the country. If sanctions are lifted, it means the door to development is open. The regime should give sufficient incentives to Burmese people including those students abroad to go back to Burma and work for the country. The regime has failed to use its Burmese intellectuals. It's a pity.
Eric Johnston Wrote:
17/03/2009
If one draws up a table, columns World Regions, rows Type of Sanctions, it becomes obvious that there are few real sanctions.
Should there be sanctions? The question should perhaps be: Which sanctions?
Trade and investment in some sectors could produce much employment. The difficulty will be to persuade potential investors in such sectors that their Burmese officer partners will not edge them out when the business becomes profitable (a common occurrence). In some sectors, investment produces increased military presence together with forced labor, atrocities and huge profits for the regime and its cronies.
Of course, in normal circumstances, government revenues benefit the population - through improved health, sanitation, education, housing and other benefits. But in Burma?
Moe Aung Wrote:
17/03/2009
How unsurprising to see some of the people who've lived and worked in the West for a while tend to think all you need to do is develop the generals' economy further by lifting sanctions. Is this a kind of “non-ideology virus” that people get infected by after a while? That economic development is all that matters, never mind who rules, exploits and represses an entire nation full of a myriad and diverse range of ethnic peoples.
Politics matters more because that's what underlies the decision-making process, if it needs to be reminded. It boils down to the choices they make and the choices whichever group is in power - particularly those with a totalitarian mindset - deny the rest of us.
KKK Wrote:
17/03/2009
To Robert Mcintyre:
Sanctions must not be lifted until the regime has failed. Burmese people are suffering not becasue of NLD, but because of military regime.
KKK Wrote:
17/03/2009
To Okkar:
What do you want to do if The Irrawaddy is a mouthpiece of the NLD?
Did Burmese people give the generals the right to rule the country? Did you and your generals ever learn macro and micro economics at school? Who is currently ruling the country? NLD or junta? Junta, right? So you should blame the generals and yourself, not NLD. Why don't you and your generals ask help from "Swe Myo Pauk Phaw?" If you don't know what to do, sell your piece of land and Burmese people to China, India, Thai, Singapore and Malaysia.
kojew Wrote:
17/03/2009
Don't make simple things confused. What and who can make economic sanctions be lifted?
ASSK or SPDC?
Therefore, the SPDC should make the first move.
Luke Kent Myintthu Wrote:
17/03/2009
Okkar wrote:
The most important questions no one seems to be answering is: does the economic mismanagement of the regime give the NLD the right to destabilize the macro economy and systematically weaken the development of the country?
The answer is No. But, why there are sanctions:
1. Burma's regime is not responsible even with humanitarian aid money.
2. Burma's regime is not accountable even with humanitarian aid money.
3. Burma's regime is not transparent even with humanitarian aid money.
4. Burma's regime begs for money from China, Russia, Asean and uses it only for their benefit.
5. Sanctions are to punish the abusers: the Burmese regime. Low moral conscience of China's leaders with their monetary help is supporting the survival of Burma's regime.
6. People inside Burma even like sanctions, including my relatives.
Top secrets: Singapore’s Burmese embassy has to collect money in taxes from Burmese for Than Shwe's children shopping: S$200,000 per month last year. This year S$400,000 per month. Every Burmese in Singapore hates people in the Burmese embassy. This is one of the simplest examples why there are sanctions to Burma's regime.
Soe Kyaw Thu Wrote:
17/03/2009
From 1993 to 1999, I was in Rangoon, attending RIT. As a university student, I got a daily allowance of 5 Kyat besides a daily bus fare. At that time, there were Tun Kyi, Tin Oo and Khin Nyunt, who were abusing the Burmese people's money and became the richest persons in Burma. I don't want another Tun Kyi, Tin Oo and Khin Nyunt. We are fighting for system change and mindset change: Revolution of the whole system and mindset in unity.
Does Okkar:
Know how to earn money? Don't chase for money. Chase for the proof of being responsible, accountable, and transparent. Money will follow. Hey Okkar, tell your military generals to chase for proof of being responsible, accountable and transparent.
In USA, I don't beg for money like Burma's generals are begging money from China, Russia and Asean. And what did they do with that money? Deputy General Myint Swe abused materials donated by foreign countries as if he donated these.
Most people in the Burma democracy movement beg for money too. But, they work for the Burmese people. I worked in the US and helped my relatives and helped the movement.
If Burma's generals abused Burmese people’s money once, and they asked for second time? Chinese proverb: If someone fools you once, it is his/her fault; if the person fools you second time, it is your fault.
Zaw Min Wrote:
17/03/2009
I'm following up on what Okkar wrote.
Why were sanctions placed in the first place? Was it for NLD to get power or regime to share or cede power?
Whatever the answer is, sanctions are not bringing the answer closer while ordinary people are having a hard time that is becoming harder as time goes by. Meanwhile the regime can stay on forever with sanctions in place.
Removing sanctions will not remove the regime. Removing sanctions will not result in an economic boom. Removing sanctions will certainly allow more foreign investment to come in and work with the regime, which is working even with sanctions in place. But removing sanctions will also allow ordinary people to work with foreign investors who want to work with them. This will at least level the field a bit while allowing more eyes and ears of the world to be in our country where it matters most.
If the regime is stupid enough to challenge the world to open up the country by dropping sanctions, what is the opposition, NLD, and whoever is afraid by helping them keep it shut? Ordinary people are the ones who are going to gain the most through economic and education development. Development in economy and education is the key to bring about democracy, human rights and rule of law to our country and it is sure that sanctions are hindering this development, not helping.
robert mcintyre Wrote:
17/03/2009
The sanctions must be lifted, or the people that implement them are causing suffering to get their point over. The NLD party in Burma must call for this or face being a party to policies as destructive to the people of Myanmar as any military legislation.
mg win Wrote:
17/03/2009
The economic mismanagement and excessive brutality of the regime toward its civilians (including ethnic nationals) does give the international community the right to impose economic sanctions on "regime-controlled" economy, regardless of what the NLD thinks or says.
Nay Min Wrote:
17/03/2009
Most people focus and talk about too much about politics, but not business and economic development plans. Does the NLD have any alternative and comprehensive business and economic strategy and plans to replace the current failed policy? Or to show a clear alternative idea how they will make the county get back on the business and economic growth?
Just blame and blame others, but without alternative plan and preparedness, no way to get from this economic turmoil. Just changing the seats/guards from uniforms to “Pin Ni Tik Pon” (traditional Burmese jacket), for the people, farmers and workers, no one getting benefit. The country needs people with strong management and business minded leaders, but [not] activists shouting on the street or making statements. That is the minor work of the students on the campus, not decisive leaders who can bring change and reform to the country with prosperity and development.
Moe Aung Wrote:
17/03/2009
Okkar,
Questions, questions, questions. The voice of reason, eh? Destabilize? Of course the status quo is so much better. Weaken development? Oh no, not stunted and crushed under the military boot, of course not, all hunky dory. Reckless? No guns please, we are squeamish. Something to hide? No, you can't beat blatant repression and rampant exploitation. Nah, nana, nah, nah! We got the guns! You got none!
Power-sharing? No way! Lifting sanctions? Yes way! What the generals want the generals get.
Stalemate? Deadlock? Only from the opposition point of view, mate. Our generals are going from strength to strength, and zooming down the roadmap. Outta the way! Or we'll run you down! Nah, nana, nah, nah!
You'd make a Martian think Burma is being misruled by the NLD and not your generals. Hope you get not just a medal but dollars for services rendered.
MyoChitThuNYC Wrote:
16/03/2009
It is obvious that Okkar is a junta apologist/member of the Tatmadaw.
It is obvious that corruption and mismanagement of the top junta officials has ruined Burma's economy over the past 20 years. The Irrawaddy is not a mouthpiece of the NLD. The Irrawaddy frequently had articles criticizing NLD CEC's ineffective leadership over the past 20 years.
If there are more American and EU investments in Burma, the top generals will siphon off all the $$$ into their bank accounts in Singapore. Just look at funds given to the SPDC by the UN for Nargis relief. A good percentage of those millions of $$$ was siphoned off into the junta's bank accounts, due to FECs. What about import permits for cars horded by top generals/cronies? These are making cars very expensive for ordinary people. If Burma is so poor due to Western sanctions, where did Than Shwe get $$$ to build a brand new capital?
The main reason that Burma's economy is in shambles are the SPDC generals' mismanagement.
Eric Johnston Wrote:
16/03/2009
If the NLD gets what is its ultimate goal: human rights and democracy - which is obviously the goal of those who supported pro-democracy parties on the only occasion they could express themselves freely - Burma's economy is likely to experience a boom such as it has never known before. However, far from making small hesitant steps in this direction, the SPDC is walking backward into ever greater economic chaos. Economics, politics and human motivation cannot be isolated from one another.
Okkar Wrote:
16/03/2009
Same old apologists and whitewash stories. Irrawaddy has finally become a mouthpiece of the NLD.
The most important questions no one seems to be answering is:
Does the economic mismanagement of the regime give the NLD the right to destabalise the macro economy and systematically weaken the development of the country?
Was NLD right to behave recklessly without considering the impact their actions would have on the grassroots?
Why do NLD and their apologists seek to avoid these questions? What have they got to hide?
COMMENTS (60)
E-MAIL
PRINT
