It was an upbeat story after a string of depressing events—a little like a caged bird being set free. A momentary sense of freedom, of compassion.
  
Everyone can share in the good fortune of John Yettaw’s release after he was sentenced to seven years hard labor for intruding into the lakeside home of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in May. 
 
Yettaw, a wayward, misguided US citizen, set off an unfortunate chain of events leading to a further 18-month sentence under house arrest for Suu Kyi.

Amid the hoopla of Yettaw’s release, many Burma observers, policy makers and foreign media have praised US Sen Jim Webb, who managed to meet Snr-Gen Than Shwe and Suu Kyi during his Burma mission, praising his visit as a “success”—a potential game-changing moment in US-junta relations.

Not so. For the record, let me summarize the pertinent facts: Suu Kyi’s detention was due to expire on May 27: the junta was searching for an excuse to extend her detention beyond the 2010 election. Eccentric Yettaw, who believed he was “sent” by God to save her from assassination, was arrested on May 3. As a main defendant, he was sentenced along with Suu Kyi, who received a three-year sentence on Aug 11.

Yettaw was released on Aug 16. To see Yettaw walk out of prison wasn’t a surprise, but it reeked in bitter irony.

Webb was Yettaw’s savior; Yettaw was the junta’s savior. In twisted logic, the junta might even have seen his release as a reward for being the “God-sent,” unwitting tool of Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s devious plotting.
 
Behind this deeply dramatic story, however, there are two specific moments that we must not forget.

Before May 3, Suu Kyi was scheduled to be released; after Aug 11, she is under a new period of house arrest until 2011.

That is the real story.

So, how much importance should we give to the recent clamor about a potential “breakthrough” moment in US-Burma relations?

The US and Western countries could lift sanctions on the regime, open up economic engagement, lift visa bans on the generals, and so on, but the wise observer should not expect anything in return: no release of Suu Kyi and the 2,100 political prisoners, no full participation of opposition parties in the election, no free and fair election.

Any quid pro quo offer is not in the cards with the junta. It’s never “give-and-take” with the generals; it’s always “give-and-give.” If you don’t believe it, look at the generals’ history.

Already, they are reveling in their good fortune. On Tuesday, the junta’s state-run newspapers called Webb’s visit a “success.” An opinion piece in The New Light of Myanmar said: “The visit of Mr Jim Webb is a success for both sides as well as the first step to promotion of the relations between the two countries.” It is interesting to see that the junta and Webb on are the same page in their views of the events.

More interestingly, Webb told reporters in Bangkok on Sunday: “I don’t want to misrepresent her [Suu Kyi] views, but my clear impression is that she is not opposed to the lifting of some sanctions,”

But the next day that interpretation began to unravel. What Suu Kyi said to Webb was that “interaction” between the junta and the domestic opposition must occur before sanctions are lifted. The senator may have believed that the “interaction” referred to the junta and the international community’s sanctions, according to Nyan Win, a spokesperson of her party, the National League for Democracy, who met with Suu Kyi on Monday.    

“She told me that when she met with Sen Webb she reiterated the need for the Burmese regime to first interact ‘inside the country.’ She said only when that happens ‘will Burma benefit from relations with the international community,’” Nyan Win told The Irrawaddy.

He said the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is regarded as a strong supporter of economic sanctions, also told Webb: “She was not the one who imposed sanctions against the Burmese regime. She is not in a position to lift those sanctions.”

Understandably, the international community is anxious to know exactly what Suu Kyi said.