In 1988, when nation-wide demonstrations calling for political, economic and social changes broke out in authoritarian-ruled Burma, many students and pro-democracy activists gathered in front of the US embassy in Rangoon.

The demonstrations were not anti-American in nature or directed against so-called imperialism. Instead, the demonstrators affirmed their support for democracy and the establishment of all it stood for—particularly respect for human rights. They directed their appeals to the country they regarded as the world’s leading defender of democracy.

The brutal suppression of those demonstrators was followed by an unrelenting series of further human rights abuses, which has led successive US administrations, supported by both Congress and Senate, to intensify the sanctions that were first levied against Burma in 1997 by former President Bill Clinton—although Burma's neighboring countries have favored doing business as usual with the Burmese regime.

Under the administration of former President George W Bush, the US also took the lead in pressing for Burma to be brought before the UN Security Council, which is widely regarded as the world's only actor with the legal authority, political competency and international legitimacy for carrying out effective humanitarian intervention.

However, the current US administration under President Barack Obama, who favors engagement over confrontation with partners—and even with world tyrants—has embarked on a continuing review of Burma policy.

The US foreign policy chief, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said earlier this year that neither sanctions nor attempts by Burma’s neighbors in Southeast Asia to engage the regime had worked, although some observers said that US had never applied the policy fully.

State Department officials said that the trial of Burma's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi will affect the policy review. Secretary of State Clinton appealed for the release of imprisoned Suu Kyi in exchange for new US investment in Burma, a practice ended by her husband President Bill Clinton in 1997.

However, Burma's ruling generals extended Suu Kyi’s house arrest for a further 18 months, while continuing to hold around 2,100 other political activists behind bars. They are also trying to tame restive ethnic armies along Burma’s borders with China and Thailand, forcing thousands of civilians to flee to those neighboring countries.

In August, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley said at a State Department news conference: “One of the dimensions is their continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, and 2,100 other political prisoners.  Our second dimension is the ethnic conflict that continues in Burma and what we could do to try to encourage a broader dialogue within Burma."

He also said, "We have an interest in seeing Burma stabilize. We have an interest in seeing Burma end its isolation.  How we do that is a subject of review."

A better policy would be to reach out to China, India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to identify points of possible commonality in their respective approaches to Burma. A truly multilateral strategy on Burma would be a significant improvement over America’s current policy.

But as for a more comprehensive assessment of forward-looking US policy, it remains a waiting game. Now Washington seems to be adopting a "wait and see" attitude in the run-up to next year’s general election, which will be used by the Burmese regime as a playing card in its end-game of consolidating its position of power.

The US administration must again display strong leadership in its Burma policy. Where Washington leads by example, other global and regional friends will follow. A “wait and see” approach is no inspiration for Burma’s neighbors and is no help to the Burmese people.