Economic sanctions against Burma

EU extends diplomatic, economic sanctions against Burma - Intern

As usual, I personally appreciate some international renowned scholars and political analysts getting involved in the affairs of Burma’s ongoing democratic movement. Derek’s experiences as former British ambassador and Ben as advocacy officer for Christian Solidarity Worldwide is an immense asset we can garner. I once made similar comment to Professor Steinberg of Georgetown University when he came to attend our panel discussion at the Johns Hopkins University on December 7, 2006 (SAIS campus).

Regarding sanctions on Burma, there appears to be a split perception within the opposition or say the democratic forces. US renewed it; now EU follows suit. Conversely, Asian economic powers approach differently. Had these engagements been concerted efforts involving Burma’s neighboring countries – particularly China and India, juggernaut changes could have happened. With the recalcitrant nature of Burma’s military leaders and appeasement diplomacies of some of the influential countries on their side, no pragmatic transformation has been visualized till date.

Below is a quote from one of my articles entitled “Burma’s probability: Wooing China and India:”
China toward Burma

The steady emergence of PRC economically and militarily has immensely effected changes both regionally and globally. While the western world is propagating for the spread and burgeoning of democracy around the world, China is exuding its result-oriented communist ethos. There is no doubt about the implications of China on other countries with its myriad imports and exports. Burma’s markets and households are overwhelmed with cheap but impressive Chinese products ranging from essential commodities to bulky merchandized goods. China has succeeded in ingraining its cultural and financial influences on Burma. Many of the wealth-to-do families and businesses have rested on the shoulders of the Chinese community. In other words, China has proven itself to be one of the biggest Burma’s trading beneficiaries and partners thereby entailing to be one of its strategic ally.

Sanctions from western countries, particularly the EU and US on Burma, are yet another incremental mileage for China. While Burma is largely seen cornered and isolated by the international community, China extends its soft hands to the hierarchy of the regime by offering variant incentives. This cemented diplomatic cordiality serves as one hardest substance to penetrate the periphery of the ruling regime. The hardening of this rigidity is augmented by the renewed Burma-Russia relationship. Both China and Russia status as permanent members at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is even a greater challenge when it comes to dealing with Burma.
India toward Burma

Had China not been aggressively advancing in the region, India might have taken a different road map toward the perplexed Burma. While seeing China as a traditional rival and potential threat to its territorial integrity, India cold-shoulders to the hue and cry for a democratic change in Burma. Economic interest is another important factor. The world’s biggest institutions of communism and democracy are on hot pursuit for regional influence and international presence. This is one of the reasons why Indian politicians and decision makers seemingly have contradicting statements when they are in the opposition camp and once ascended to power. The bottom line here is that national interests and security matters most for individual countries.

Moreover, the racial diversity of India also has a tremendous weight in shaping its foreign policies. Majority of the people in the eight sister states of the northeast India are racially of mongoloid stock of people, different from majority of the Indian population. A sense of being foreign to Indian mainland and an alleged step-motherly treatment from the Indian government to people of these states have resonated with insurgency campaigns ranging from statehood demand to secession. Curbing the activities of these insurgents, many have bases in the soil of Burma, necessitates their cooperation. In reciprocation, India needs to extend a good will gesture to appease the Burmese military leaders. This may also pertains to the launching of India’s “Look East” policy.

Despite the low ebb enthusiasm, India appears to be more considerate and concerned over the Burmese democratic struggle than China. Thousands of both registered and unregistered refugees from Burma are allowed to settle in the country through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ New Delhi office and some local Non-Governmental Organizations. Privileges and opportunities given to the Burmese community in India by the government is by and large less significant than those of the Tibetans, yet this is one evident example construed to be India’s discreet solidarity to the Burmese democratic struggle. In the calculations of many world political analysts, these actions are apparently too little to help resolve the decades’ old Burmese political problems.

Regards,
Nehginpao Kipgen