<p>As the only obvious alternative to what Winston Churchill is said to have called ‘jaw-jaw’ and ‘war-war,’ economic sanctions have a mixed record. <br /><br /></p>.<p>They have yet to show any sign of bringing Iran’s leaders to the negotiating table. In Iraq they made the lives of civilians worse while merely driving Saddam Hussein deeper into his bunker. Nonetheless, in Myanmar, which has been ruled for half a century by its army, more than two decades of sanctions finally seem to be doing the trick. That is a good reason to keep the pressure on until the Burmese people are truly free.<br /><br />The west gave up on jaw-jaw – diplomatic efforts to persuade the government to lighten its rule – after 1988, when the army killed several thousand unarmed protesters. It froze economic links with Myanmar and it has kept those links to a minimum ever since. Now, with the country beginning to change rapidly, demands that the sanctions be lifted are rising. On Feb 24 Vijay Nambiar, the special adviser on Myanmar to secretary general Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations, said, ‘The international community must respond robustly to people’s needs by lifting current restrictions.’<br /><br />Before doing so, however, the west would do well to look closely at what sanctions have and have not achieved, and at how they have worked. Sanctions did not directly bring the Burmese government to its knees. Instead they forced it to rely heavily on its Southeast Asian neighbours, on India and most of all on China – and none of those countries echoed the west’s moral outrage about the dictatorship.<br /><br />As a result, some Westerners argued that sanctions were at best useless. Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador to Thailand and now chairman of Network Myanmar, which seeks a softer approach to the government, said in 2006: “Sanctions have only made the situation worse, entrenched the military regime in power and delayed the deliverance of the Burmese people from their misfortunes. I have met no one during my visits to Myanmar who thought the sanctions were helping them achieve freedom.”<br /><br />That view is no longer valid, however. An outrageously fixed election in November 2010 replaced naked military rule with a Parliament and a pseudo-democratic government. Little was expected of it until last August, when the new president, U Thein Sein, formerly a long-serving general, invited the democratic icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to meet him in Naypyidaw, the capital. They were photographed there under a portrait of Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, Aung San, a hero of Burmese independence from Britain in 1948. A dinner with the president and his wife followed. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have been permitted to compete in parliamentary elections to be held April 1.<br /><br />Thein Sein’s government also has legalized trade unions and set up a human-rights commission. To avoid complete domination by Beijing, Myanmar’s new president decided to reach out to the west – and the only way to the west was through Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won a landslide election victory in 1990 that the generals simply ignored, she retains a vast following among ordinary Burmese and, as an Oxford graduate who lived abroad for more than 20 years before plunging into Burmese politics, she has cordial relations with every Western leader who matters. <br />If Thein Sein were suddenly to die, his successor could legally reimpose direct army rule. The cease-fire with the Karen is only a first step toward a peace settlement with Myanmar’s much-abused minorities.<br /><br />The economy, meanwhile, remains primitive, dominated by retired generals and their cronies. Civil society is only beginning to raise its head. Political prisoners have not been released unconditionally – their sentences have merely been suspended.<br />The way ahead is therefore clear: Since the Burmese government’s steps so far have been dramatic but largely symbolic, the West should repeal measures that sound more important than they are: the visa bans and asset freezes, for example. These steps could be announced if the April 1 elections are carried out smoothly and fairly.<br /><br />But the sanctions that bite, specifically the ban on access to American financial facilities, should remain in place until we see whether Myanmar’s rulers have a real appetite for change, or are merely tinkering with the scenery. If the day of the carrot has arrived, it is not yet time to throw away the stick.<br /><br /></p>
<p>As the only obvious alternative to what Winston Churchill is said to have called ‘jaw-jaw’ and ‘war-war,’ economic sanctions have a mixed record. <br /><br /></p>.<p>They have yet to show any sign of bringing Iran’s leaders to the negotiating table. In Iraq they made the lives of civilians worse while merely driving Saddam Hussein deeper into his bunker. Nonetheless, in Myanmar, which has been ruled for half a century by its army, more than two decades of sanctions finally seem to be doing the trick. That is a good reason to keep the pressure on until the Burmese people are truly free.<br /><br />The west gave up on jaw-jaw – diplomatic efforts to persuade the government to lighten its rule – after 1988, when the army killed several thousand unarmed protesters. It froze economic links with Myanmar and it has kept those links to a minimum ever since. Now, with the country beginning to change rapidly, demands that the sanctions be lifted are rising. On Feb 24 Vijay Nambiar, the special adviser on Myanmar to secretary general Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations, said, ‘The international community must respond robustly to people’s needs by lifting current restrictions.’<br /><br />Before doing so, however, the west would do well to look closely at what sanctions have and have not achieved, and at how they have worked. Sanctions did not directly bring the Burmese government to its knees. Instead they forced it to rely heavily on its Southeast Asian neighbours, on India and most of all on China – and none of those countries echoed the west’s moral outrage about the dictatorship.<br /><br />As a result, some Westerners argued that sanctions were at best useless. Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador to Thailand and now chairman of Network Myanmar, which seeks a softer approach to the government, said in 2006: “Sanctions have only made the situation worse, entrenched the military regime in power and delayed the deliverance of the Burmese people from their misfortunes. I have met no one during my visits to Myanmar who thought the sanctions were helping them achieve freedom.”<br /><br />That view is no longer valid, however. An outrageously fixed election in November 2010 replaced naked military rule with a Parliament and a pseudo-democratic government. Little was expected of it until last August, when the new president, U Thein Sein, formerly a long-serving general, invited the democratic icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to meet him in Naypyidaw, the capital. They were photographed there under a portrait of Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, Aung San, a hero of Burmese independence from Britain in 1948. A dinner with the president and his wife followed. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have been permitted to compete in parliamentary elections to be held April 1.<br /><br />Thein Sein’s government also has legalized trade unions and set up a human-rights commission. To avoid complete domination by Beijing, Myanmar’s new president decided to reach out to the west – and the only way to the west was through Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won a landslide election victory in 1990 that the generals simply ignored, she retains a vast following among ordinary Burmese and, as an Oxford graduate who lived abroad for more than 20 years before plunging into Burmese politics, she has cordial relations with every Western leader who matters. <br />If Thein Sein were suddenly to die, his successor could legally reimpose direct army rule. The cease-fire with the Karen is only a first step toward a peace settlement with Myanmar’s much-abused minorities.<br /><br />The economy, meanwhile, remains primitive, dominated by retired generals and their cronies. Civil society is only beginning to raise its head. Political prisoners have not been released unconditionally – their sentences have merely been suspended.<br />The way ahead is therefore clear: Since the Burmese government’s steps so far have been dramatic but largely symbolic, the West should repeal measures that sound more important than they are: the visa bans and asset freezes, for example. These steps could be announced if the April 1 elections are carried out smoothly and fairly.<br /><br />But the sanctions that bite, specifically the ban on access to American financial facilities, should remain in place until we see whether Myanmar’s rulers have a real appetite for change, or are merely tinkering with the scenery. If the day of the carrot has arrived, it is not yet time to throw away the stick.<br /><br /></p>