Kerry Howley

This report from a recent European conference on Burma is helpful in articulating the differences between American, European, and Asian approaches to the country:

There was a widespread sentiment and frustration among participants that the West’s two-decade long policy of sanctions had failed, even if it showed support for the democracy cause. One participant claimed that if the policy had damaged the regime, it had hurt the Burmese population even more. Another said it had provided the regime with an excuse to isolate itself and not engage. This coincided with a Chinese participant’s perspective that by pursuing such a policy, the West had missed an opportunity to integrate the country into international society. There was a further sense that through sanctions and diplomatic isolation, the West had “disinvested” from the country; as a result, as one participant put it, it was unrealistic to demand China to do something when the West itself had failed to stake any real commitment to change in the country…

There was broad consensus by the participants to the workshop that while the protests exposed popular discontent with the government and undermined its legitimacy, they also revealed the opposition’s weakness and the robustness of the regime, particularly in regard to the fact that it could count on the loyalty of troops to suppress and fire upon demonstrators. Indeed, the regime’s repressive
apparatus was singled out by many participants as a major factor in neutralizing the opposition. Other factors of weakness highlighted were the acute shortage of funding that opposition groups faced (with the politics thereof creating and exacerbating internal divisions), and also the fact that the National League for Democracy (NLD) is too centred on the personality of Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK), with the consequence that the party has been in stasis whenever she has been under house arrest. One participant noted a catch-22 situation, in which she is the only person acceptable to the democracy movement and yet she is precisely the figure that the regime refuses to constructively cooperate with.
The lack of a credible, alternative leader was also noted. A point was made on the role of the Buddhist monks as the main force behind the protests, with their repoliticization being seen as a danger for the government. Other participants, meanwhile, pointed to the limitations of the monks as a political actor, such as the doctrine of non-intervention in politics, community divisions, and the Buddhist dignitary not supporting the overthrow of the regime.

The U.S. Campaign for Burma, which shows an unbelievable naivety about the relationship between China and Burma, asks that you boycott anyone who trades with the Burmese and refuse to visit the country to assess the situation yourself. Instead, it advises, “print some flyers.”