Moving forward in Myanmar/Burma

In a report released yesterday, International Crisis Group argues:

“With the political process moving ahead quickly, now is not the time for the West to remain disengaged and sceptical. It is critical to grasp this unique opportunity to support a process that not even the most optimistic observers saw coming. This requires a new, pro-active and engaged approach, in line with the positive signals coming from Naypyitaw.”

On proposals for a “commission of inquiry” into war crimes and crimes against humanity, it points out:

“Progress in tackling those abuses and creating domestic accountability is only possible with the cooperation of the government and the military, whose personnel are a major part of the problem, and therefore must be a major part of any solution. At a time when the new government is moving ahead with its reform agenda, including on human rights, pursuing the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry is unlikely to achieve anything. At this time, the international community should focus its efforts on ways to support the process of reform and encourage engagement.”

The report also notes, however, that the government in Naypyitaw “has so far failed to bring the same degree of subtlety and imagination to the ethnic issue as it has to the economic issue”.

Indeed, as Marie Lall commented earlier this month, "the ethnic conflict remains Burma's Achilles heel and needs to be taken as seriously as economic reforms and national recociliation with Aung San Suu Kyi”.

Commentary on Burma/Myanmar is coming thick and fast now, responding to the gathering momentum of announced change. A strong strand continues to emphasize the human rights abuses that clearly continue on many fronts in Burma. Many remain unconvinced by “largely superficial changes” in recent months, and continue to argue that sanctions have not effected change simply because they have been inadequately implemented.

But, continuing a long-standing argument, others continue to question the usefulness of sanctions and the policy of isolationism, not only because of Myanmar's economic and geopolitical situation, but also because of signs of the possibility of change.

Thant Myint-U writes:

“If this opportunity for positive change is lost, Burma may remain a miserably run place – but it will no longer be an isolated backwater. The great infrastructure projects under way will continue, as will the much longer-term processes of change. Asia's frontier will close and a new but dangerous crossroads will be the result. But if Burma indeed takes a turn for the better and we see an end to decades of armed conflict, a lifting of Western sanctions, democratic government, and broad-based economic growth, the impact could be dramatic. China's hinterland will suddenly border a vibrant and young democracy, and India's northeast will be transformed from a dead end into its bridge to the Far East. What happens next in Burma could be a game-changer for all Asia.”

Meanwhile, a report last week noted that “Burma may face sanctions for having ‘failed demonstrably’ in its anti-drug efforts”. Such policies need careful consideration, especially at the moment. We’ve been down this road before, and it arguably represented a “lost opportunity”. Now is surely a sensitive time, when the sticks and the carrots on all fronts need to be particularly carefully balanced. 

It will be the unenviable task of Indonesia’s foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, to pronounce on Burma’s suitability to be ASEAN’s chair in 2014. FM Marty has considerable diplomatic gifts, and he’s going to need them all.