• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Keeping Perspective on Developments in Burma

    Last week, The Heritage Foundation hosted a discussion entitled “Burma Policy: Hope and Reality,” which revolved around breaking developments in Burma and appropriate responses to them.

    The panel for this event included Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch; Aung Din, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma; Jared Genser, founder and president of Freedom Now; and Walter Lohman, director of Heritage’s Asian Studies Center.

    Recent events in Burma heighten this discussion’s relevance. Indeed, the 20-year debate of engagement versus sanctions has resurfaced and has been energized by a series of nominal reforms in Burma, such as the amnesty of a mere 220 political prisoners out of some 2,100 believed to be incarcerated.

    This panel sought to dial down the rhetoric, rationally assess the conditions on the ground in Burma, and critically analyze their implications for genuine, sustainable reform and the appropriate policy response.

    Cautious optimism, colored by a hefty dose of skepticism, dominated the event’s tone.

    Lohman opened the event by highlighting that there are “recurrent themes in what’s going on in Burma” and that we need to “sit down, slow down a little bit, and see what exactly is happening and what kind of response it warrants from Washington.”

    Aung Din, who was a student leader of the 1988 pro-democracy uprising in Burma and subsequently a political prisoner for four years, expressed his disappointment with the meager political prisoner amnesty in stating that “we lost hope that many of the important leaders of the [1988] movement are not being released.” He called on the U.S. to “not give any reward for the current release of political prisoners” as it was “still not enough.”

    Finally, he established four important benchmarks for the Burmese government to meet, namely “releasing all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, ending ethnic conflict, creating a political system that will allow all people to participate freely, and allowing international humanitarian agencies to deliver relief to those affected by ethnic conflict.” He concluded by stating that the Burmese regime “has not changed their behavior” and only acts when “they need something from the international community.”

    Malinowski unequivocally stated that “no laws have been changed, no institutions have been reformed yet” and the “U.S. response to Burma should be determined by the facts on the ground, not on hopes…. It is important for the U.S. to maintain a sense of sobriety about this and maintain its leverage.”

    Regarding the release of 220 political prisoners, he noted that “this is not an unconditional release.” He further highlighted that releasing all political prisoners “is not the same as changing laws and institutions” and that “the people went to prison because they wanted to change the way Burma is governed,” so success should be measured in terms of political reform, not prisoner amnesty.

    Malinowski stressed the need for the junta government to follow through on a full release of all political prisoners, noting that expectations have been raised to expect just that, not another routine partial release. He also stressed the importance of upcoming elections and the need for the government to change the election laws in a way that allows the National League for Democracy Party to contest them. These would be important developments and would warrant a positive American response.

    He added that the reforms would “vindicate the policies that the U.S. has pursued,” referring to U.S. sanctions, but he also cautiously reminded the audience that there is still “a beast of a regime” that is not going to “voluntarily negotiate its powers and privileges without a struggle.” He ended by stating that if reform happens, “it would be important for the Administration to respond in a concrete way … [but] we’re not there yet, [and] our response should be measured, sobered, and realistic.”

    Finally, Genser noted the need “to step back” and assess the evidence. His conclusion was that “an analysis of those items where people are pointing to potential progress are, in fact, so far mostly illusory, particularly when you put this in the context of recent Burmese history.”

    He discussed 10 specific areas where commentators perceive change—namely, the 2008 constitution, the 2010 elections, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the new president, the new government, the increased access to diplomatic visas, the meeting between Suu Kyi and Thein Sein, the slight lift of media restrictions, the visit by the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights, and the release of 220 political prisoners.

    He described these developments as “the junta appear[ing] to be repeating history once again, offering form instead of substance,” criticizing each individual step as not containing genuine reform beneath the surface or not being particularly new. Genser concluded by warning observers that “no one should be fooled.”

    The primary takeaway from this event is that it is critical to judge Burma not by its rhetoric but by its actions and that, so far, Burma has not done enough to warrant a reorientation of U.S.–Burma policy. Malinowski’s statement that “we’re not quite there yet” concisely portrays where exactly we stand in this process.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Keeping Perspective on Developments in Burma

    1. It is too soon to write off the changes which we are observing in Myanmar as "illusory". What we are witnessing is rather different, both in quality and quantity, from what we have seen during the last two decades. It could all be reversed, almost overnight, if President Thein Sein's rivals were to decide that he was moving too fast and that events were slipping out of military control. Many of us thought that Soviet Russia and Apartheid South Africa would never change, but along came Mikhail Gorbachev and FW De Klerk who changed their systems from within, possibly at a much faster pace than either of them ever intended or that any of us thought likely. The result was the collapse of the Soviet system and the end of apartheid.

      So it is as well to keep an open mind about what is happening, not to be so dismissive, and to recognise that the new regime is operating from a position of strength after securing the results they wanted in the 2008 Referendum on the Constitution and the November 2010 Elections. They have their own interests which they would understand requires them to reform if they are to have any hope of achieving these interests. We should at least ponder on whether recent changes reflect perhaps not so much a change of heart as a recognition already of where their best interests lie. Current US policy is geared to responsible engagement and may well in due course claim credit for any reforms. But it is as well to recognise that past policies have been totally counterproductive and that recent changes are occurring not because of, but despite earlier Western endeavours.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.