| Home > South-East Asia >> Burma | |
Critics challenge US Senator Webb's views on Burma
Irrawaddy - August 27, 2009
Lalit K. Jha, Washinton – The Burma engagement policy advocated by Sen James Webb, as presented in an op-ed article in The New York Times on Tuesday, has been challenged by Burma experts and the Burmese prime minister in exile.
Webb, who recently became the first US lawmaker to visit Burma in a decade, during which he achieved a rare meeting with both Sen-Gen Than Shwe and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, in an opinion piece urged the Obama administration to ease economic sanctions on Burma and to adopt a policy of engagement with the military junta.
However, his arguments show his poor understanding of military-ruled Burma, critics and Burma watchers told The Irrawaddy. Critics said his approach would only help in further legitimizing and strengthening the military government.
"The problem with the senator's case is not the specific policy prescriptions he offers, but its faulty assumptions," said Walter Lohman, the director of The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center, a Washington-based think tank.
On Webb's argument that sanctions have failed and engagement should be tried, Lohman said there is no denying that sanctions have not brought about change in Burma.
"But the answer lies in building the necessary international consensus to pressure it [the military government], not abandoning the effort." he said. "Besides, engagement by Burma's neighbors has been no more effective."
He said Webb should understand that Asean's engagement has failed for good reason. It was never intended to bring about democratic change in Burma, he said. That goal has always been its rationalization for doing business with an odious regime.
"As for the Chinese, there is at least integrity in their position," he said. "It has never argued for engagement on the basis of bringing democratic change to Burma. But for that reason, Sen Webb is barking up the wrong Chinese tree – as, in fact, he acknowledges may be the case. The truth is the Chinese will never bring meaningful pressure to bear on the junta. They proved that with a veto in the Security Council in 2007. And they have proven it by watering down every statement the Security Council makes when called to act."
On Webb's argument that if the US can engage China and Vietnam, why not Burma, Lohman said there is a fundamental difference.
"Vietnam made a strategic decision in 1986 to reform its economy and open up to the world. Without this decision, the subsequent normalization could not have happened," he said, adding it is the same regarding US normalization with China. "The Burmese junta has not made such a strategic decision. They reach out piece meal for means of securing their grip on power. That's why they joined Asean in 1997. There was a time in the 1990s when the Burmese were open to foreign visitors with critical perspectives. They are much more discerning nowadays," he said.
"Sen Webb was granted his historic meeting with Than Shwe because the senator is an opponent of current American policy and his presence could be used – as it was – to send a signal of regime stability to the long suffering people of Burma," Lohman said.
Noting that Webb rests much of his case on Burma's 2010 elections, Lohman said by focusing on "what is possible" instead of "free and fair elections," the senator leaves little doubt that what he intends is to accept the junta's terms.
Bertil Lintner, a Swedish journalist who has covered Burma for more than two decades and published several books on Burma, said that he disagreed with Webb's views.
"Westerners who think they can 'engage' the Burmese generals clearly overestimate their own importance," he said. "The Burmese generals don't listen to them; they just use them.
He said America's influence on Burma is often overestimated.
"Burmese foreign policy is guided by a 'three-circle concept,'" he said. "The first circle consists of Burma's immediate neighbors, countries with which Burma shares a common border. Circle No 2 is the region (Asean). No 3, the rest of the world. Circle No 3 is important to the generals only insofar as it may affect circle 1 and to a somewhat lesser degree circle 2.
Otherwise, the US doesn't matter, engagement, sanctions or whatever.
There is no way the US by being a bit friendlier is going to woe Burma away from its dependence on China – that's naive and wishful thinking."
Dr Sein Win, the cousin of Suu Kyi and prime minister in exile, said that as long as the regime oppresses its own people, there should be no normalization of its relationship with other countries, including the US.
Selective sanctions should be imposed on the military junta, he said, and there is no reason to lift the sanctions. Because human rights violations in Burma continue, he said, "You have to maintain the present form of sanctions."
Some Burma observes inside the country think that Than Shwe has shrewdly manipulated the US senator. After the visit, many ordinary Burmese thought the US was going to normalize its relationship with the regime.
An editor who runs an influential weekly journal in Burma observed: "Burmese people thought the US was going to betray the democracy cause. I hope this is not the case."
One cautious NGO worker said, "From my reading of the press and the commentators, those who lean towards engagement thought the visit was a breakthrough and those who lean towards sanctions think Webb played into the regime's hands."
The US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton looks forward to a meeting with Webb.
"We are expecting to complete our policy review," he said. "I am not going to put a time limit on it. But I think that that's going to be something we're going to be looking at. And before we actually conclude that review, I'm not going to prejudge how it will come out."
Correspondents in Rangoon and Chiang Mai also contributed reporting to this story.
See also:
 |