- by  Nyi Nyi Lwin

The debate on sanctions and engagement between the West and Asian over how to influence Burma needs to be reassessed after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed in a town hall meeting in February in Japan that US policy toward Burma is being reviewed. It is worthwhile to reexamine regional and international approach, Burma opposition’s approach, and US new approach; how they do realistically imply changes in Burma after Mrs. Clinton remark.

US clearly indicated that its sanctions against the Burmese junta did not produce any positive result, the military junta did not relax on basic human rights abuses and even impose lengthy prison  sentences on political activists. For these and other considerable factors and reasons, President Obama’s administration is vehemently approached by the business community and asked to change US policy towards Burma.

Fourteenth Summit of Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) that was held in February in Thailand passed resolutions on Burma, giving the United Nations greater role. It vividly signaled that ASEAN approach of engagement with the Burmese regime was ineffective. Burma’s observers carefully  analyzed that ASEAN shifting its burden to UN is a diplomatic attempt to escape criticism.
United Nations has passed a number of resolutions on Burma in both General Assembly and Security Council, and called for dialogue with the oppositions, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic leaders since 1993. No major progress and meaningful dialogue has taken place in Burma so far. But the military regime cleverly twisted its new approach toward UN and has invited it to observe 2010 national election. This put some appeasers in a mood to call that UN be granted a greater role in Burma’s future development programs.

The key stakeholders in Burma’s politics are National League for Democracy (NLD), cease-fire and non-cease fire ethnic organizations or (ENC), and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).  Beside, US, UN, ASEAN, and EU as well as Burma’s neighboring China and India are important auxiliaries for a dynamic change in Burma. Each stakeholder has its own ability and quality to assist with the desperate needs for political improvement. However, they have never sat down and talked together at a suitable venue, so a plausible result of coordination and cooperation to improve human rights and basiic freedoms in Burma is pretty lacking.

It is not yet clear how US new approach will work, but many key organizations, general public, and some western nations are opposing the 2010 election so that the legitimacy and popularity of  “new government” is very blurry. UN and ASEAN role on Burma is very limited as the history of UN works in Burma far back to 1993 has shown to be unyielding. On the other hand, the present regime will hand over its successor government military offensives against ethnic people and harassment against political activists under the pretext of law and order after the new election.

Regardless of any US new approach, people of Burma fully understand the universal truth that reaction against the repression will be rising up by the ethnic people and democracy activists. For the ethnic people and democracy activists, the 2010 election is not a solution via political means but forceful concession via SPDC’s might. The ethnic people’s plight for equality and self-determination will never end unless they are given political equal footsteps with the Burman. For the democracy activists, their plight for multiparty democracy systems and freedom from military domination will remain the same.

Nyi Nyi Lwin is advisor to Malaysia based Association of Arakan National Council Supporting (ANC-S) that represents 9,500 members worldwide.