The editors of the Washington Post have examined the Obama Administration’s policy on Burma and found it wanting:
During his last visit to the country, in November, Mr. Obama set five tests for measuring whether the transition from authoritarianism “has been fully realized.†The regime is failing all of them. It has not, as the president urged, moved to remove the constitutional ban on Ms. Suu Kyi. Instead of negotiating a cease-fire with ethnic rebel groups, it has escalated military operations against them. Mr. Obama urged fair treatment of religious minorities, but the regime is preparing new discriminatory laws. It is proceeding with a vicious campaign to deny rights, including voting rights, to the Muslim Rohingya minority.
Another of Mr. Obama’s tests was “basic issues of freedom and personal security,†such as the treatment of journalists and protesters. The result can be found in a Feb. 25 statement by the United Nations’ human rights high representative, Zeid Raad al-Hussein, who cited the jailing of 10 journalists and numerous peaceful protesters before concluding that the regime “seems intent on creating a new generation†of political prisoners. An ongoing crackdown on students only strengthens that judgment.
The generals are planning to stage an election this year, but it will not be the “fair, free, transparent election†Mr. Obama called for. Because the military is allocated 25 percent of the seats in parliament, the ruling party can retain power by winning only 34 percent of the elected seats. Ms. Suu Kyi is weighing whether to boycott the vote. If she does, the political process could collapse, but the alternative is legitimizing a facade of democracy over continued military rule.
Having rushed to lift sanctions as part of his engagement strategy, Mr. Obama now lacks leverage. The administration watches passively as the regime does the opposite of what the president called for. It’s a humiliating spectacle — and one that should give pause to those who believe that Mr. Obama’s variety of “engagement†will get results with other dictatorships.
I would welcome being given a half billion dollars without anything being expected in return and I suspect the military junta running Burma is no different. Neither engagement nor negotiations are good of themselves but only good to the degree that they result in good outcomes. Sometimes our best options in dealing wicked regimes is just not having anything to do with them and encouraging others to do the same.
We had sanctions in place and they were doing “A”. We dropped sanctions and they are still doing “A”. I bet if we reinstitute them they will still do “A”. Maybe you are right and we just shouldn’t have anything to do with them, including sanctions.
Steve
“Having rushed to lift sanctions as part of his engagement strategy, Mr. Obama now lacks leverage. The administration watches passively as the regime does the opposite of what the president called for. It’s a humiliating spectacle — and one that should give pause to those who believe that Mr. Obama’s variety of “engagement†will get results with other dictatorships.”
What else is new about our President’s foreign policy “debacles.” He seamlessly goes from one passive engagement, setting rules and lines he then ignores or flip-flops on, as he rushes to judgment in his examination of our country’s so-called continuing racial/gender/class problems. He literally winces at any distractions, especially foreign policy ones, which take time away from the social progressive agenda he based his presidential candidacy on — something he has never strayed far from, including the blustering rallies, non-stop fundraising and Hollywood/social media lip-locking events.
BTW, the sanctions were economic leverage that over time supposedly brought Iran to the negotiating table. These economic sanctions were not supported by Obama, either. It was Congress who instigated them.
I would welcome being given a half billion dollars without anything being expected in return….
Damn, who do I have to oppress to get a half billion dollars for free?
Maybe you are right and we just shouldn’t have anything to do with them, including sanctions.
If you don’t have sanctions against them, someone HERE will inevitably do business with them. Then you’re having something to do with them again.
And I’m wondering what steve’s belief was in two other (historically) recent examples of sanctions by the US: Against the old South African Apartheid regime and about sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq. Or, for that matter, against Cuba. Were those positions also fatalistic?
For the record, I was ambivalent about sanctions against SA, thought they were useful against Saddam, thought they were pointless against Cuba for the last 25 years or so (at least), and haven’t thought about sanctions against Burma. The question of using or not using sanctions depends on a host of issues, but ultimately comes down to this: Which position is most likely to produce the results you want?
ice, your positions are far too reasonable to even be considered by government.
Our sanctions against Cuba have accomplished nothing. They hurt the people of Iraq, but did not alter Saddam’s behavior. And we should remember that many Republicans (Reagan for one) opposed the South African sanctions. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19850827&id=KdIyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pO8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4678%2C3096495 And, it is not actually clear that the sanctions had a major effect, that it was going to happen anyway and the efforts of Mandela et al within SA were probably more important.
My best guess is that sanctions rarely work, and when they do it requires significant support within the country being sanctioned, and that country must have something approaching a democracy. It also must have near universal support among other nations. When they work, they are probably limited to getting the offending country to the table.
“These economic sanctions were not supported by Obama, either.”
False as a statement of fact. He imposed penalties on foreign banks working with Iran, including Chinese banks. He worked with the EU to bring them in on the sanctions. (How much work he did is disputed, but he clearly supported their efforts.) His admin should get credit for keeping China and Russia mostly on board, though Russia has already begun making deals.
Steve
Sanctions don’t have much impact when the U.S. is the only one involved and/or other nations are cheating. The Iranian sanctions are having an impact because of the breadth of nations involved (EU countries are key here, they traded with Iran more to begin with), plus oil price drops. I would like to see Iranian sanctions strengthened, and a concerted effort to reduce oil prices more (it’s the effort not the reality; I don’t know how much further the U.S. could do things to lower oil prices, but the fear of a more famished future is the goal).
In support of PD’s comment above, Iran wouldn’t have a nuclear development program if they hadn’t had support from German companies over a period of years. I suspect that Germany’s adherence to the sanctions regime has been the most effective component in the present sanctions.
As far as oil prices go, Iran has a distinct problem. They need oil prices over $100 a barrel to make money. They’re the highest cost major producer largely because they haven’t spent enough on their oil production infrastructure which in turn is directly related to the sanctions. My guess (in the absence of actual knowledge) is that their oil production is presently being supported by the Chinese which is, what, a third best alternative? That increases their production costs.