Registered user login:

Burma: sanctions are not the solution

Dafydd Hugh

Published 02 October 2007

NewStatesman.com's coverage of the Burma uprising continues. In this eyewitness report Dafydd Hugh argues that British businesses should not pull out

Should British businesses pull out of Burma, as George Monbiot argues? I don't think so.

Last Friday I sat with a Burmese woman in her office in Rangoon as she cried and told me about her young friend who had disappeared during the demonstrations. Her plea to me was to tell everyone at home not to forget the ordinary Burmese people and their suffering.

Having spent the last two weeks in Burma I was struck by the warmth of the welcome and the huge thirst of the local people to meet a Westerner and find out what is going on in the outside world. The isolation of the country comes not just from a paranoid government that literally employs people to cut out pages from the international papers so that no coverage is seen of any dissent in Burma. It also comes from the effectiveness of the West’s sanctions that means that there are virtually no western companies present in the country.

But the sanctions are not having the desired effect. They are doing little to destabilise the Burmese government and they are without doubt increasing the severe poverty of the Burmese people. The sanctions are also not working because investment is still flowing into the country from Chinese, Thai, Singaporean, Korean and Japanese firms.

Burma has huge natural resources, entrepreneurial people and should be as rich as its neighbour Thailand, and growing just as fast. Instead, travelling outside Rangoon, it looks and feels as if time has stood still since the Second World War.

The government of Burma is as brutal and nasty as they come. In order to maintain power it has shot down its own people in the most callous way. The disregard for the life of the Burmese people defies belief. The standards of health-care for the population are pitiful.

Meanwhile, the government is investing in prestige projects like the construction of Nay Phi Taw - the new capital city. I travelled up deserted eight lane roads overtaking only the occasional ox cart. On the roadside, children as young as five can be seen hard at work on construction sites.

Our best hope of changing this government is to force China to change its stance on Burma. It can be done. China does not want instability on its door-step and is currently very sensitive to Western criticism of its ‘development before democracy’ line.

The Beijing Olympics for 2008 has four Western companies that are official partners. They are Adidas, Johnson & Johnson, Atos Origin and VW. If they were to threaten to withdraw their support from the Olympics this would be a serious blow to China.

Employees, customers, shareholders and governments should put all possible pressure on these companies to withdraw their support for the Beijing Olympics unless China changes its stance on Burma. This type of approach is much more likely to destabilise the Burmese government than further sanctions, and will not heap even more misery on the destitute Burmese people.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

taghioff.info
02 October 2007 at 18:38

Daffyd, your title is a bit misleading, since you are calling for sanctions, but against China.

The argument about sanctions increasing poverty is tricky, really, tricky. I remember how upset people were about sanctions against Iraq, but also remember the fall of apartheid.

However the ideas of sanctions against China or sanctions against Burma are not mutually exclusive, as Monbiot puts it in the article you respond to:

"But the more the Burmese junta must rely on a single source of investment and protection, the more vulnerable it becomes. China is not intractable. If western governments boycotted the Beijing Olympics, they would precipitate the biggest political crisis in that country since 1989."

Ultimately the argument hinges on if the end is achievable, and thus justifies the means. Not an easy call.

Douglas Chalmers
02 October 2007 at 21:21

What sanctions on burma - financial ones??? Dafydd Hugh and the international community (other countries) mainly don't want to apply genuine sanctions. That is a very poor choice as most food in Burma is grown locally so ordinary people wouldn't be harmed by sanctions or blockades - only the exporting and importing corporations and military. Its quite opposite to Iraq where millions died of starvation and disease as a result of santions which cut off a significant percentage of food supplies (grain + livestock/meat) and sanctions were applied uncaringly.

Additionally, some in the international communitywant to derail Suu Kyi and her party taking power any time soon. They want yet another incompetent UN-managed "peace-keeper" military force and European and American bureaucrats telling everyone what to do while their corporations continue to benefit.

Its been a disaster elsewhere and is unnecessary for Burma. There are 58 million or so people with many intelligent and highy-qualified individuals who can manage things effectively immediately and regional assistance from ASEAN. So many living in exile who only need to get on a plane to be ready to help.

Douglas Chalmers
03 October 2007 at 20:38

Chevron's Pipeline Is the Burmese Regime's Lifeline - "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, at the meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, said, "The United States is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place." Keeping an international focus is essential, but should not distract from one of the most powerful supporters of the junta, one that is much closer to home. Rice knows it well: Chevron......

Rice served on the Chevron board of directors for a decade. She even had a Chevron oil tanker named after her. While she served on the board, Chevron was sued for involvement in the killing of nonviolent protesters in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Like the Burmese, Nigerians suffer political repression and pollution where oil and gas are extracted and they live in dire poverty......." http://www.alternet.org/workplace/64310/

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Does Hillary Clinton deserve to be secretary of state?