Response to "Trading with the Enemy

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Response to "Trading with the Enemy" from Strider



****************************BurmaNet*****************************
  "Appropriate Information Technologies--Practical Strategies"
*****************************************************************


RESPONSE TO "TRADING WITH THE ENEMY," A FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
ARTICLE BY THANT MYINT-U.


March 13, 1994


Dear Netters,

Most articles posted by BurmaNet get typed in and uploaded without
comment, but one recent article deserves another look.  In the
March 10 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review, Thant Myint-U
wrote a column entitled "Trading with the Enemy" in which he
asserts that the policy of the Western powers and Japan to isolate
Burma has been a failure.  

Myint-U argues that although these governments have not imposed an
embargo proper, they have refused development aid to Burma and
prevented the World Bank, the IMF and other multi-national agencies
from helping Burma.  The result he claims is that "Burma has just
enough outside involvement to stay afloat, but not enough to create
pressure for real change."  

Thant goes on to argue that instead of isolating Burma, the
international community should acknowledge that the policy of
isolation is a failure because it will not bring SLORC down. 
Instead of isolation, the international community should offer aid
with the caveat that it be for a "general programme of
modernisation that includes respect for property rights and a
genuine rule of law."

Several things argue for seriously considering Thant Myint-U's
ideas.  First, he's Burmese but not SLORCish.  Second, unlike Thai,
Chinese or Singaporean businessmen and generals, he's not likely to
get rich through "constructive engagement."  He is also good enough
to get published in the Far Eastern Economic Review and it doesn't
hurt his reputation that he's working on a Ph.D. in history at
Cambridge.  For all of his credentials however, Thant Myint-U's
argument falls flat.  

Myint-U is probably correct that Western isolation of Burma won't
bring SLORC down and won't improve the lot of the Burmese people. 
But neither is it likely that Western aid and investment will bring
SLORC down or cause them to seriously moderate their behavior.  At
most, aid would probably make a narrow segment much richer and
possibly a little would spill down to those below.  The cost of
doing this however is not worth it to the Western and Japanese
taxpayers who would be paying for this aid.

Part of the Burmese tragedy is that the West can do nothing, short
of invading (and that won't happen), that will free the people of
Burma.  If Burma is to be made free, it will have to be done by the
Burmese people themselves.

So long as SLORC is determined to rule by fiat and force, the
prospects for aid going to promote a "general programme of
modernisation that includes respect for property rights and a
genuine rule of law" is a pipe dream.  SLORC may want outside money
but it is painfully clear that SLORC does not want a genuine rule
of law.  Without the rule of law, property rights have no basis and
absent property rights, real modernisation is impossible.

Unfortunately, neither "engagement" nor isolation is likely to help
the Burmese people, but the reasons for isolating Burma and
promoting boycotts of companies doing business with SLORC don't
depend on helping the Burmese people.  Simply because we can do so
little to help the people, the reasons for refusing to be involved
with Burma must come from our own self-interest.

First, there is no sense to the idea of giving money to a regime
that has so little intention or ability to use it wisely.  That
regime is slowly evolving from an paranoid, superstitious,
socialist dictatorship into a kleptocratic dictatorship.  Ruling
military elites pour half of Burma's budget into the military and
skim off large parts of the rest through self-enriching, corrupt
enterprises.  Like the failed Soviet system, no amount of outside
money poured in can hope to improve the situation so long as the
rulers are intent on preventing change.

In addition to economic self-interest, there is another calculus
involved.  Governments that shoot their nation's children,
imprison, torture or exile their brightest minds and detest
democracy are not fit friends for democratic peoples.  If the
Burmese regime is willing to do this to its own people, there is
little reason to suppose they would be unwilling to do it to
others.  Given this, why help them get the means to carry their
brand of politics abroad?

One final reason to avoid Thant Myint-U's version of "constructive
engagement" is that just because we cannot prevent SLORC from being
bad, long and painful experience has shown that appeasement does
not make brutal regimes good.  Perhaps the best that can be hoped
for in the case of Burma is that, just as we waged and won the long
Cold War against the Soviets, we shall eventually outlast the
SLORC.  But to outlast them, we must remember our principals and
isolate this criminal regime.

Although isolation is the right thing for us to do, there is scarce
any consolation for the Burmese people in it.  That is part of
their tragedy.


--Strider

                         In the face of human suffering, 
                         silence is complicity, neutrality a crime.

                                                Elie Wiesel