[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Burma on Washington Post Editorial



Subject: Burma on Washington Post Editorial (June 24, 1996)

Support for Burma's Democrats 

Monday, June 24 1996; Page A16
The Washington Post 

 NEARLY A YEAR has passed since Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house 
arrest amid hopes of a dialogue between her democratic movement and the 
thugs who rule Burma. But although her party won 82 percent of the popular 
vote in 1990 elections, the regime, which refused to transfer power, still 
won't talk. Recently there have been more political arrests and 
disappearances.

 The United States has taken the lead in pressing Burma to democratize by 
withholding foreign aid. Recently President Clinton sent two envoys to 
consult about next steps with Japan and Burma's neighbors in Southeast 
Asia, who until now have favored a policy of "constructive engagement." 
That policy must by now be counted a failure, and critics in Congress say 
the same of U.S. diplomacy. Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and others now press for a ban on U.S. investment.

 Can the outside world best help oppressed peoples -- in Nigeria, Cuba, 
China or elsewhere -- through engagement or isolation? When should the 
United States do the right thing, even knowing other countries won't 
follow? Each case must be decided on its merits, based in part on the 
following questions:

 How bad is the regime? Here, Burma qualifies hands-down. Its regime 
press-gangs children and adults, practicing forced labor "on a massive 
scale under the cruelest of conditions," according to a recent U.S. 
government statement. 

 Would continuing investment promote democratization? So argues the 
largest U.S. investor, Unocal, stakeholder in a billion-dollar natural-gas 
project. In China, where economic freedoms run far ahead of political ones, 
foreign investment may carve out havens that nurture the sprouts of a civil 
society. In Burma, the regime is too centralized and all-controlling for 
that to apply.

 Would sanctions harm U.S. businesses? Inevitably, yes. But while U.S. 
investment is sizable from Burma's point of view, it is tiny by American 
standards. Compared to the investments that U.S. companies left behind in 
South Africa when sanctions were enforced against apartheid, losses would be 
minimal.

 Would sanctions hurt Burma's 42 million civilians? Again, yes. But Aung San 
Suu Kyi herself has cautioned foreign firms not to invest, saying they are 
mostly enriching the regime. As with Lech Walesa in Poland and Nelson Mandela 
in South Africa, Nobel Peace Laureate Suu Kyi speaks with a moral authority 
that the outside world cannot ignore.

 Would sanctions work? At first, other nations' firms might assume forsaken 
U.S. contracts. But strong U.S. action would bolster Aung San Suu Kyi and her 
followers while weakening the regime. If the Clinton administration needs 
time to enlist or inform other nations, Congress should listen; U.S. action 
should not be needlessly unilateral. But there can be no doubt that stronger 
U.S. action is called for.