Executive Summary: "Myanmar has been an international media flash point on and off, and a persistent point of contention in international relations since 1990, when the country held general elections in which the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won a majority of seats in the National Assembly or Constituent Assembly. The military, ruling under the name of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), refused to hand over power as demanded by the winner, which duly provoked outcries from the international community. Nearly two decades on, the country's government remains in the hands of the military despite the popular desire for change, Aung San Suu Kyi continues to be under house arrest, and the NLD is seeing its influence as an alternative political force to the military government dwindle. The public protests that broke out in 2007, triggered by a sudden surge in the fuel price, faded in due course from international headlines as other global events took center stage. The road to democracy in Myanmar remains as challenging as ever, while the country in its isolation continues to struggle with poverty ensuing from long drawn-out economic stagnation and decades of negligence under repressive and unrepentant military rule, which has been compounded by limited foreign investment under international sanctions aimed at encouraging and facilitating democratic change in Myanmar. In dealing with Myanmar, there is a general good-versus-bad analysis dominating international politics, and that has inadvertently prolonged the political standoff. Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 raised the issue of the urgency of humanitarian aid, prompting thinking outside of the box. However, ideologically charged objectives appear to hinder a review of international policy-making vis-à-vis Myanmar, which has instead placed an emphasis on sanctions. Contrasting this rigid policy-making stands the pragmatism guiding regional actors, namely, ASEAN (of which Myanmar is a member), China, and other countries that share land borders with Myanmar. The rift between the regional actors and the world powers (and 6 Xiaolin Guo their allies in Asia) has, to a degree, reduced the potential impact of external influence on Myanmar. From time to time, calls for change in Myanmar are reiterated in international headlines. The question is not that Myanmar has not changed in the past two decades, but rather that the change taking place may not necessarily be viewed by the international community outside of the region as positive or as the kind of change desired. While it is fairly easy to demand change from the military government, the real challenge remains, that is, how to break the political deadlock and make any meaningful political transition tenable. Attempts to employ sanctions as a way to bring about change in Myanmar mirrors post-Cold War international politics with a strong ideological base. The rhetoric of humanitarian intervention that came to dominate the play of international politics in the 1990s has encouraged and facilitated political change in selected countries around the world in the form of sanctions, and sometimes, military action. Myanmar has been a target of humanitarian intervention, albeit that military action has never been an option. Paradoxically, today�s practice of intervention as underwritten by liberals and neo-conservatives alike shares, as indeed shown in the case of Myanmar, some common features with nineteenth-century colonialism (though the parallel is often overlooked), in that indigenous conditions essential to change are generally pronounced irrelevant, and at the same time, the capacity of foreign influence to re-shape the domestic politics of another country tends to be overestimated. In a way, ideology and geopolitics are now, like then (more than a century ago), part of a global game of doing â�Å?good deeds� in distant lands. Revisiting political developments in Myanmar, this paper draws attention to the unintended consequences of a â�Å?politically correct� contemporary practice, raising questions not about the values of democracy per se, but rather about the practice of intervention in that very name, irrespective of indigenous conditions. Equally, it dwells not on the technicality of â�Å?humanitarian intervention� that falls within the purview of the UN mandate, but instead, the paper challenges the use of that concept as a foreign policy tool without giving sufficient consideration to its socio-economic consequences in another country. The paper argues that without taking into account its history, ethnic complexity, and socio-economic conditions, any policy-making toward Democracy in Myanmar and the Paradox of International Politics 7 Myanmar is likely to remain irrelevant to what is going on inside the country. Finally, the relative fading of rhetoric concerning â�Å?building democracy� from foreign policy speeches in the new U.S. Administration under President Obama is eye-opening, and being watched closely by the international community to determine how the change will materialize in policy-making toward Myanmar."