Obama calls on Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not sure if it'll accomplish anything, but I think Obama's efforts to engage the totalitarian military junta that rules Burma* and brutalizes the Burmese people are admirable, yet more evidence of the dramatic shift away from the military-oriented, unilateralist approach that characterized Bush's foreign policy.

"Despite years of good intentions," said the president, "neither sanctions by the United States nor engagement by others succeeded in improving the lives of the Burmese people." And he's right. "So we are now communicating directly with the leadership to make it clear that existing sanctions will remain until there are concrete steps toward democratic reform." Specifically?

There are clear steps that must be taken: the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; an end to conflicts with minority groups; and a genuine dialogue between the government, the democratic opposition and minority groups.

That would certainly be a positive start, though, of course, the lives of the Burmese people will only improve in any meaningful way once the totalitarians are overthrown or otherwise removed from power, preferably in some sort of peaceful transition, however unlikely that may seem given the junta's iron grip.

Engagement alone won't be enough. Ultimately, what Obama will need to do -- if he's serious about this -- is persuade Burma's neighbours, notably India and China, that it is in their best interests to stop supporting, and enabling, the junta. The problem is, beyond humanitarianism, it isn't clear that it really is in their best interests, given how they both profit from their economic relationships with Burma, notably from their access to Burma's natural resources.

Furthermore, Burma just isn't significant enough to destabilize the region. And it's not like Burma is important enough to the U.S., either in economic or national security terms, for it to risk worsening its generally positive relations with India and China by demanding their support in a unified front against the junta. The key is India, which, as a democracy, could perhaps be persuaded to stop propping up totalitarianism. Perhaps that would be enough to compel the junta to loosen its grip.

For his part, though, Obama has at least inserted the wedge that could lead eventually to long-term change in Burma. And that's a very positive start in its own right.

**********

* As I put it here, let's all please call it Burma, not Myanmar:

Can we all please stop calling it Myanmar? That's the name the military junta -- then the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), since 1997 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) -- gave the country when it declared martial law
in 1989.

As Yale law professor Amy Chua puts it in her book World on Fire (p. 23): "Members of the majority ethnic group in Burma are called Bamahs (in the spoken language) or Myanmahs (in the written language). The newly independent state that emerged from the end of British colonial rule in 1948 was called the Union of Burma. In 1989, SLORC changed the country's name to Myanmar. (It also changed the names of various cities: Rangoon, for example, is now called Yangon.) In deference to the democratic opposition party, which has refused to acquiesce in the name change, the United States government currently refers to the country as Burma, and I do the same."

We all should do the same. Burma it is.

Thank you.