Editorial
Engagement, not isolation in SE Asia

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

Boycott and isolation have been U.S. policy toward the southeast Asian dictatorship of Myanmar — formerly known as Burma — for years, with little to show for it. A new report by the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research makes a bold case that engagement would serve U.S. interests — and Myanmar's — much better.

The country of 43 million people bordered by India, Thailand and China is one of the political tragedies of Asia. In 1962, the military seized power and proclaimed a policy of dictatorship, isolation and socialism.

In 1990, the military allowed a free election. It lost the election, threw the winners into prison and placed their leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. Her heroism won her the Nobel Peace Prize and made her a symbol for human-rights activists everywhere — and prompted the United States to support her by slapping political and economic sanctions on Myanmar.

The policy had fine intentions, but the seven scholars who wrote the report say sanctions are "demonstrably failing." Instead of promoting democracy, they say, sanctions foster nationalistic resentment, isolation and poverty, and prevent the United States from pursuing important interests such as Burmese help on control of terrorism, opium and AIDS.

"U.S. policy has been locked into two strands: human rights and the recognition of the election of 1990," says John Badgley, the retired Cornell University professor who or-ganized the report. Badgley, who worked years ago for diplomatic recognition of China and for the end of the Vietnam War, says the United States has to accept this Asian reality as well.

Much has changed since the 1990 election. Myanmar has declared a market economy. It is negotiating peace with ethnic armies, including the Karens. Its leader, Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt, said in 2002 he favored a transition to democracy. Long a friend of China, the government warmed to India, Japan and Australia, and clearly wants to normalize relations with the United States.

Normalization would have been on our agenda had there been a commercial interest to put it there. A decade ago, Boeing and others pushed to end the equally unsuccessful sanctions on Vietnam. But Myanmar is even poorer than Vietnam was. The one U.S. investor of note, Unocal, is shunned. The result is that the campaign to normalize relations has to be begun by university professors.

Their ideas make sense. By choosing engagement over isolation, America would have a policy with a much better chance of positive results. Compare the U.S. policy toward China with our policy toward Cuba in the past 25 years. Engagement works.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company