POLITICS, ECONOMICS & SANCTIONSTHE SANCTIONS DEBATE321All member nations were advised to review their links with Myanmar and
ensure they did not support forced labour there.
In 2001 Japan controversially defi ed the embargo on nonhumanitar-
ian aid to Myanmar. As an incentive for the regime to press ahead with
reconciliation talks with Aung San Suu Kyi, Japan off ered $28 million in
technical assistance to repair the Baluchaung hydroelectric power plant
in Kayah State.
Following Aung San Suu Kyi’s third arrest in 2003, the US imposed
full economic sanctions, which resulted in foreign banks in Myanmar
packing up and leaving. (The wording of the EU’s sanctions, however, al-
lowed France’s Total gas company to continue operating there.) Critics of
the use of sanctions argue that these measures hurt the local workforce.
After the strengthening of the US sanctions, many Myanmar garment
factories, virtually all of which are privately owned, closed down, report-
edly leading to the loss of up to 60,000 jobs.
The controversy surrounding sanctions boils down to how eff ective
they have been in forcing the pace of change. Thant Myint-U argues that
a ‘policy of isolating one of the most isolated countries in the world –
where the military regime isolated itself for the better part of 30 years,
and which indeed has grown up and evolved well in isolation – is both
counterproductive and dangerous’.
‘The regime is the biggest sanction by far’, says Sean Turnell, explain-
ing why the international community shies away from doing business
with Myanmar. The absence of the rule of law, rampant corruption, and
what Turnell terms ‘wilfully inept economic management’ are suffi cient
on their own to discourage business and investment, without the imposi-
tion sanctions, which have become largely symbolic.
This is clearly not a view shared by the government, who lay the blame
for their citizens’ economic hardships at the foot of the sanction-impos-
ing countries. Many opposition political parties in the country would
like to see sanctions go too. However, the NLD has refused to drop its
call for continued economic sanctions until the new government has
demonstrated progress and change toward meaningful democracy and
human rights.
BURMA OR MYANMAR?What to call the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (to use its offi cial name as of 2011)
has been a political fl ashpoint since 1989. That was the year in which the military junta
decided to consign Burma, the name commonly used since the mid-19th century, to the
rubbish bin, along with a slew of other British colonial-era place names, such as Ran-
goon, Pagan, Bassein and Arakan.
The UN recognises Myanmar as the nation’s offi cial name; Myanmar is more inclu-
sive than Burma, given that its population isn’t by any means 100% Burman. However,
nearly all opposition groups (including the NLD), many ethnic groups and several key
nations including the US continue to refer to the country as Burma. As Aung San Suu
Kyi told us (see p 354 ), ‘I prefer Burma because the name was changed without any
reference to the will of the people.’
In this book, the default name for the country is Myanmar, with Burma used for pe-
riods before 1989 and where it’s the name of an organisation, ie Burma Campaign UK.
‘Burmese’ refers to the Bamar people (not to all the country’s population, which we
term ‘the people of Myanmar’), the food and the language.The tourism
boycott worked,
at least judging
by its original
goal: Myanmar re-
ceived fewer than
200,000 visitors
during its Visit
Myanmar Year
(1996), well below
the government’s
initial target of
500,000.In its Press Free-
dom Index for
2010, Reporters
Without Borders
(http://en.rsf. org)
tagged Myanmar
one of the world’s
most repressive
countries towards
journalists.