CREDIT THE WEST
Source : DAVID CAMROUX (PARIS), FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW (FEB 22)
In Talking Politics [Editorials, Jan. 25], you wrongly imply that the Burmese junta is monolithic. Rather, there are various tendencies within the ruling group. The pursuit of individual material interests is hidden by an Orwellian climate of suspicion and distrust and the related necessity to present a jingoistic united front to the outside world. Unlike some other authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes, the junta has hardly been able to legitimize its actions by the pursuit of some greater national interest or the betterment of the economic condition of the population. In the last decade, fear has replaced brute force as the main instrument of control.
Given the peculiar nature of the Burmese regime--its heterogeneity, unpredictability and opacity disguised behind a monolithic face--the only practical approach to the problem presented has been the three-strand approach taken: constructive engagement, "middling" engagement (Australia and Japan) and the sanctions of the European Union and the United States. While Asean may in public defend its constructive engagement, officials will in private readily admit their frustration with the Burmese regime and the embarrassment Burma is for all of Asean.
When you claim that the EU and the U.S. had nothing to do with arranging the talks presently going on in Rangoon and that Western sanctions had nothing to do with this positive development, you imply that only Asean's so-called constructive engagement has been effective. Are individual members of the junta as impervious to the effects of sanctions as you claim? Certainly, the xenophobia of some may have been worsened, but what about those who are conscious that no economic takeoff is possible without integration in the international community? One should not forget South Africa, where a combination of sanctions and conciliatory gestures contributed to the end of apartheid.