Thursday, 05 April 2012 14:36 Derek Tonkin
(Commentary) – The very positive welcome from Asian and Western leaders to the orderly conduct of the recent by-elections in Burma has encouraged discussion on how best the West should respond to this further indication of political reform in the country.
To date, no Western government has felt able to ease a single economic or financial sanction against Burma, despite the widely recognized progress which has been made since the civilian government took power in March 2011 and despite all the formal promises over the years that there would be a positive response to reform.
No doubt Western hesitancy has been strongly influenced by Aung San Suu Kyi's continued support for sanctions. A full year has passed, but apart from important gestures of goodwill such as visits by several Western foreign ministers, the only positive action by way of recognition has been to suspend the travel ban, but not the asset freeze, on the top 87 officials in the new government and their families. It is particularly unfortunate that the announced suspension of asset freezes for 24 of the 87 officials already removed from the travel ban in 2011 has now been rescinded unannounced.
The spotlight has now focused on those elements in the confusing array of Western sanctions that might be eased as a response, already long overdue, to the reforms that have already taken place.
Network Myanmar advocates a simple solution to this dilemma, which is to rescind at once all those sanctions that have human rights implications.
Whatever the original intention, there are many sanctions which primarily and some exclusively affect the population. The worst offenders are the United States, whose sanctions regime, in four Congressional Acts and five Presidential Executive Orders, never pretended to be "smart," but were designed to maximize the damage to the Burmese economy in the promotion of regime change and included general bans on trade and investment, restrictive mandates for U.N. agencies and the blocking of development assistance from international financial institutions. Canada is proud that it has the toughest sanctions in the West, but overlooks the human rights implications of its actions.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana has already stressed the importance of a detailed analysis of Western sanctions to ascertain the extent to which they infringe human rights.
E.U. sanctions too have human rights implications. For example, the sectorial ban on the import of timber and timber products has hit furniture manufacturers hard. As a result many carpenters and furniture-makers have been compelled to seek employment in neighbouring Thailand, where they may well find themselves working on imported Burmese timber and suffering exploitation. The E.U. should not be complicit in human rights abuses. EU sanctions do of course list the names of hundreds of targeted individuals and companies, but they are almost entirely persons and entities that have never had a trading relationship with Europe, have never used Western banking facilities and have never held assets in the E.U.
U.S., Canadian and E.U. sanctions are the very antithesis of modern sanctions philosophy and practice, which strongly reject generalized sanctions precisely because of their human rights implications.
As regards the E.U., there is considerable variation in practice with respect to trade, investment and tourism not subject to statutory controls. The UK continues to discourage such engagement, intervening at its discretion to dissuade UK companies publicly from involvement. Other E.U. countries however are already organizing trade missions to Burma, or providing official support. There is clearly a very important need for the E.U. to harmonize their policy in this context as a matter of urgency. Norway, not a member of the E.U., has already set the pace by announcing that it now positively encourages trade, investment and tourism, though it will continue to respect E.U. statutory restrictions.
No doubt in the light of her victory in the by-elections Aung San Suu Kyi is reconsidering her support for sanctions, though the NLD has never acknowledged the damage which they cause to the economy generally. The West should be guided in its decisions primarily by the reality on the ground.
Now that a government is in power that has set poverty eradication, rural development and social welfare as important priorities, there can be no excuse for Western governments seeking to compel further reform through the use of sanctions targeting the population. These sanctions should not be part of the Western arsenal of restrictive measures."
– Network Myanmar is a charitable association that supports informed policies that promotes political rights and liberties for the people of Burma.
To date, no Western government has felt able to ease a single economic or financial sanction against Burma, despite the widely recognized progress which has been made since the civilian government took power in March 2011 and despite all the formal promises over the years that there would be a positive response to reform.
No doubt Western hesitancy has been strongly influenced by Aung San Suu Kyi's continued support for sanctions. A full year has passed, but apart from important gestures of goodwill such as visits by several Western foreign ministers, the only positive action by way of recognition has been to suspend the travel ban, but not the asset freeze, on the top 87 officials in the new government and their families. It is particularly unfortunate that the announced suspension of asset freezes for 24 of the 87 officials already removed from the travel ban in 2011 has now been rescinded unannounced.
The spotlight has now focused on those elements in the confusing array of Western sanctions that might be eased as a response, already long overdue, to the reforms that have already taken place.
Network Myanmar advocates a simple solution to this dilemma, which is to rescind at once all those sanctions that have human rights implications.
Whatever the original intention, there are many sanctions which primarily and some exclusively affect the population. The worst offenders are the United States, whose sanctions regime, in four Congressional Acts and five Presidential Executive Orders, never pretended to be "smart," but were designed to maximize the damage to the Burmese economy in the promotion of regime change and included general bans on trade and investment, restrictive mandates for U.N. agencies and the blocking of development assistance from international financial institutions. Canada is proud that it has the toughest sanctions in the West, but overlooks the human rights implications of its actions.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana has already stressed the importance of a detailed analysis of Western sanctions to ascertain the extent to which they infringe human rights.
E.U. sanctions too have human rights implications. For example, the sectorial ban on the import of timber and timber products has hit furniture manufacturers hard. As a result many carpenters and furniture-makers have been compelled to seek employment in neighbouring Thailand, where they may well find themselves working on imported Burmese timber and suffering exploitation. The E.U. should not be complicit in human rights abuses. EU sanctions do of course list the names of hundreds of targeted individuals and companies, but they are almost entirely persons and entities that have never had a trading relationship with Europe, have never used Western banking facilities and have never held assets in the E.U.
U.S., Canadian and E.U. sanctions are the very antithesis of modern sanctions philosophy and practice, which strongly reject generalized sanctions precisely because of their human rights implications.
As regards the E.U., there is considerable variation in practice with respect to trade, investment and tourism not subject to statutory controls. The UK continues to discourage such engagement, intervening at its discretion to dissuade UK companies publicly from involvement. Other E.U. countries however are already organizing trade missions to Burma, or providing official support. There is clearly a very important need for the E.U. to harmonize their policy in this context as a matter of urgency. Norway, not a member of the E.U., has already set the pace by announcing that it now positively encourages trade, investment and tourism, though it will continue to respect E.U. statutory restrictions.
No doubt in the light of her victory in the by-elections Aung San Suu Kyi is reconsidering her support for sanctions, though the NLD has never acknowledged the damage which they cause to the economy generally. The West should be guided in its decisions primarily by the reality on the ground.
Now that a government is in power that has set poverty eradication, rural development and social welfare as important priorities, there can be no excuse for Western governments seeking to compel further reform through the use of sanctions targeting the population. These sanctions should not be part of the Western arsenal of restrictive measures."
– Network Myanmar is a charitable association that supports informed policies that promotes political rights and liberties for the people of Burma.
No comments:
Post a Comment