The sanctions carousel

By Benedict Rogers

In February, I wrote an article entitled Burma's policy debate: polarization and paralysis, in an attempt to try to move the debate about solutions for Burma’s crisis beyond the age-old arguments about sanctions versus engagement. Some people, such as Derek Tonkin, failed to seize the olive branch implicit in my arguments, and instead saw it as another opportunity to launch a flawed critique of sanctions. Others, however, responded with more mixed attitudes, and I was pleasantly surprised to read Morten Pedersen's piece in which it seems we are in more agreement than expected. It was good to read that Morten Pedersen, a previous prominent and vociferous critic of sanctions, actually agrees that “further sanctions, strictly targeted and flexibly applied, may be appropriate”. He also concedes that “sanctions can be useful, to some extent, to keep change on the agenda both inside and outside Burma”. Even if he goes on to contradict himself later in the article, by rehashing the line that “sanctions may feel morally just” but are “neither effective nor even ethical,” that argument is countered powerfully earlier in the article. He accuses me of having “expropriated much of the traditional language of sanctions critics, who for years have been calling for better targeting of sanctions, greater diplomatic engagement and increased aid.” That last bit is certainly news to me – these have been the recommendations of the democracy movement for some years, expressed in the paper Pro-Aid, Pro-Sanctions, Pro-Engagement. I am pleased to know that Pedersen has at least had a change of heart and come on board with these ideas. Where Pedersen and I certainly have some difference, however, is his suggestion that aid has been “subjugated” to the democracy agenda. I completely agree that aid should not be politicized. But we should ask ourselves the question, who is politicizing aid? Surely, it is the regime. Who imposed restrictions on international aid organizations? The regime. Who refused, then subsequently restricted and diverted, aid in the post-Cyclone Nargis crisis? The regime. Who has blocked aid to the victims of the Chin famine? The regime. Who is blocking aid to the internally displaced peoples in eastern Burma? The regime. If aid has been subjugated to anything, it is to the regime and the international community’s policies of appeasement, not the democracy movement. Pedersen also critiques “the mere listing of human rights violations.” I agree with him that simply documenting violations is not enough. The problem, however, is that too many commentators, academics, diplomats, NGOs and UN officials fail even to list the human rights violations. There is an extraordinary tendency to ignore, or at best downplay, the scale of the situation. That needs to change. The international community needs to be confronted with the full picture of the regime’s savagery. Then, of course, it needs to act. At the moment, it is neither fully acknowledging the suffering nor taking steps to address it. After the genocide in Rwanda, Kofi Annan boldly declared “Never Again.” While the term ‘genocide’ may be debatable, what is happening in Burma surely amounts to crimes against humanity. And if we do not say so, and act, it will be “never again,” all over again. Benedict Rogers is a writer and human rights activist with Christian Solidarity Worldwide. He has made almost thirty visits to Burma and its borderlands, is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People (Monarch, 2004), and is currently writing two new books on Burma.