It should be clear by now to even the greenest of political thinkers and junkies that economic sanctions against repressive regimes do one thing: make citizens under their thumb suffer more. For a blindingly obvious example, one only has to refer to the twelve years of sanctions the United Nations imposed upon Iraq. Does anyone think for a minute that Saddam ever missed a meal? (Not that bombing and occupying was any more effective in bringing about change, mind you.) I bet hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children did. Sanctions, contrary to their purpose, tend to embolden hardliners. Their destructive effects are passed on to the public. Unlike wealth, poverty always trickles down.

On their face, new sanctions against the Burmese military junta are damaging to the Burmese population. But what's worse is that we've already tried it, in 2004. This new round of sanctions strengthens three year old restrictions already in place. Has the regime changed any of its policies and practices? Check the front page.

This Yale paper I was lucky enough to find from 2004 makes the scholarly argument against the sanctions from a moral and strategic standpoint. The authors also remind us that financial sanctions only serve to push Myanmar into the hands of the Chinese-anyone think that their bureaucrats give a good god damn about human rights as long as the rubies, dope and natural gas keep a comin'?

Aside from the noble goal of curtailing human rights abuse, subtle negotiation- more carrot and less stick-would assist in our economic goals as well. Myanmar is yet another very wealthy country whose citizenry is dirt poor. Getting involved in Burma is not a bad thing, as a lever against China and a boon for investors as well. However, trying to pressure it from the top is only going to crush those millions unfortunate enough to be at the bottom.

tags: burma  myanmar  sanctions  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit