Guest blogger Michael Ewing-Chow of National University of Singapore writes as follows:
On 1 Aug 2006, President Bush has extended the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 2003 for another 3 years. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060801.html)
The Press Release from the White House in 2003 explains that "[a]mong other measures, the legislation bans the import of Burmese products. The executive order freezes the assets of senior Burmese officials and bans virtually all remittances to Burma. By denying these rulers the hard currency they use to fund their repression, we are providing strong incentives for democratic change and human rights in Burma."
Unfortunately, during the last 3 years when the unilateral trade sanctions by the US has been in place, the military junta has just entrenched itself even more, moved its capital from Rangoon to Pyinmana and continued with its lucrative black market cross border trade in timber, natural gas and rubies. Meanwhile, the people in Myanmar have just grown steadily poorer due to the sanctions with the State Department estimating a loss of 70,000 jobs in the textile sector alone and some other reports estimating total job losses at over 500,000. From State Department reports, incomes have fallen from US$300 to US$225 from 2003 to 2004.
To have the ban lifted, the Act requires that the US Secretary of State consult with the Secretary General of the International Labor Organization and other relevant nongovernmental organizations and report to the appropriate congressional committees that the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) "no longer systematically violates workers rights, including the use of forced and child labor, and conscription of child-soldiers." The US President must also declare that the SPDC has made "measurable and substantial progress toward implementing a democratic government", and before the US President will do so, the SPDC is required to release all political prisoners, and allow freedom of speech and press freedom, and freedom of association and religion. In addition, the SPDC would have to reach an agreement with the National League of Democracy and other democratic forces in that country, including
Burma's ethnic nationalities, "on the transfer of power to a civilian government accountable to the Burmese people through democratic elections under the rule of law." None of these sweeping objectives appear likely to be achieved.
1. Why then has the US seen fit to renew unilateral trade sanctions that don't work but instead counterproductively improverish the people the sanctions are purportedly aimed at liberating?
2. If this is purely a domestic public relations exercise, why has the domestic constituencies not wisened up to the ineffectiveness of such unilateral sanctions?
3. As Myanmar is a WTO member, these sanctions are obviously MFN inconsistent but can these sanctions be justified under any of the exceptions?
4. Why has Myanmar or other states not bothered with bringing a WTO claim against the US? After all, the EU and Japan brought a claim against the Massachusetts Burma Law back in 1997.
5. Bearing in mind the failure of the Helms-Burton Act, can and should any trade related influence be exerted on the two most important trading states for Myanmar - China and India?
6. If unilateral trade sanctions are not the solution, what should be done? ASEAN's "constructive engagement" has also had little effect on the junta.
7. Could a situation like Myanmar be so politically intractable to render ineffective any external effort to effect political change (short of "regime change"). If so, would it be better to focus on improving the lives of the average Myanmar person via free trade and wait in the hope that Barrington Moore's dictum "no bourgeois, no democracy" is true?
