Sunday, October 28, 2007

Excerpt from The Economist
October 27th 2007
Letters

Freedom through trade
SIR - If the majority of Burmese truly supported democracy, Myanmar would become a democratic state ("A chink in the armour", October 13th). No foreign country is imposing an authoritarian government on Myanmar. The military junta is able to stay in power because a significant percentage of the Burmese actually support the thugs. For that same reason authoritarian governments continue to rule China and Vietnam. Yet both of those countries also enjoy the invigorating effect of free trade with the West. Such trade has improved the economic lot of millions of Chinese and Vietnamese and, more importantly, has opened their societies to Western values. Both are far freer than when the West isolated them.
Sadly, the lessons of fere trade have been lost on overzealous but sincere idealists like Aung San Suu Kyi. Heeding their misguided call, the West has strangled Myanmar with an economic embargo, the only accomplishment of which has been to impoverish the Burmese economically and intellectually.

Dwight Sunada
Stanford, California.

Exactly what I was saying that day. Remember the econs discussion we had in study group? I ended up talking to (someone can't remember who) about why I think the root cause of the continued persistence of the military junta lies in the lack of resistance by the Burmese themselves.

True enough, the monks' resistance has led to many (the actual number is unknown) being beaten up, killed and hauled off without people knowing where they now are. However, could the military actually be able to hold its front if the _majority_ of the people were against them? Yes, I admit that there would be countless slaughters and perhaps unneccessary bloodshed if students, teachers and ordinary workmen took to the streets as well. The army is strong, yes, but what makes up the army? People. People who are obedient either because they are fearful, ignorant or because they believe.

Perhaps some wouldn't know the alternatives either. What is available to them. What can be better. And that the world around Myanmar is actually rooting for a democracy. True enough, most do not believe that the junta will dissolve quickly and quietly, a much proposed suggestion would be for a military and civilian co-operation. But back to the point, if this lack of support for democracy and having the majority of people willing (enough) to submit to the junta is the main reason for its continue existence, shouldn't we solve the problem by tackling its roots?

Mr Sunada is right, in saying that by opening up barriers to trade currently placed on Myanmar, there will be a greater chance of toppling the junta and liberating the Burmese. Firstly, trade sanctions do not directly harm the military institution in Myanmar. As he argued, by opening up to trade, people in China and Vietnam have benefited as a result. Placing trade embargoes on Myanmar hurt the poor because of the lack of opportunity for growth. Is it right then to punish the people for putting the wrong people in power (haha, they didn't even place the junta in power in the very first place.)?

Also, trade and globalisation have a potent effects in many ways. Globalisation, leading to increased trade also facilitate better technological transfer and communication networks. The flow of information and ideas could lead to more people knowing of better alternatives to the life they have, and more people knowing of the support given to them by foreign administrations. I personally believe that the increased openness will instigate change in a way better than any trade embargo can. Consider this, by placing such restrictions, won't the junta have a greater reason to hold on to power, because the 'outside world' is not supportive of its citizens?

I shall not here go into details of why embargoes will fail as well. Without co-operation and multilateral embargoes, the economic impact on Myanmar would not be severe. But the main conclusion here is that [wahhh makes me think of TSA :S], since restricting trade does not bring about tangible benefits, and promoting trade is a win-win situation, why not continue with 'trade-as-usual'? ASEAN has been criticised for doing nothing about their "problematic neighbour". I believe however that they have done the right thing. By maintaing normal relations with Myanmar, it would be easier to negotiate with the military junta. By continuing trade, we can ensure that the Burmese do not suffer unnecessarily. By promoting trade, we could in fact catalyse greater change in the political institutions of Burma.

[I tried writing an AQ on this but I failed. Horribly. Oh dear I'm like out of touch with writing AQs :S:S]

Disclaimer: Haha everytime I write something possibly sensitive I have the urge to put this, the whole issue about interact activists and stuff. I did not and do not have any meanings in the article other than in voicing my thought. I don't exactly know the situation well enough to comment I suppose. This is what I think based on my limited literature on the subject. Hehe. Forgive me for any factual mistakes I may have made! Or conceptual errors in my argument. Perhaps there are better arguments that I should hear of? Haha oh wait but who was I afraid would read this? Study hard everyone!