Though last week's general election in Myanmar — the first in 20 years — may prove to be little more than a superficial rearranging of corrupt officials, pro−democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest has a chance at reinvigorating the Burmese people and encouraging them to demand basic rights, as well as truly free elections.
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has been under various forms of military authoritarian rule since a 1962 coup that overthrew the civilian government that had been in place since the country's independence from Britain in 1948. The newly elected "civilian" government, run by the Union Solidarity and Development party and controlled by the military junta, will most likely continue its policies of control of the press and censorship, as well as condoning practices of human trafficking and child labor.
Before President Barack Obama took office, the United States took a hard line on Myanmar, including strong sanctions. However, in 2009, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reworked the United States' Myanmar policy to attempt openness and engagement with that country's government, though the sanctions remain in place.
Upon her release from house arrest, Suu Kyi stated her tentative support for the release of Western sanctions against the current Myanmar government and spoke of her intention to create a conciliatory relationship with the party. Many of the Western governments who have sanctions against the country, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, however, may take issue with this approach. This reluctance comes from a seeming aversion in the United States and the United Kingdom for the human rights violations in Myanmar.
These Western governments have their hearts in the right place in demanding a change of practices in Myanmar. But the U.S. government must also be realistic. The Obama administration's more open policy has taken into account the fact that the sanctions have not proved effective in changing policy and practice in Myanmar. The sanctions have barred any U.S. investment in Myanmar — while they are meant to target the authoritarian government, they have the side effect of hurting innocent Burmese citizens and firms.
Additionally, these sanctions — similar to those imposed against Cuba — have proved to be mostly ineffective. The military government in Myanmar has shown that it is capable of governing essentially as it pleases. Western governments' sanctions are particularly ineffective given the support of both China and India for Myanmar, who have exploited the United States' absence from the Burmese economy to increase their own investments in it.
The most effective approach the United States can take is supporting Suu Kyi in her attempt at reconciliation and engagement with the new government. In addition to providing opportunities for reform negotiations with the government, increasing the Burmese people's exposure to the Western world would help bring them out of an isolation in which freedom may be unheard of. The United States can do this by showing its support for Suu Kyi, who holds the trust of the Burmese people and stands for the democratic future of a country that has been riddled with human rights violations, corruption and poverty.
The United States' past anxiousness to punish the cruel government must not get in the way of any potential progress that be made in bringing freedom and rights to the Burmese people.
