As European Union Foreign Ministers meet in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has been reported as stating: “It’s not the moment to lower the sanctions, it’s the moment to increase them.”
The European Union, along with governments, human rights organisations, politicians and celebrities have expressed outrage at the arrest and trial of Burma’s democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. However, despite the regime pressing ahead with the trial, words have yet to be translated into concrete action.
“Any new sanctions should not only be smart, but introduced in a smart way,” said Mark Farmaner, Director of Burma Campaign UK. “There is no magic bullet, but the right combination of economic, political, and legal pressure could finally force the generals to the negotiating table.”
The Burma Campaign UK would welcome increased sanctions that are targeted and strategic. We believe that there is no single action, or sanction, or single country, which can bring change to Burma. Therefore, the international community should use every tool at its disposal to pressure the military dictatorship in Burma to release all political prisoners, end attacks on ethnic civilians, and enter into genuine negotiations leading to a transition to democracy. This should include economic, diplomatic and legal tools.
However, divisions within the European Union have meant that most of the sanctions the European Union has introduced have been weak, and introduced in ways that reduce their effectiveness.
After the crushing of the democracy uprising in 2007, the European Union discussed or promised a range of sanctions, including targeting gems and timber, financial transactions, banking, banning new investment, and targeting the assets of business cronies. It also called for a global arms embargo. The Burma Campaign UK has been calling for many of these sanctions for more than a decade.
What actually happened was very different. The EU could only agree on a ban on investment in, and imports of, gems, minerals and timber. None of the other sanctions were introduced, and no diplomat efforts made to build a global consensus for an arms embargo, which would be essential to overcome Chinese objections.
The gems and timber sanctions were only introduced six months after the uprising. There was no effort to use the threat of their introduction as a diplomatic tool to try to wring concessions from the regime. Nor were the sanctions introduced in coordination with other countries, such as the USA, Canada and Australia, which were also introducing sanctions. Finally, the European Union did not implement any new monitoring or enforcement mechanisms to ensure the sanctions were obeyed. Friends of the Earth has identified loopholes in the sanctions which means teak sold by Burma’s generals can still reach the EU.
Many EU sanctions have looked good on the surface, but been undermined by the way they have been implemented.
A visa ban still allows regime officials to visit the EU for ASEM (Asia-Europe Meetings) which gives them the international legitimacy they crave, but has not proved a useful forum for applying diplomatic pressure on the regime.
A ban on new investment only applied to state owned enterprises, which cannot be invested in under Burmese law, and excluded the oil and gas sector, which is the biggest earner for the regime.
The asset freeze only freezes assets of people on the visa ban list, not the assets of the regime itself.
At the same time as these limited sanctions being introduced by the EU, European, American and Asian countries have invested billions of dollars in Burma. The true story is not one of sanctions being tried and failed, but of limited sanctions and huge investment.
Although the role of Asian countries in Burma’s economy has increased significantly in the past five years, as one of the world’s largest economies, the European Union still has economic muscle it could use to apply pressure. We believe the suffering in Burma has been going on for so long, and is so serious, that any potential point of pressure, no matter how large or how small, should be utilised.
The European Union should consider the following sanctions, but they should only be introduced tied with diplomatic initiatives, and introduced in a staggered way to maximise their political influence. This list is not in order of priority.
1. Placing the judges, court officials and police involved in the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi on the visa ban list.
2. Placing the judges, court officials and police involved in the trials of around 1,000 political prisoners jailed after the 2007 uprising on the visa ban list.
3. Introducing sanctions that will ban European Union companies from providing insurance in Burma. While many of the companies investing in Burma are now from Asia, London is still the capital of the global insurance industry. Asian companies investing in Burma, insure and re-insure their operations in London. Such sanctions could hit the giant Shwe gas project, which will earn the dictatorship billions of dollars.
4. Introduce sanctions on financial transactions. The USA introduced these sanctions in 2003, and they stopped the regime using dollars for international trade. However, the regime switched to using Euros.
5. Ban all new investment in Burma. At the moment there is no sanction that would stop European companies investing in a joint venture with the dictatorship in the oil or gas sector.
6. Introduce sanctions targeting the assets of Burma’s business cronies, as the USA has been doing since 2007.
7. Review Burma’s participation in ASEM meetings. Despite repeated promises, the EU agreed to Burma’s membership of ASEM in 2004. At the time it was argued that it would provide a venue to apply increased diplomatic pressure on Burma. However, in this time there has been a significant deterioration in the human rights situation in Burma. Decision making in Burma is so centralised that talking to junior officials, or even the foreign minister, at meetings like ASEM is not effective. Diplomatic initiatives should be at a much higher level than those taking place at ASEM.
It is vital that these sanctions not be introduced as they have in the past, as a one-off slap on the wrist after an atrocity. They should be tied in with diplomatic initiatives, such as UN Envoy visits introduced in stages to maximise pressure, and coordinated with like-minded countries.
The European Union should also use existing sanctions more effectively. Reduction in existing sanctions should be more proactively offered in return for real reforms. However, sanctions should be in stages, and only be reduced if there is substantial change first, such as the release of all political prisoners.
The European Union should also revive the potential development package proposed by Britain after the uprising. This package would include debt cancelation, aid, trade, and other development assistance. It would only start to be introduced AFTER an irreversible transition to democracy had begun. While this package will not act as an incentive for the generals, as they do not care about the welfare of the people of Burma, it could act as an incentive for some of the business cronies that help to prop up the dictatorship. At the moment the cronies are doing well under the dictatorship. If they are faced with an ever increasing series of sanctions, but offered a window of better economic opportunities under democracy, it could loosen their allegiance to the regime.
There are also important diplomatic steps the EU should be taking.
1. Exerting maximum pressure on ASEAN. ASEAN has argued that engagement is more effective than sanctions and confrontation. If engagement gives ASEAN more influence, now is the time for them to prove it.
2. Bring Burma back to the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners. The Council has been defied, and must now take action to enforce its call.
3. Work to build a global consensus for a global arms embargo. The EU, USA and Canada support a global arms embargo. A global consensus should be built for an arms embargo, and then taken to the Security Council.
Legal options should also be pursued.
4. The United Nations has accused the dictatorship of a crime against humanity and of breaking the Geneva Conventions as part of its attacks on ethnic civilians in eastern Burma. The European Union should support a Commission of Inquiry to establish whether Burma’s generals should face trial for these abuses.
5. The European Union should support an International Labour Organisation referral of Burma to the International Court of Justice for its continuing use of forced labour.
6. Under universal jurisdiction, where possible, EU members should pursue cases in their national courts against the regimes use of torture.
“We are often told the generals are immune to pressure,” said Mark Farmaner. “The truth is we have had a lot of fine words, but not much practical action. It is time that changed.”
For more information contact Mark Farmaner on 0207 324 4710