Thayer Us-burma Policy Change

Thayer Consultancy ABN # 65 648 097 123

Background Briefing: U.S. Opens Dialogue with Burma Carlyle A. Thayer October 1, 2009

[client name deleted] Question: What do you think about Sui Kyi's new stance on sanctioning Burma, and do you think that the policy of both "engaging and sanctioning" that Hillary Clinton mentioned is easy to achieve? Answer: Aung San Suu Kyi recent comments supporting a dialogue between Burma and the United States came with a rider, that the military regime must also open a dialogue with the democratic opposition. She is reacting to the revelation that Burma has taken the initiative to suggest a high-level dialogue with the United States. This development occurred at the same time as a seven month Burma policy review by the Obama Administration concluded. The President has already indicated a new approach to the legacy of dealing with difficult countries left by the Bush Administration. President Obama has offered an open hand. The President’s more conciliatory approach has now been applied to Burma policy. The US policy review found that neither isolation nor engagement had had any measurable impact on the behavior of the Burma regime. Secretary Clinton put it these words, “engagement versus sanctions is a false choice, in our opinion.” The US found that there was widespread international consensus that it was time for change and that regional states looked to US leadership. The US in turn asked regional states to sound out Burma. Washington quickly learned through these indirect contacts as well as directly that Burma was ready to participate in a dialogue. Burma has been more forthcoming in dealing with the UN sanctions regime against North Korea and has pledged its support to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1874. Kurt Campbell noted that Burma played “a positive role behind the scenes” in recent efforts to enforce sanctions against North Korea. This probably refers to the military junta’s refusal to let a North Korean ships suspected of carrying weapons dock in Burma. The US quickly picked up on this positive development. The US and Burma have now held their first meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with a cabinet-level official from Burma. Campbell has made clear in public remarks and testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs that dialogue with Burma does not mean the lifting of sanctions. Campbell made clear that that US will not conduct dialogue just for dialogue’s sake and the US reserves the right to impose further sanctions if warranted. According to Campbell, “we need additional tools to augment those that we have been using in pursuit of our objectives. A policy of pragmatic engagement with the Burmese authorities holds the best hope for advancing our goals.” In sum, the US would “change its methods not its goals.” The US seeks a sustained dialogue. Initially, the US hopes to see the dialogue address several areas where American interests overlap with those of Burma, such as counternarcotics, health and environmental protection. The US would also like to press for cooperation in searching for the remains of US servicemen who died during the Second

2 World War. And finally, the US would like to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Burmese people who are still suffering the after effects of Cyclone Nargis that struck in 2008 – as long as this aid goes directly to the people affected. The US-Burma dialogue, from Washington’s point of view, aims to address harder issues such as freeing Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, opening a credible domestic dialogue with ethnic minorities and pro-democracy groups on political reform and reconciliation, and conducting free and fair elections in 2010. The US has also muted punishment for officials guilty of gross violations of human rights. It would be wildly optimistic to expect that the US-Burma dialogue will achieve quick results. The US also indicated it cannot change Burma’s policies alone. The US needs support from China, the ASEAN states, Australia, Canada, Japan and Europe to set in place an incentive structure that will encourage change. Campbell has noted that in the absence of dialogue it has been difficult to discern what are the perceptions of Burma’s aging leaders. The top two leaders are in their 70s. US-Burma dialogue may result in contact with a younger generation of Burmese officials who are more amenable to change. Under US law the Administration must appoint a coordinator for Burma. The next step will be for that person to be appointed. From the US perspective it is up to Burma’s leaders to follow through. Each positive step towards reform that they take will be reciprocated. But, according to Assistant Secretary Campbell, “we expect engagement with Burma to be a long, slow, and step-by-step process.”