"...This report advocates a policy of engagement with the present government to work towards sustainable dialogue. This does not mean appeasement in support of the status quo; rather, it advocates stability in change through gradualism. The international community needs to prioritize the challenges facing the country and decide how to deal with the most practical and urgent ones first... If one is to accept the high risk of any sudden regime instability, possible state collapse, and further human insecurity as undesirable, gradualism as an approach should then be adopted. If so, the Burma/Myanmar question (or debate) could perhaps be reframed as a process instead, namely: · Reform through Relief · Democracy (and Human rights) through Development · Change through Continuity... Burma/Myanmar is not at the crossroads - the country has long wandered into the wilderness. It is the international community that is at the crossroads. While recognizing the need for action, there is no consensus as to what ?action” would actually entail. This underlines the lack of credibility on the international community?s part. The varied responses of members of the international community thus far have further complicated efforts in Burma/Myanmar?s road to recovery. Opposing strategies between the West and Asian states have cancelled out each other?s efforts, since Burma/Myanmar, and especially the military leaders, can rely on Asia to fulfill its needs, at least partially...The UN Security Council is not the best of places to resolve the Burma/Myanmar crisis. Nonetheless, the UN Special Envoy should continue to maintain contacts with the SPDC as a channel for diplomacy both formally and informally. The UN should also look into the further use of its various agencies to address the development and humanitarian situation in the country. While operating inside the country, they can also formally and informally engage not just the military leadership, but also mid-ranking officers, as well as the various ethnic communities...It is accepted that democratization and a return to genuine civilian control is an essential ingredient for the treatment of the country?s many ailments. The issue here concerns timing and process. A sensible solution is to facilitate the improvement of civilian-military relations, leading to eventual democratic transition. Such an approach is more realistic than the abrupt displacement of the existing military regime in the hope that a civilian government would be able to assume control...Burma/Myanmar is riddled with extremely complex problems and there is no silver bullet remedy for its ailments. Action must be tempered by realistic and practical goals and that means working towards gradual change in the country by adopting a long term and holistic perspective of what needs to be done. The admirable thing about Aung San Suu Kyi has long been her patient dedication to peaceful and non-violent struggle. Therefore, while the intentions are admittedly good, it would nevertheless be shameful to see misguided policies flung towards the existing (and highly unpopular) military government in a way which could plunge the country into state collapse ? or worse ? civil war. The only peaceful solution available would be a political settlement, starting with political dialogue, which would enable the three parties to reconcile their differences ? or at least work out a cohabitation arrangement ? so that the country could embark on a genuine and sustained path of recovery. The international community?s role is to facilitate such a process, rather than be overly occupied with the idea of regime change..."