[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

SANCTIONS GOOD FOR MYANMAR,NOT FOR



Subject: SANCTIONS GOOD FOR MYANMAR,NOT FOR CHINA

INTERVIEW-Sanctions good for Myanmar, not China

By David Brunnstrom

  
BANGKOK, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen says
economic sanctions are probably a good way to push military-ruled Myanmar to
democracy, but doubts their effectiveness in China. 

``It's a difficult issue as to which way it works,'' the 1998 Nobel laureate
told Reuters in an interview. ``I think it probably can be quite effective
against Burma (Myanmar). Whether it can be equally effective against China,
I don't know. 

``If you are dealing with a country which is as large and has such a
well-developed philosophy as China has, chances are that sanctions probably
won't be that effective. 

``Burma, on the other hand, where the situation is much more marginal and
they are much more dependent on the world market and indeed world goodwill,
I think it may be much more effective.'' 

Washington imposed economic sanctions barring U.S. investment in Myanmar in
1997 for its failure to democratise and rights abuses. The European Union
bars visits by top Myanmar officials. 

Washington has recently imposed fresh economic sanctions on China, including
restrictions on certain high technology transfers, as a punishment for
alleged religious persecution. 

Myanmar's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose National League for
Democracy won the country's last election in 1990 but was never allowed to
govern, has called for more countries to impose sanctions and criticised
Asian nations for pursuing a policy of engagement with the generals. 

Suu Kyi is the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate. 

Sen, from India, and the first Asian ever to win the economics prize, said
decisions on whether to impose sanctions had to be based on whether or not
they would be effective. 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS PUNISHMENT 

``I've never believed in punishments...I don't think punishment should be
given on grounds that somebody deserves it. It has to be that it will do
some good in the future. 

In a country like Myanmar, where there was a lot of discontent and a
well-developed opposition movement ``pressure may well be effective,'' he
said. However, he added: 

``Ultimately, I don't think other countries can give you democracy. It has
to come from inside the country.'' 

China was far less susceptible to pressure, he said. 

``China is a very large country and in many ways a very advanced economy and
very self-dependent. It's not easy to pressure around and it strongly
resents being pressured around. 

``Also, the Chinese economy, unlike the Burmese has on the whole been very
successful. It's not like the country's seething with rebellion, so I don't
really think that by putting on sanctions you will make opposition groups
come out and be more successful. I don't thing that's likely to happen.'' 

Sen said he was sceptical about China's line that increased local democracy
would bring overall democracy. 

``But it's not entirely dismissable. There are voices within their
administration which would like to see a more democratic structure, so it's
a question of whether sanctions will strengthen rather than weaken it. 

``So China is a much more difficult case than South Africa was earlier or
Burma is right now.'' 

Sen said China was one of the most successful cases of development in the
world, although it's lack of democracy was ``a great defect that they have
to cure.'' 

``I think foreign investment in Burma is a bad thing because I think it
bolsters the regime and because the regime doesn't have anything like the
positive record China has. China has had a lot of success and Burma has
always had very little success.'' 

03:05 12-17-99