• 
• 
• 

The European Community decided yesterday to renew economic sanctions against Burma for another year. This is a good decision from the EU and was made in good faith when the group's foreign ministers met in Luxembourg. After all, the EU - albeit a strong and unyielding critic of the military regime - is still one of the biggest donors for humanitarian assistance to the Burmese people, especially since Cyclone Nargis hit the country last May. The EU position should eliminate any lingering doubts among the junta leaders in Burma that the EU will give in to their stubbornness.

During the past few months, the debate among EU members has been intense, as some thought the time had come to relax the sanctions and go soft on Burma. They believe that there are some moderate elements in the Burmese government that need to be supported and further nurtured. But rather than coming up with additional sanctions, the EU has instead reached a compromise among its members with the one-year extension, with the hope of an olive branch in case there is progress in the near future.

The EU sanctions will have an impact on the policy review in Washington DC in the months to come. Like it or not, when US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton came to Asia in February and revealed that the US was reviewing its policy on Burma, it sent shock waves around the world. She said that neither sanctions nor engagement with the junta had worked so far. At the moment, nobody knows which direction the US will take. Certainly, the renewal of EU sanctions will have some influence over the future US policy, although it is not possible to envisage the US having a policy that would end its current sanctions against the regime, especially with the latest Tom Lantos-Jade Act. The EU extension indeed sets a new benchmark for the international community to follow.

Sanctions should continue against the regime, and at the same time there should be a willingness to talk if progress is seen to be made inside Burma. There have been recommendations that assistance should be given to Burma without any conditions. That would be suicidal because it would only benefit the regime without any prospect of constructive change. Some US lawmakers have called for an end to sanctions. Maybe they should take some history lessons about the regime's behaviour and how it has treated its people.

The EU position is commendable and shows moral courage. The EU is ready for dialogue with the junta, and the latest policy pronouncement gives the Burmese junta the opportunity to respond to specific questions raised by the EU, especially the status of the proposed election and the release of political prisoners, including opposition party leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The junta is preparing for next year's election and the international community, including the EU, has already called for an inclusive process that is transparent, free and fair. So far, there has not been any positive response.

The Burmese leaders know full well the strengths and weaknesses of the international community. As long as there is no concerted approach and policy coordination, the regime is safe because, after more than 20 years, outside parties have not cooperated with one another. China and India, the two most powerful Asian players, are still in two minds about their own roles regarding Burma. They have their own interests to protect in supporting the regime. Asean has tried in its own way to engage Burma as a family member but there are limits to what the grouping can and cannot do. For instance, Asean might be successful in persuading Burma to allow international relief organisations inside the country but the grouping has failed to convince the generals to expand the areas of coverage beyond the Irrawaddy Delta, even after one year of rehabilitation efforts.

When foreign ministers from Asia and Europe meet next month in Hanoi, Burma has to defend itself and explain its political circumstances and its political inertia. Asean is not going to defend Burma like it used to do. With the Asean charter in place, Burma should know its obligations and duties as a member of the grouping. Failure to do so would be remembered by Asean in the future.