lonely-planet-myanmar-burma-11-edition

BURMA OR MYANMAR?321What to call the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (to use its official name as of 2011)has been a political flashpoint since 1989. That was the year in which the military juntadecided to consign Burma, the name commonly used since the mid-19th century, to therubbish bin, along with a slew of other British colonial-era place names, such as Rangoon,Pagan, Bassein and Arakan.The UN recognises Myanmar as the nation’s official name; Myanmar is more inclusivethan Burma, given that its population isn’t by any means 100% Burman. However,nearly all opposition groups (including the NLD), many ethnic groups and several keynations including the US continue to refer to the country as Burma. As Aung San SuuKyi told us (see p 354 ), ‘I prefer Burma because the name was changed without anyreference to the will of the people.’In this book, the default name for the country is Myanmar, with Burma used for periodsbefore 1989 and where it’s the name of an organisation, ie Burma Campaign UK.‘Burmese’ refers to the Bamar people (not to all the country’s population, which weterm ‘the people of Myanmar’), the food and the language.All member nations were advised to review their links with Myanmar andensure they did not support forced labour there.In 2001 Japan controversially defied the embargo on nonhumanitarianaid to Myanmar. As an incentive for the regime to press ahead withreconciliation talks with Aung San Suu Kyi, Japan offered $28 million intechnical assistance to repair the Baluchaung hydroelectric power plantin Kayah State.Following Aung San Suu Kyi’s third arrest in 2003, the US imposedfull economic sanctions, which resulted in foreign banks in Myanmarpacking up and leaving. (The wording of the EU’s sanctions, however, allowedFrance’s Total gas company to continue operating there.) Critics ofthe use of sanctions argue that these measures hurt the local workforce.After the strengthening of the US sanctions, many Myanmar garmentfactories, virtually all of which are privately owned, closed down, reportedlyleading to the loss of up to 60,000 jobs.The controversy surrounding sanctions boils down to how effectivethey have been in forcing the pace of change. Thant Myint-U argues thata ‘policy of isolating one of the most isolated countries in the world –where the military regime isolated itself for the better part of 30 years,and which indeed has grown up and evolved well in isolation – is bothcounterproductive and dangerous’.‘The regime is the biggest sanction by far’, says Sean Turnell, explainingwhy the international community shies away from doing businesswith Myanmar. The absence of the rule of law, rampant corruption, andwhat Turnell terms ‘wilfully inept economic management’ are sufficienton their own to discourage business and investment, without the impositionsanctions, which have become largely symbolic.This is clearly not a view shared by the government, who lay the blamefor their citizens’ economic hardships at the foot of the sanction-imposingcountries. Many opposition political parties in the country wouldlike to see sanctions go too. However, the NLD has refused to drop itscall for continued economic sanctions until the new government hasdemonstrated progress and change toward meaningful democracy andhuman rights.The tourismboycott worked,at least judgingby its originalgoal: Myanmar receivedfewer than200,000 visitorsduring its VisitMyanmar Year(1996), well belowthe government’sinitial target of500,000.In its Press FreedomIndex for2010, ReportersWithout Borders(http://en.rsf. org)tagged Myanmarone of the world’smost repressivecountries towardsjournalists.POLITICS, ECONOMICS & SANCTIONS THE SANCTIONS DEBATE