U.S. sanctions

Two questions immediately come to mind if U.S. President Bill Clinton's goes ahead with imposing economic sanctions against Myanmar, as he reportedly would yesterday, because of Yangon's poor human rights record: Is the policy effective? And is it right?

Historically, no economic sanctions have succeeded in changing the behavior of the regimes they intended to punish, and there is no reason to believe that this one will be any different. The effectiveness is even more questionable given that Washington is going it alone in imposing the sanctions. Japan and Myanmar's Southeast Asian neighbors have refused to join in earlier Washington calls to isolate Myanmar. It is unlikely that any of these countries would join in the sanctions. In all likelihood, their investors would be more than glad to fill in the American's shoes.

It is also doubtful whether sanctions would force Yangon to end what Washington describes as endless human rights abuses and to allow democracy there to develop. The sanctions could harden the attitude of the State Law and Order Restoration Council on how it treats the prodemocracy movement in Myanmar which had called on the international sanctions in the first place.

Washington's move could also undermine the "constructive engagement" policy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) of which Indonesia is a member. ASEAN has long argued that isolating Myanmar would not yield anything, and that it could even be counterproductive to the peace and stability of the region. ASEAN is hoping to take its constructive engagement policy to an even greater extreme by admitting Myanmar, along with Laos and Cambodia, into the regional grouping later this year. Let's hope Washington would not be foolish enough to pressure ASEAN to join in the economic sanctions; the answer would be obvious and could hurt U.S. influence in this region.

The sanctions policy has also raised a moral question: Is it right? Its proponents would argue that the intention was not only right, but also noble, to ensure that the regime respected basic human rights of its people. But while there is a slim chance that the policy will have its intended impact, the consequences will be morally unacceptable. The sanctions will undoubtedly hurt many parties, including the regime and investors, but the biggest losers will be ordinary Myanmar people. Investors will take their money elsewhere and the regime will find ways of raising money to finance its existence, but the ordinary people will be deprived of jobs and income that investment would have brought.

Effectiveness and morality, however, were not important considerations in Clinton's decision to impose sanctions against Myanmar. The move was the result of growing domestic political pressures. Congress enacted a law last year that empowered the president to impose sanctions against Myanmar under certain conditions. With human rights now very much the hallmark of the new U.S. administration's foreign policy, it was only to be expected that Clinton would, sooner or later, exercise that option.

However, it would be futile to ignore U.S. sanctions, even if they turn out to be ineffective. The U.S. continues to command strong international influence and remains a major political and economic player in this part of the world, and what it does will always have an impact in the region.

For Indonesia, it must watch closely the growing pressures within the U.S. to impose similar economic sanctions against Jakarta in view of the barrage of criticisms of its policy in East Timor. The state of Massachusetts is currently debating such a bill, and Congressman Patrick Kennedy is also proposing legislation to cut off U.S. aid to Indonesia. The heat is certainly on us, especially after last week's vote at the UN Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva criticizing Indonesia's human rights record in East Timor.

Indonesia must deal with these pressures at an early stage before they grow bigger and become difficult to contain. We can argue endlessly that economic sanctions are not effective, but even the notion of a move to impose sanctions is negative publicity that we could do without.