Excuse me, where can I find the number of The International Community?

My friend, a refugee from Burma in Mae Sot told me about the Belgian arms he saw being used in the jungle. Even before talking about the 'involvement' of other countries in Burma I think one should admit that the oppressive dictatorship with it's unlimited human rights abuses is a concern and responsibility of all nations and people how far away Burma they physically might be.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called on governments to take the responsibility to protect when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe -mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease. He mentions that there is a growing acceptance that while sovereign governments have the primary responsibility to protect their own citizens from such catastrophes, when they are unable or unwilling to do so responsibility should be taken up by the wider international community. This would involve prevention, response to violence, if necessary, and rebuilding societies.

I remember my professor recalling the quote of Henry Kissinger "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?" Did the people of Burma call to the wrong 'International Community' for more then 40 years?

In Belgium the call was responded for example with statements of Karel De Gucht at the UN General Assembly: "The recent demonstrations show the degree of impatience of the population. These demonstrations should finally incite the government to initiate an inclusive dialogue with a view to restore democracy in Myanmar. Use of violence will not be tolerated." A call to the people of Burma to resolve their own problems?

No Belgium has done more since the crisis began (talking about August -September 2007). It has taken steps at the European, international (UN) and regional levels. Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht was very clear about this: "Right from the outset, Belgium stressed the importance of the EU swiftly assuming an active role. The EU has had a system of sanctions in place against the regime in Burma since 1996. In the light of recent events, Belgium forcefully advocated that those sanctions be extended and new ones imposed. However, these sanctions mustn't impact negatively on the population of Burma or adversely affect the humanitarian situation".

Internationally Belgium has urged that the matter be debated at a special meeting of the UN Security Council which took place on second of October 2007. Furthermore Belgium expressed support to the mission undertaken by the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari and actively helped to draft the statement by the Presidency of the UN Security Council that called on the regime to release Burma's political prisoners and confirm the need to launch a truly inclusive political process, especially with Aung San Suu Kyi.

The EU did respond with stronger sanctions against Burma including a longer list of people not allowed to enter the EU, a freeze of assets, and an extension of the ban on investments in Burmese state-owned companies. The EU prohibits the export to Burma of equipment and technology destined for enterprises engaged in logging, timber and the mining of metals and minerals, precious or semi-precious stones, as well as related technical and financial assistance. It also prohibits the import into the Community of round logs, timber and timber products, metals and minerals, as well as precious and semi-precious stones. Moreover, new investments in enterprises in Burma that are engaged in these industries are prohibited as well. The existing sanctions in place since October 1996 include bans on provision of non-humanitarian aid, arms sales, high-level meetings between EU and Burma officials and entry visas for members of the junta.

The US has quite similar sanctions; some also influence for example simple tourists by banning the import of almost all goods from Burma into the United States. This ban includes Burmese-origin products such as gifts, souvenirs, and items for personal use, even if carried in personal luggage.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not answer the calls before 2006! Lately it tried with a draft resolution calling on Burma to release all political prisoners, begin widespread dialogue and end its military attacks and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities. The resolution was blocked on January 12th 2007 by a veto from Russia and China.
More recently on January 17th 2008 the UNSC has come up with a statement that Burma's military rulers had done too little to meet demands (non-binding and toned down by China) it laid out in October for release of political prisoners and a genuine dialogue with the opposition following a crackdown on protesters.

Unfortunately all these 'wordily' efforts have been pretty much in vain! And Mark Farmaner of Burma Campaign UK is probably right when saying that sanctions haven't been tried yet.

The Generals do not like to travel much anyway, imports via third countries are not banned by the EU, and the weapons from Belgium are in Burma. But more important the sanctions are not worldwide! China, Thailand and India are Burma's mayor trade partners. Countries that are happy not to compete with Western investors! China also remains clear in its position towards UN measures. It does not support sanctions and will not pressure the Junta. Like Russia, China beliefs the issue should not be dealt with by the Security Council and that the problems are internal affairs. "The Burma issue should be fundamentally and properly resolved with the efforts of Burma's government and people themselves and through consultation," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao in October.

The role of China is widely discussed. While the 'West' hopes to pressure the ASEAN countries the ASEAN leaders themselves just hope the situation in Burma will stabilise and that the Military Junta would change a bit or at least release political prisoners so they can show their human rights friendly masks.
Trade between China and Burma increased significantly in 2007. China became Burma's second largest trading partner due to a new deep friendship and geographical links according to Tang Hai, economic and commercial counselor of the Chinese Embassy in Burma.
On the question of the role of China a member of the NCUB (National Council of the Union of Burma) answered similarly that China has interest in stability to ensure economic profit but no interest in regime change unless it is a pro-Chinese one. The relationship is however not that friendly as commonly thought. The generals are as suspicious of the Chinese as the Chinese are of 'western' influence in the region. China is also supporting the opposition and as such seems to apply a divide and rule approach. As for the NCUB, they want to be pro-Burma! That China is not sure yet about its political position towards its neighbour is also expressed by Bertil Lintner. He says a shift of power among the Generals in Burma might influence bilateral relationships.

In terms of bloody economical arms deals not only China but also Russia, India, Singapore, North Korea, Serbia and Ukraine are to blame. Those arms sales may be widely criticized for helping the regime stay in power, but they don't clearly violate any laws, treaties or international agreements according a Swedish research. Organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch therefore call for a comprehensive international arms embargo. Amnesty reports as well how the EU embargo fails to prevent European arms components being incorporated in military equipment sold by Ukraine. The Ukrainian government seems to have forgotten how it got the power. I can't believe the people of the Orange revolution do not support their brothers and sisters in their Saffron revolution for democracy.

Several analysts also point to the strategic importance of Burma both for China and India who wish to have a mayor influence. Dr. Tin Swe, elected Member of Parliament living in exile, blames Indian politicians of lacking the will to join hands with the West on human rights and democracy issues. What both countries do not lack is their interest in Burma's energy resources. The same hunger can be found in France. French oil giant TOTAL Oil is the fourth largest oil company in the world and one of the biggest foreign investors in Burma. It is in a joint venture with Burma’s dictatorship in the Yadana gas project in southern Burma. The gas project, started in 1992, earns the regime hundreds of millions of dollars every year. It is said that these dollars helped to reinstall the power of the military regime after the demonstrations in 1988 and the following national elections which it lost. Sarkozy did call on its private companies to show greatest restraint in their investments in Burma and not to make new ones. The EU sanctions seem not to have real power! And France is not the only one. Germany might with Merkel show a genuine interest in human rights but that does not mean it refrains from investing in Burma. Head of a German business delegation to Burma in 2006 does not disguise German interest in Burma: “We all have to respect political issues and political guidelines. But on the other hand, this is for us to investigate and make up our mind about economic potentials. Therefore we are here. What we find here is interesting and we see business potential,” he said.

Within the world's political domain, the West holds positions of power as well as key economic positions. In practice, the combination of these two factors periodically lead to the former being used to maintain the latter. We should not neglect this when looking at it's - at first sight at least - undoubtedly noble aim: to help bring peace and prosperity to the world.

More diplomacy, more global public actions, real measures and more support are needed!

The people of Burma are waiting for a real answer of The International Community!

PS: I choose to use consequently Burma instead of Myanmar even when using quotes not to confuse the reader. Different sources however use either Burma or Myanmar or both like the EU. I prefer not to use the name invented by the Military Junta.