Jump to Comments

Cases of overwhelming governmental brutality, such as the crackdown that has killed an untold number of people in Myanmar, prompt an age-old question: How should other nations respond?

My initial impulse was to send a series of cruise missiles right into government buildings in Naypyitaw, the country’s remote capital and refuge of the ruling military junta.

In contrast, the almost knee-jerk conventional reaction is to bend over backward to respect Myanmar’s sovereignty, that is, the right of a nation to control and police its own affairs, including internal matters. Most countries cannot muster more than criticism or the consideration of mild sanctions. The United States, which already had penalties against Myanmar, has stiffened them, such as by freezing the U.S. assets of certain officials in Myanmar.

The diplomatic dance continues this week, led by United Nations emissary Ibrahim Gambari, who is trying to talk Myanmar’s government into loosening its chokehold.

Is that enough?

Emphatically, no.

Some governments – and Myanmar’s is one of them – have not earned such gentle handling. They deserve something much harsher from the international community, action that forces, not nudges, them toward better behavior.

Unfortunately, Myanmar’s leaders have grown accustomed to coddling. Their repression, year in and year out, has become routine. Even episodes of large-scale, ugly, deadly, intense subjugation – including the crushing of popular protests in 1988, along with deaths estimated in the thousands – draw little more than slaps on the wrist. If the world continues in that vein, it will merely raise its hand to administer another slap, and Myanmar’s military dictators will feel emboldened.

Meanwhile, the people suffer and, on occasion, bravely speak out. Like many anti-government protests, the latest one in the country formerly known as Burma started from an economic basis; people were frustrated by fuel-price increases. But that was just the catalyst; in truth, they were fed up with the military junta.

So, why did they choose this moment to take a stand?

Perhaps they thought that enough time had passed since the last major slaughter, that a new era had arisen, that their government would not resort to its past excesses. Even China, which abruptly and bloodily ended public protests at Tiananmen Square a generation ago, has urged Myanmar’s rulers to negotiate with opposition groups, reconcile and hasten stability.

But Myanmar’s leaders know how to read between the lines. China’s 1989 crackdown produced substantial international isolation for Beijing only briefly. Before long, nations were eagerly seeking to restore economic relations and other ties.

Besides, China, for all its talk about the importance of stability in Myanmar, has more than a little incentive to side privately with the military junta. The Chinese leadership understands that Myanmar’s government risks more by allowing the protests to linger than by snuffing them out.

The rest of the world, though, has no reason to put up with such blatant misuse of authority. Instead of slapping Myanmar’s wrist, nations should:

• Impose sweeping, collective economic sanctions that truly hurt.

• Pressure China to stop acting as if it lacks influence and demand an end to the violence in Myanmar.

• Encourage the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, from which Myanmar, a member, benefits economically, to give that country an ultimatum: Shape up or get out.

• Expand assistance to opposition forces in Myanmar so that the people may promote change more effectively.

It is high time for the actions of the world to match its supposed moral outrage about the atrocities in Myanmar.