Derek Tonkin makes plenty more smart points in emails to me which he is pleased to see made available to a wider audience (edited and reorganised slightly by me for this format). See especially his wise concluding sentence.

Thus:

Sanctions

In 1999 the UK Government completed a general study of sanctions and came up with a set of thoroughly sensible recommendations which merited and enjoyed all-Party support:

https://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/sanctions%20policy.pdf

In the case of Myanmar, all UK political parties abandoned these criteria without a second thought and introduced, through the EU and unilaterally, measures which helped to impoverish the people by denying them bilateral and multilateral development aid, allowed the Chinese and other countries in the region to exploit Myanmar’s natural resources unchallenged, and far from undermining the military regime in power actually bolstered their position, at the same time making them all the more recalcitrant and unyielding. Western influence meanwhile shrank to virtually zero.

It took from August 1988 to April 2012 for the Western world to recognise that sanctions weren’t working and had achieved precisely the opposite effect to what was intended. Indeed in 2007 the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs asked the Government to review policy on Burma, reducing the Lord Wakeham to a state of impotent rage (perhaps not all that difficult…) for failing to take the Committee’s report seriously:

https://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF6/lords.pdf

You might have noticed the only comment on sanctions which Amnesty International made in their recent article:

 

"Amnesty International has not taken a position on economic sanctions or other punitive measures since they were first enacted against Myanmar. Our delegation did note, however, the message from many concerned individuals that sanctions did not cause Myanmar’s economic decline, but they are hindering its economic recovery.

"To the degree that a viable economy is a necessary, if insufficient, part of promoting and protecting economic, social, and cultural rights, Amnesty International believes that countries must continue to take a critical look at their current policies on Myanmar."

In short: we have a thoroughly sensible policy of "smart" sanctions  which successive governments have chosen to ignore, imposing measures frequently on a wave of emotion because "something has to be done". Once the policy of "regime change" under Clinton and Bush became entrenched, there was no hope of more creative policies until the military regime itself determined that their political objectives had been achieved and their interests secured with the 2008 Constitution and the 2010 elections.

It is Western policies which have put the military in a position of political strength, but the economic and financial needs of the country remain dire which is why the regime is asking for remaining sanctions to be removed. "You see, they must be working" says Suu Kyi "otherwise why are they making such a fuss about it all?" I could tell her why, but then she wouldn’t listen. When you’ve followed a policy for 23 years – see Annex to:

https://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/bp091208.pdf

and you believe you are infallible, it is hard to admit that you might have got it wrong.

Sanctions are having an impact, but – as I have said in my comment online – only because they mainly affect the people. The US are still prevented by statute from supporting any IMF, World Bank or ADB funding. The only US concession so far made is allow a limited measure of "Technical Assistance". Despite their reported change of policy, the necessary presidential waivers and statements have not yet appeared.

Corruption

You mention Myanmar’s lowly position in the "Corruption Perceptions" Index. Many of us who follow Burma/Myanmar closely hold this perception to be biased … It is based on contentious criteria. TI place a high premium on the incidence of human rights abuses, arguing that corruption is invariably entwined with abuses (which may be generally true, but needs collateral).

They also argue that as the greater part of foreign exchange revenue in Myanmar is earned by State companies (natural gas sales accrue to Myanmar Oil and Gas, which used to be the Burma Oil Company) and there have been doubts about how this revenue has been spent, this must reflect a high level of "corruption". At the same time, in their reports about Myanmar, Transparency International acknowledge that they have few materials on which to base an analysis. See the attached, which draws heavily on US sources, and which I would regard as rather superficial. They have not attempted an update.

TI have played a leading role at "activist" conferences condemning the regime, to the extent that statements made by them at times appear to contain only incidental references to corruption.

https://archive.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2007/2007_11_01_amm_burma_resolution gives you a flavour

I have challenged them on their criteria and their analyses, in as friendly a way as possible. But they did not respond.

Conclusion

The main Western fault was around 1995 when Western Governments started actively to discourage trade, investment and tourism. In the UK Myanmar was reduced to a purely human rights issue, taken out of its pigeon-hole every six months or so for a ritual bashing in Westminster Hall and occasionally even in the two Houses, and the put back again until the next occasion. Any other Western interest was ignored, until the US realised that they wanted to be an Asian-Pacific power again, Europe recognised that ASEAN and other Asian neighbours had a different view, and we all belatedly agreed to take a fresh look.

If anything, we have now gone overboard, with scores of VIPs now descending on the hapless regime. Everyone wants to get in on the act. We are likely to be seriously disappointed. But at least the Burmese people might benefit.

The reality is that Myanmar is not susceptible to sanctions when it is supported by every country in the region. It was perfectly reasonable for the West to apply a full arms embargo, asset freeze and travel ban, but not to extend this, as the Americans in particular have done, to virtual economic and financial warfare directed at the economy generally – the very antithesis of "smart" sanctions. The Americans are now not a little embarrassed about this and are promising to ease the "bluntness" (their word) of their sanctions.

As for Suu Kyi, I view with some foreboding her forthcoming European tour. She is due in Bangkok next week, and she is slated for major speeches in Geneva (ILO), Oslo (Nobel Prize) and the UK. She is not used to international travel and such a punishing schedule and may find it very hard going … But then she has her own agenda.

The only safe policy on Burma/Myanmar is not to believe a word you read, for that matter from me or anyone else.