Here Australia's most vocal sanctions advocate talks about "programmes for HIV/AIDS or something like that" and "everyone gets a party". Readers of [him] look forward to more evaluation of HIV programmes from his research group.

[him] moderator

******************************

Sanctioned to engage?
Joseph Allchin

Sept 28, 2009 (DVB)–Burma has been subject to sanctions for over a decade, aimed at pushing the ruling junta along a path of democratic reform, and the United States has been the fiercest proponent of this policy.

Following the announcement last week that the Obama administration is to step up engagement with the regime, whilst maintaining sanctions, we asked four experts on Burma what the impact would be for the Burmese people, and what this means for future US policy to the pariah Southeast Asian state.

Sean Turnell, economist and head of the Burma Economic Watch, at the Macquarie Institute, Sydney, Australia

“I think it’s really important for the US to maintain the high moral ground. It worries me a lot that if the US were to start back-tracking [away from sanctions] it would be giving the green light to other countries, particularly China, Singapore, Thailand and some of those other countries - it would make them more comfortable in dealing quite directly with the regime. So I am always quite concerned that the US should maintain a tight position.

“Having said that, I think there is room for genuine change. We can actually start to look at sanctions in a positive way, I mean as a bargaining chip, so cash in the bank that the West, and the US in particular, can exchange for genuine reform in Burma. And because of the sanctions, and there is such a myriad of them, you can actually begin to trade off against real reform. So I think the US needs to maintain a strong position but the potential exists for trade-offs down the track.

“I think the [US] rhetoric will remain strong, particularly with what happened with Suu Kyi. Had that not happened, the West would already have ratcheted down a bit. I personally think the sanctions will remain in place and in fact most of them have to remain in place because they are congressional sanctions, not sanctions determined by the administration.

“In fact although the ones determined by the administration should definitely stay in place, the financial sanctions are very important not least because they are so well targeted. But I think there will be concessions given as a prize, [such as] aid…on things that are not connected to the regime. So, programmes for HIV/AIDS or something like that, coupled with increasing the ambassadorial position, and then coupled with a very strong statement condemning the regime for ongoing oppression and so on, so everyone gets a party."

http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=2897