State Dept Official Speaks Out Against US ‘Timidity’ On Burma

State Dept Official Speaks Out Against US ‘Timidity’ On Burma

From our Washington DC correspondent

2nd March 2010

A senior foreign policy advisor at the US Department of State has spoken out against what he described as ‘timidity and inflexibility’ in the Obama administration’s approach to Burma, which he says may backfire and ‘give succour’ to Burma’s generals. Burma has been ruled by military dictatorships since 1962.

A nine month policy review last year led to a change in approach from previous US policy, which had favoured sanctions and outspoken criticism of the junta. The US is now trying direct engagement, among other measures. However, this new approach is far too limited, according to one official, speaking off the record.

The official, who previously worked as an adviser to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, and for his successor, Ban Ki-moon, described himself as ‘shackled’ by inflexibility from State Department officials.

“Issuing statements saying we are ‘concerned’ and ‘deeply concerned’ is not enough,” said the official. “We have to remember that this is a brutal military dictatorship with no interest in reform. We need to be doing much more.”

The USA should follow the lead of the United Nations, said the official. “If you look at the statements of successive Secretary General’s you will see that they were much more flexible and creative. They expressed how they were ‘seriously concerned’, ‘gravely concerned’, ‘increasingly concerned’, and ‘remained concerned’. Yet in six statements the US State Department has made in the past year in response to topical events in Burma, we have only said we are’ concerned’ or ‘deeply concerned’ and once ‘stressed’ concern. This approach is like going into a boxing ring with one arm tied behind our back.”

A US State Department spokesperson rejected the criticism, saying that the USA is in the early stages of a process of dialogue, and needed to give it time to work. “We hope Burma’s generals are willing to reform. We are trying to persuade the generals to reform, but if we use strong language about their human rights abuses they might get upset and refuse to relinquish power.”

However, he also indicated that US patience is not endless, and there could come a time when US and international patience with the dictatorship, which has ruled Burma for almost 50 years, would run out. “Obviously they need time to consider their options, but we are willing to step up pressure if there is no concrete change soon. If worse comes to worse we could even go as far as saying we are ‘extremely concerned’.

One Burma analyst dismissed the comments of the State Dept advisor as sour grapes after being dismissed by the UN Secretary General before moving to the State Dept. “The Secretary General decided to try a major new strategy expressing disappointment instead of concern, but this advisor is totally wedded to statements of concern, and so had to go.”