The imposition of sanctions often leads to significant impacts on the local population. Instead, there may be more effective ways to support communities directly.
In February last year, Australia decided to impose sanctions on 16 members of Myanmar’s ruling junta and two military holding companies. This move was welcomed by various Myanmar resistance groups, international activists, and trade unions dissatisfied with Australia’s Myanmar policy. The following year, Australia expanded the sanctions to include two government banks and three private companies supplying jet fuel to the military, which was met with approval.
Sanctions on Myanmar’s military regime are often viewed as a key measure of effective policy. However, this focus on sanctions may divert attention from other important issues, such as the quality and nature of international aid to the Myanmar people.
Sanctions have strong normative justifications. They signal support for international law and strengthen the policy of isolating the military regime, which has been accused of mass atrocities. Additionally, sanctions provide symbolic support for the resistance, which has called for such measures.
Despite the widespread belief in the effectiveness of sanctions, they may not achieve their intended strategic outcomes. Myanmar’s generals are unlikely to change their behavior due to Western criticism or travel bans. Sanctions may theoretically weaken the junta’s military capabilities by targeting arms and finance flows, but significant sources of military revenue remain out of reach. The junta controls the state’s money printing, sovereign borrowing rights, and foreign exchange rates, and it benefits from illicit economic activities.
While sanctions can inflict pain on the military regime, this pain often gets transferred to other groups. The term “targeted sanctions” can be misleading, as the military can compensate for losses in one area by exploiting another. The population continues to suffer from inflation and shortages of essential goods, while military spending on arms remains unaffected, evidenced by the rising number of airstrikes on resistance forces and local communities.
If sanctions are not the solution, what is?
To address this question, it’s essential to examine the situation on the ground in Myanmar. As the military retreats from large parts of the country, resistance groups are establishing parallel state structures and providing public services in liberated areas. New political authorities are emerging, claiming jurisdiction over significant territories and populations, and establishing new government institutions to provide security, health, and education.
At the grassroots level, community-based organizations are delivering humanitarian assistance, while local communities are building infrastructure and hiring teachers and nurses. This fragmentation of authority, while appearing chaotic to outsiders, may lay the foundation for a new kind of state better suited to Myanmar’s diverse ethnic communities.
Australian government officials often state that their primary goal in Myanmar is to help its population. By supporting these emerging local governance structures, Australia could increase the resistance’s relevance to local struggles, expand humanitarian assistance, and aid in longer-term institution-building. This approach could support Myanmar’s people more effectively than sanctions alone.
Stay informed with supply chain news on The Supply Chain Report. Free tools for international trade are at ADAMftd.com.
#Myanmar #Sanctions #HumanRights #CommunitySupport #LocalGovernance #HumanitarianAid#SupplyChainNews
