Once the international community understands Burma’s history, the next question is how best to bring about positive change in Burma. There have been two main approaches to the Burma problem, one of isolation and one of constructive engagement.

Western countries, most importantly the U.S., have generally chosen the first approach. By continually imposing trade sanctions, cutting humanitarian aid, discouraging tourists to visit Burma and condemning the military regime, the Western countries have almost entirely isolated themselves from Burma. In response to the regime’s refusal to let in foreign aid workers, France envoy to the UN condemned the regime and commented that this “could lead to a true crime against humanity.”

On the other hand, ASEAN has pursued a softer approach of constructive engagement, which basically means talking with and persuading the military regime to bring about positive change. Both approaches have the common purpose of brining about a change in Burma’s political regime, albeit through different means. Then, there are also important countries like China and India which do not seem to care about pushing for internal change in Burma. Their main interests in Burma are energy security, which is essential in sustaining economic security.

Years and years have gone by and both of these approaches, alas, have still failed to deliver any sign of positive change in Burma. Why?

The problem lies in the purpose of both approaches in fostering a regime change. After decades of isolation (with the exception of a few neighboring countries), the military regime in Burma is so suspicious and afraid of the outside world that they will resist against any possible sign of “hostile intent” – foreign pressures to push for a change in regime toward democracy. The military leaders’ thinking is rather simple: identify who the enemy is and resist against it.

It's almost like in a personal relationship. You don't like me, and I'm afraid of you. We isolate ourselves from each other. We avoid talking and engaging. You still want to topple or make me go down, so I continue to be very suspicious of you and will try to keep myself away from you. This relationship continues on and on, without improving.

For this reason, any strategy adopted by the outside world that is aimed at toppling the military regime is ineffective. The aim of our strategy toward Burma thus cannot be a sudden elimination of the military regime. It should not be installing democracy, but rather a gradual “positive political change” in Burma. And any potentially positive political change will also need to incorporate the current military leaders.

An expert in Burma, Professor David Steinberg at Georgetown University believes that the most likely source of political evolution in Burma will come from within. It will come from internal dynamics and contradictions, which may come from the military’s “dissatisfaction with its own leadership, its own role or its sullied reputation.”

I believe, however, that although concrete change would essentially from within, the international community has a role to play in fostering this process of change from within. How then can international community achieve this goal? The correct strategy in my view is a move away from condemnation and isolation and toward incorporation and integration of Burma.

As has been proven by time, condemnation and isolation has resulted in the regime’s increased suspicion and fear of the outside world, to the point that even humanitarian relief in time of a devastating natural disaster is denied.

The use of force or the invasion of Burma by outsider, if it ever happens, will be militarily easy but the introduction of a new regime and the transition to democracy will be extremely difficult. Just take a look at Iraq today, or turn back the time to 1885, when the British East India Company forces defeated King Thibaw and took control of Burma. The British might have achieved its victory easily, but the aftermath of the occupation was far from easy. In any case, with the world’s greatest powers having so little national interests in Burma today, it is virtually impossible for an invasion to take place.