With trade sanctions and condemnation from the West, Burma cannot fulfill its economic potential. Thus, the military regime has little choice but to turn to extractive industries like natural gas. The regime has ignored poverty alleviation and instead spent money on non-productive activities such as military building. However, even if the regime does care about the general public, there is little the regime can do to promote economic development and poverty alleviation with the trade sanctions and little foreign aid in place.

Thus, the international community should instead focus on incorporating and integrating Burma into the international arena. The proper approach should not be “we want you to change the regime, you generals bastard!” but rather “we would like to accept you to the international community, generals. Let us trade and talk and, no, we are not demanding sudden change of your regime.”

Sanctions should be removed, so that trade can grow and Burma can reap the gains from trade. Tourists should not be discouraged to visit the beautiful and culturally rich Bagan or Mandalay. The more foreign tourists visit Burma, the more exposed the country will be to the outside world, as the tourists come back and tell their stories and the world allocates more attention to the country.

Surely, the anti-military critics will condemn this kind of strategy. They would say that increased trade and tourism will only benefit the military regime and not the people. But this view is a rather static, not dynamic one. True, the generals will benefit from it. They will see the benefits that trade and tourism can bring to them, and they – wanting to reap as much benefit as possible – would invest and make sure that they have the stakes in the growth of economic activity.

To elaborate more on the potential effect that tourism may have on politics, let me raise a case study of Cambodia. Cambodia has experienced a boom in tourism in recent years, and the growth in tourism has indeed influenced the country’s politics. The government has had high stakes in tourism industry – Hun Sen and his cronies have invested in various businesses related to tourism. Because the elites have the stake in the growth of tourism, they develop policies that are favorable to tourism sector, such as improvements in physical infrastructures (roads, airports, railways). These policies have positive spillover effect to other sectors as well.

At the same time, the country has been more exposed to international community’s concerns. The Cambodian government needs to maintain its image in order to sustain tourism growth, and thus it has responded better than before to international pressures regarding some issues, such as child sex abuse and environmental concern. Cambodia has also used tourism as a basis upon which foreign relations are improved. In recent years, the number of South Korean tourists have increased significantly and topped the chart. At the same time, South Korea-Cambodia relations have improved greatly too. Vietnam and Cambodia, being traditional enemies, have also worked together in trying to promote tourism.

I am aware of the differences between Hun Sen and the Burmese top generals. However, my point is that by engaging with and incorporating the generals into the economic growth process, their attitudes toward the world are likely to change. Of course, the generals will still be suspicious, but if they gain materially from opening up, it is likely that they will be willing to change certain aspects of the regime gradually. The same logic applies to increased international trade for Burma. Yes, the generals and their cronies will be the ones who do most of the trade, but they will be more inclined to listen to the outside world too.

Plus, economic development brought about by integrating Burma into international trade and tourism may also change the domestic political game, making gradual regime change more likely. Economic development through trade and tourism, if allowed to take place, will lead to the change of perspectives of some domestic political players inside Burma, thereby creating new momentum for change in favor of opening up and reforms. It may also create some benefits to the general Burmese population. These benefits will be limited but they will surely be more than the current state of affairs with all the sanctions in place.

It is intuitive to react to Burma’s repressive military regime by harsh words and actions. However, central to the Burma problem is the regime’s very mistrust of the outside world, and sanctions, condemnation or even constructive engagement aimed at regime change or democracy is bound to be unsuccessful in eliminating that mistrust, but will instead add to it.

The way forward in solving the Burma problem, I believe, is a counter-intuitive one. Only by befriending with the repressive regime can the mistrust be gradually reduced and the Burma problem eventually resolved.

And the timing of change in policy could not have been better. With the rise of China and India, Burma’s potential to gain from opening up to trade is huge. With its rich cultural and natural heritage, Burma’s potential to gain from tourism is also huge. Last year’s Saffron Revolution and the recent cyclone Nargis have brought Burma to international attention, and the world is now aware of the problem in Burma. What international players like ASEAN should do now is not to convince Burma to change its regime, but to convince the West that after years of failure, a serious change is needed in thinking about the Burma problem.