As part of its new strategic dialogue, Foreign Policy In Focus asked David Steinberg and Kyi May Kaung the following questions: "Which is the best way to effect change in Burma/Myanmar — through sanctions against the government, by engaging the leadership, or some combination of the two? Or, to put it another way, which case is more applicable to Burma: South Africa and regime change or China and gradual change?" Here is David Steinberg’s response:
The economic boom Deng Xiaoping sparked in 1980 brought millions out of poverty and turned China into the world’s factory. However, by following in the footsteps of many western countries that opted to “pollute first and clean up later,” China built its economic success on a foundation of ecological destruction. This environmental destruction is threatening the economy, human health, and social stability, as well as potentially causing irreparable damage to the water, soil, and forest ecosystems.
In December 2006, King Jigme Singye of Bhutan made headlines by suddenly abdicating and handing the throne to his Oxford-educated son, Jigme Geshar. He has also pledged to grant some measure of democracy to his subjects by holding democratic elections in 2008. The king has not, however, explained the motivation behind his precipitate action.
The Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004 killed more than 30,000 people in Sri Lanka and demolished the homes of thousands more. Two years later, many tsunami survivors are still homeless, still dying, and still searching for safer ground. They are not fleeing the sudden onrush of a massive wave, but the armed conflict that has engulfed this island nation once again after more than four years of relative peace. Many survivors are victims yet again.
China’s arguments against Taiwanese self-determination are not particularly legal or ethical. They boil down to the fact that Beijing has over a billion people, a huge economy, and over 900 missiles pointing at the nearby island.
A major debate is underway in China on a proposed law that would grant new rights to Chinese workers. The debate has not been widely reported outside of China; until recently it has been almost entirely ignored by media in the United States. But when the Chinese government opened a 30-day public comment period this spring, it received nearly 200,000 comments, the majority from ordinary workers. But some comments also came from big U.S.- and European-based global corporations and their lobbying groups. These powerful forces squarely opposed the new law.
A major debate is underway in China on a proposed law that would significantly increase the power and protection of Chinese workers. Major U.S. and European corporationsÂacting through the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, the U.S.-China Business Council, and the European Union Chamber of Commerce in ChinaÂare trying to gut the Chinese legislation.
Ronald Bruce St John and Andrew Wells-Dang | December 28, 2006
There is broad agreement today that a market economy works well within a Western democratic system, but there is much less consensus over whether it can function effectively in an authoritarian state. The contemporary political economy of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) provides an excellent case in point. The Lao experience since the Communist takeover in 1975 suggests real limits to a development model that combines single party rule with market economics.
During the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in Hanoi in November, international media attention focused on the rapid economic changes in Vietnam. ÂSocialist Ideals are Fading as World’s Businesses Rush In, reads one subtitle. A young entrepreneur with a craving for Western luxury brands represents Âthe new face of Vietnam. And an American expatriate in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) reports that Âit’s all electric here.Â