The engagement fantasy

I highly recommend this column today by Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at the Washington Post. He's writing about the International Crisis Group's recommendation that the international community "normalise relations" with Burma's generals, and start sending them money. Hiatt's reaction: WTF? (I paraphrase.)

I share Hiatt's skepticism. There is absolutely no reason to believe that shovelling money into Burma's corrupt government would make life any better for the people of Burma, and indeed, good reason to believe it might make things worse.

On page 20, the ICG admits that "the government has a track record of commandeering the country's resources for its own political projects." (It might have added, for weddings, too.) But by page 30, the concern that the government might just steal the money has been forgotten: "The regime itself, as distinct from the country's people, does not particularly want or need Western aid. Thus, aid cannot be used as a bargaining chip, but should be seen as an instrument in its own right for improving governance and promoting socio-economic change." And how is this to happen? The ICG says that "as long as programs focus on human development and are managed responsibly, the net effect will be in favour of change rather than the status quo."

Well, far be it from me to suggest that the government of Burma would do anything but implement responsible programs that focus on human development.

The ICG's argument seems to be that boycotts and sanctions haven't turned Burma into a democracy. To which I say: engagement and the Olympics haven't turned China into a democracy, either. And hey, while we're talking about China, what about the fact that it's China's support of Burma that undermines the sanctions of the rest of the world?

Hiatt's conclusion is bang-on:

But the idea that voters in Western democracies would support buckets of aid to a loathsome regime, delivered without political conditions and with a willing suspension of grass-roots pressure -- how realistic is that? You might almost say it's naive.

And one more aside: At a time when global foreign aid levels are still far too low, shouldn't we be sending all our official development assistance to governments like that in Malawi, which we know are likely to put it to good use?