Almost two years ago, then US ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright visited Burma where she met opposition leader and Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Albright also met Lt Gen Khin Nyunt, the powerful intelligence chief and Secretary One of the ruling junta officially known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc).

 

Though Albright was very impressed by Suu Kyi, the US ambassador did not think very highly of the powerful general.

 

The outspoken Albright, currently the US Secretary of State, later described Slorc as one of the most repressive and intrusive governments on Earth. As a result, she was dubbed “Mad Elaine” by Slorc officials. But it’s the Burmese generals that are going mad over the recent statement released by Mad Elaine.

 

On April 22, Albright clearly stated: “President Clinton has decidd to impose a ban on new investment by Americans in Burma… the decision is based on the president’s judgement that the repression by the military authorities of the democratic opposition in Burma has deepened since enactment of the Cohen-Feinstein provisions this repression exists.”

 

A few days before the decision to impose economic sanctions on Burma. Albright’s forewarning the US Naval Academy in Maryland was easily u nderstood. “Burmese leaders should be on notice that, unless the clouds of repression are lifted, they will face investment sanctions under US law.”

 

The only question is why now?

 

Amnesty International state that “1996 has been the most repressive year since the uprising in 1988 with over 2,000 political arrests.”

 

In February, Suu Kyi called on the US government to impose a ban on new investment in Burma. She said, ”There is a large-scale repression of the democracy movement going on with over 100 people arrested within a month.”

 

However, the Clinton administration made no move except to issue statements saying. “We are in active consideration to impose sanctions.”

 

Activists in Washington thought that the administration was waffling on about sanctions.

 

A disappointed activist said the “sanctions were only an empty threat”.

 

The US madia even expressed its dismay at Washington’s inaction at the time. Two giant newspapers, The Washington Post and The New York Times wrote: “For the asked of not only democracy in Burma, but also of American credibility when dealing with the dictatorial regime, Clinton should invoke the law.”

 

“Actually, she [Albright] had almost forgotten about the Burma issue after Winston Lord, who was assistant to the secretary of state, retired,” an American activist in Washington said.

 

But the issue came back to Albright after she was contacted by people at the Free Burma Movement in Washington. “Her interest in the issue was rekindled,” a source said.

 

Moreover, it was not so long ago that, reportedly at a dinner, Albright was told by a senior US official that the “time is right” to invoke sanctions on Burma.

 

“It was that quick. We have been trying fo r many years for a push like that,” another activist said.

 

Indeed, that’s how politics works friends in high places and special connections are indispensable.

 

Whatever the case, it now seems that the dcision is a gift for Suu Kyi and prosanction dissidents. Although hailed by the opposition in exile, the move brought a predictable reaction from Rangoon.

 

“The US sanctions,” Slorc Lt Gen Khin Nyunt said, “are not a problem for us”.

 

But a Slorc watcher in Bangkok said: “They [Slorc generals] pretended to disregard the issue but they know that it’s going to hurt them.”

 

A local reporter in Rangoon expressed his doubts. “Asean nations and China are Slorc’s main partners-not the US. I don’t think there will be much impact. The generals have always claimed they believe in self-reliance.”

 

Analysts argue that if Burma wants its economy to take off needs technical know-how and expertise from Weatern _Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and China will not able to fulfil Burma’s requirement.

 

In any case, there will not be any immediate effects, nor is the junta going to talk with Suu Kyi. Additionally, the sanctions on Burma will not push the country’s already weak economy over the edge. 

But a foreign businessman in Bangkok asked: “How can companies do business when there is no political stability?”

 

Slorc has claimed that since January this year, total investment is US$5.36 billion (Bt 134 billion) from 237 projects. But according to the International Monetary Fund, since April 1996 the macroeconomic situation has turned for the worse:foreign exchange reserves have fallen sharply, the exchange rate in the parallel market has depreciated by 40 per cent in the last six months and inflation has accelerated.

 

The junta’s tourism year has also been an absolute failure.

 

“Foreign investors are still waiting for substantive changes,” the businessman said.

 

Simon Billnesses, a senior analyst with Franklin Research and Development of Boston said the impact on Atlantic Richfield (Arco), Texaco and Unocal will depend on how the US administration defines “new” investment. At the moment, it is not clear if further investment by those oil firms qualifies as “new“ investment. This will have to be watched very closely over the next few weeks.

 

Nevertheless, Billnesses noted: “This ban on new investment in Burma deals a deadly blow to what remains of investor confidence in Burma. It clearly strikes hardest against the oil industry – the largest source of foreign investment in Burma.”

 

“It will be embarrassing for them [US oil companies] to continue to do business [with Burma],” an American activist said.

 

So, will Asean delay Burma’s admission into the grouping?

 

Shortly after Washington’s announcement, China, Asean and Japan quickly announced their opposition to the sanctions.

 

“The US ban on investments in Burma could put Asean in a dileman,” a Bangkok based senior official said.

 

Asean officials insisted that Asean is entitled to admit Burma despite the sanctions. But as Burma’s political instability continues, China-Burma’s biggest arms supplier and business partner may not back the junta as it has before, some analysts suggested.

 

Some dissidents on the Chiness-Burmese border said recently there has been ashief in Beijing’s position towards Slorc. “In the past, China’s officials viewed Suu Kyi as too weak to hold the country together, but they are also beginning to doubt Slorc’s abilities and its several ewak points in key areas,” a source said. “ They [Chiness officials] have to carefully calculate how far they can go.”

 

One thing is for certain: The stubborn generals in Burma are unlikely to bow to pressure. But after nine years in power, the Rangoon Club is facing a tough challenge. The question now is how much longer will they be able to pull through?