What we think

HE'S the best hope we have. He is trusted on both sides," Singapore foreign minister, George Yeo, was quoted as saying yesterday, as the UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari flew into Rangoon inanattempttomediateinthe Burma crisis.

"If he fails, then the situation can become quite dreadful," added Yeo pessimistically, no doubt to the amazement of countless Burmese for whom thesituation has been worse than dreadful for the best part of two decades.

Just what must ordinary Burmese - who face the wrath of their country's junta day-in and day-out - make of the empty words spoken by so many of the world's politicians in the wake of their protests last week?

It must be difficult to swallow such rhetoric coming from the safety of democraticallyelectedinstitutions, from politicians without any real insight into how easy it is to "disappear" for even hinting at political criticism of a regime that keeps dissent in check through torture and murder.

Earlier last week, our own foreign secretary, David Miliband, joined the fray. "I for one thought it was brilliant to see Aung San Suu Kyi alive and well outside her house last week. I think it will be a hundred times better when she takes her rightful place as the elected leader of a free and democratic Burma," said Miliband, addressing the Labour Party's annualautumnconferencein Bournemouth.

It's easy to agree with Miliband's sentiments but rather harder to see exactly how much our own own government has been doing to ensure that "Mandela moment" arrives sometime soonfortheresourcefuland charismatic Suu Kyi, who has been the perennial symbol of resistance to the generals who run this impoverished nation despite being held under house arrest for many years.

Miliband's remarks, like those of so many other global politicians, speak volumes about the absence of deeds when it comes to the international community's reaction to events in Burma.

For years, opportunities have presented themselves for the US, British and other European governments to exercise pressure on the regime in Rangoon. For years, those opportunities have been ignored. Why? No doubt a desire to avoid upsetting powerful regional partners or would-be partners had much to do with it.

At the very least, though, one might have expected our government to wield greater economic pressure on the junta, which relies on the income stream generated from Western-based companies to ensure their supply of arms and financial clout.

As our front-page story today reveals, the number of UK firms trading with Burma include tour operators, oil and gas companies, shipping companies, furniture firms, timber importers and transport companies. And while the Foreign Office says that the government "discourages trade and investment in Burma", a large number of companies continue to ignore this advice.

Itseemsinconceivablethatthe Foreign Office could not do more to dissuade what is in effect investment in a military dictatorship.

The track record of our European partners is not much better. Yesterday, European Union spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio said the 27-nation bloc was"veryconcerned"aboutthe current situation in Burma, where dissidents claim hundreds of peaceful protesters, including monks, have been killed. The EU was not, however, at this timeconsideringanexpansionof sanctions against the junta, he added.

Burma's neighbours - most of which, like Thailand, have managed to emerge fromdictatorshiptoprosperous democracy in the past decade - are as bad, if not worse.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations goes through the motions of condemning Burma's undemocratic ways, but Thailand and Singapore are two of its biggest trading partners. India now sells arms to the generals.

With the lion's shareofgovernment spending going to the military, Burma's health serviceis broken down and diseases such as drug-resistant tuberculosis and Aids and HIV are rampantandspreadingacross its borders.

In the capital Rangoon, meanwhile, as our correspondent Nick Meo wrote a few months ago after visiting Burma: "Soldiers and businessmen with links to the regime drive around in Mercedes limousines or drink at the bar of the Strand Hotel alongside foreign investors who don't mind making money in one of the world's most brutal regimes."

In light of the current crisis, one wonders what the British government - andtherestoftheinternational community - would really consider to be and acceptable outcome to the crisis in Burma? A step towards democracy, or an end to violence and a return to the tyranny of the status quo?

On one point Miliband is right. It would indeed be wonderful to see Suu Kyi take her rightful place as Burma's leader. But to ensure it happens, our politicians must show their mettle rather than expressing mealy-mouthed platitudes.

Burma has had enough of words. It is deeds that it now needs to ensure its hopes of democracy are not once again snuffed out.