What can the world do about Burma?

The protests in Rangoon coincided with the annual General Assembly meeting at the UN, when world leaders gather in New York. Events in Burma dominated talks. America announced that it was tightening sanctions against the regime, and similar moves are under way by the EU. France under President Sarkozy has been particularly tough. Gordon Brown and David Miliband have also spoken out.

Will the sanctions make any difference?

Probably not. Sanctions have been in force for years with no apparent impact on the reclusive military regime in Burma, which seems impervious to outside pressure. It has benefited from close trade ties with China and India, who vie for influence with the regime and need Burma’s energy and other resources for their growing economies.

Who will win? Can the world help?

What can the world do about the situation in Burma? Will it make any difference? Who, if anyone, can really have an influence?

Multimedia

• In pictures: Burma violence

• Video: protests in Rangoon

BACKGROUND

• Burmese bloggers defy the censors

• After 45 years, is this the end?

• How monks became threat to regime survival

• World split over response to Burma crisis

• Burma: a travellers' guide

What about the visit by the UN envoy this weekend?

The very fact that Ibrahim Gambari is being allowed into Burma suggests that the regime feels it has the situation under control. He is expected to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, the main opposition leader, and representatives of the regime. But the junta is used to brushing off protests from the outside world.

Is China the key?

Yes, China is Burma’s biggest trading partner and has most influence on the regime. It has consistently resisted action against Rangoon, in part because of its own human rights record. But with next year’s Olympics looming in Beijing, there are indications that the Chinese may become more co-operative. They have recently taken a tougher stand with allies such as North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. They may be persuaded to harden their position towards Burma.

Could the International Criminal Court take action against the regime?

Gordon Brown served notice to the authorities in Burma that the world was watching. Implicit in his remarks was the threat that the leadership could one day be made to account for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Legal action has already been taken for war crimes against individuals in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, Sudan and Cambodia. But Burma is not party to the International Criminal Court. Prosecuting members of the junta would first require a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council. That is unlikely to happen while Russia and China remain opposed to action against what they regard as Burma’s “internal affairs”.

Does what happens in Burma matter?

Yes. This is an important test for the international community. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy has spread to every corner of the world. In the past decade the West has intervened against repressive regimes in the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Caribbean. But with the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan there is little appetite for new interventionism. The regime has calculated that it can hold on to power by employing force at home and ignoring outside opinion. But if it gets away with this kind of behaviour, what message will that send to other potential dictatorships?

Times Recommends

• Violent video games won’t corrupt
• Pope Benedict XVI: Alma Mater
• Chávez should know what’s good for him