Activists who call for economic sanctions against governments for major political changes (as distinct from corporate campaigns for minor economic changes) are well-meaning, but it's striking how rarely such campaigns for sanctions work. The sanctions against Apartheid South Africa might be the only success story for the Left.
That probably means that, unless there is an organization whose political caliber (as distinct from moral virtue) is comparable to the ANC on the ground in the target country, sanctions, even as devastating ones as the UN sanctions on Iraq, work neither for regime change nor behavior change.
Another thing to look at is who has economic leverage in the targeted country. Take Burma, for example, since you mention it. Look at Burma's main trade partners today:
Exports: $3.111 billion f.o.b. note: official export figures are grossly underestimated due to the value of timber, gems, narcotics, rice, and other products smuggled to Thailand, China, and Bangladesh (2004) Exports - commodities: clothing, gas, wood products, pulses, beans, fish, rice Exports - partners: Thailand 44.5%, India 11.9%, China 6.8%, Japan 5.1% (2005) Imports: $3.454 billion f.o.b. note: import figures are grossly underestimated due to the value of consumer goods, diesel fuel, and other products smuggled in from Thailand, China, Malaysia, and India (2004) Imports - commodities: fabric, petroleum products, plastics, machinery, transport equipment, construction materials, crude oil; food products Imports - partners: China 28.4%, Thailand 21.5%, Singapore 18.1%, South Korea 5.9%, Malaysia 5.4% (2005) <https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/bm.html>
They are now all Burma's Asian neighbors*. So, at this point, unless a Burma solidarity campaign catches on in Asia, it is doubtful that continuing and expanding US and EU sanctions will do much.
* See, also, David Fullbrook, "So Long US, Hello China, India" (4 November 2004, <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FK04Ae03.html>):
<blockquote>China's and India's rising influence is most visible regarding Myanmar, which simply shrugs when the US and its allies holler about human rights, dictatorship and drugs. Actions speak, not words. China says little, yet does much, selling weapons to Yangon, throwing in military gifts and other aid. Its spies monitor signals intelligence across the Indian Ocean from perches on Myanmar's coastline, which offers fuel and stores for passing Chinese navy warships.
Chinese firms are increasing investment, from manufacturing to dams, alongside legions of Chinese traders moving into the country. A Chinese-financed river and rail route from Yunnan to the Indian Ocean is offing that will hasten exports while cutting import bills and times, especially for Middle East oil.
Yet China does not have Myanmar quite in its pocket. After October's putsch stripping Khin Nyunt of power, Myanmar's leader General Than Shwe almost immediately flew to Delhi, spending a few days talking with Indian leaders. It seems Myanmar is now taking a more balanced view, flirting with both of its giant, competing neighbors.</blockquote>
> I'm just putting together a co-edited book "Foreign Policy, Bottom-Up"
> about SA activists' strategies for social justice, against a
> subimperialist government in Pretoria. Some of those activists have
> called for sanctions, in a sense, against themselves by advocating
> *against* funding tied to brand-name antiretroviral medicines, and
> against the inflow of some forms of capital - e.g. Barclays Bank - into
> South Africa (for reasons of reparations and apartheid debt). So it's
> not an academic matter.
I look forward to the book. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>