There are not many examples of the United States taking a more principled approach than the European Union toward a foreign country. Burma offers a rare case in point.
When the Burmese military junta brutally suppressed protests by Buddhist monks during the autumn, the response from Washington was commendably robust. Sanctions dating from 1997 were complemented by fresh measures and legislation with potentially far-reaching consequences were brought before Congress. John McCain introduced a bill in the Senate to ban global energy company Chevron from continuing to hold a minority stake in the Yadana gas field in southern Burma - a bold step for a man then seeking a nomination from a political party with an almost umbilical tie to the oil industry.
Superficially, EU governments appeared to take similar steps to the US by, for example, banning Burmese imports of precious metals, gemstones and timber. However, on closer inspection it emerges that they have been more timid than America. Europe's restrictions on banking and financial transactions involving the Burmese authorities or companies are narrower in scope than those imposed across the Atlantic.
One loophole of particular concern is that the EU's sanctions do not prevent Burmese generals or their cronies from using Swift, the leading global network for cross-border financial transfers; Swift has its headquarters in Belgium. This week the EU had a chance to rectify that situation when its foreign ministers assessed the package of sanctions they had agreed in October. By merely renewing - and not widening - that package, they squandered their opportunity.
McCain's attack on Chevron can be contrasted with the position taken by France to protect the investment of Total, the main company behind the Yadana project. No western company has propped up Burma's murderous regime more than Total. That much is obvious, when one considers that at over $2 billion in 2006, revenues from gas are the largest source of income for the military. Most of the gas sold originated from just two fields: Yetagun and Yadana.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has indicated that he does not want Total to expand its activities in Burma. Yet France has done everything it can to protect investments already made. French officials have insisted that Total's operations should not be hurt by EU sanctions. Nobody should be surprised by this duplicity, given that Total has connections at the highest level in Paris. Before being appointed foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner stoutly defended Total against allegations it was using child labour. His 2003 'fact-finding' mission about Total's activities was financed by the company itself.
I've heard some people, including at least one member of the Burma solidarity movement, argue that there is little point in forcing European firms to divest from Burma. China would rapidly step in and replace these firms, the argument goes. There are no easy answers to the growing role played by China in countries under the yoke of loathsome governments like Burma, Sudan or Zimbabwe. It is also distressing to observe how China's excesses mirror those of Europe's biggest powers during the colonial era.
However, shifting the focus to Beijing can often just be a convenient way to distract attention from how Europe refuses to defend human rights with any real gusto.
