Myanmar has made remarkable progress in the past few years with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, party leader of the Burmese National League for Democracy, and the agreement of rebel group Karen National Union to end a half-century long civil conflict. These, plus the abolishment of media censorship, make it undeniable that the country is heading for a definitive turn-around.

Following Myanmar’s favorable reforms, this past July the U.S. loosened sanctions on the country and is continuing to do so. However, for some like leader Suu Kyi, removing only a portion of the sanctions is insufficient to further the country’s progress. While the successes the country has celebrated reflect the commendable strides it has made towards a democracy, Myanmar’s current state still mirrors much of the country’s violent history. Considering the conflicts within the Kachin State and against the Rohingya, the international community must not make further moves to ease sanctions and should instead use newly formed diplomatic relations to work towards remedying centuries of the violence that has plagued this nation.

Though the Burmese military and the Kachin Independent Army reached a ceasefire agreement in 1994, this did little to change the political climate within the Kachin region. The Burmese government, however, continued its repressive practices by barring Kachin leaders from running for political office in 2010 and postponing elections in Kachin constituencies. In July 2011, the army reportedly launched a major “military offensive,” thereby putting a definitive end to the already loosely-followed peace agreement. This violence against the Kachin continued into this year with the Myanmar military launching airstrikes beginning on Christmas Eve, an act that could be perceived as religious intolerance against a primarily Christian group living in a primarily Buddhist nation.

The Myanmar government declared yet another unilateral cease-fire this January, only to instigate more skirmishes days later. Though the government may argue that their rekindling of hostilities were done out of self-defense, it cannot deny that it has actively sought out conflict not only with the Kachin but also with other groups such as the Rohingya while doing little to remedy these national conflicts it has perpetrated.

Though the Burmese have attempted to expel the Rohingya from their territory for centuries by implementing harsh social policies against the group, in the past few decades alone this group has been subjected to several Myanmar-led anti-Rohingya campaigns. In 1982, Burma passed its Citizenship Law that unjustly rendered the Rohingya people “foreign” occupants. Due to the people’s “alien” status, they are not only unable to travel outside of the country, but they also are required to obtain permission to get married. In addition, Rohingya men are subject to forced labor which consists of working once a week on government tasks and one night on sentry duty.

These punishments not only dehumanize and stifle Rohingya freedom but also limit the duration and location of Rohingya men’s work, perpetually pushing them further down the economic ladder. With these restrictions, the Rohingya often have little means to escape the region, regretfully leaving them to face the incessant violence and corruption of Burmese forces.

Considering President Obama’s visit to Myanmar this past November and Aung San Suu Kyi’s trip to the U.S. this September, it is evident that a channel of communication exists between the two countries. Nonetheless, Suu Kyi’s hopes of lifting sanctions for the purpose of removing the country from economic isolation and the hopes of trade and investment are severely misguided. First, the U.S. has already granted an aid package of $170 million and the World Bank recently approved an $80 million grant to help the country combat its humanitarian crisis.

While these sources of funding may not be as sustainable as trade, removing all sanctions will not solve the persistent problem of human rights violations, and the U.S., along with other countries, cannot cast these issues aside simply out of a self-interested aim to invest. In fact, some currently enforced trade bans such as the 2008 U.S. move to ban the trade of jades and rubies, are actually said to combat the forced labor, rape, and ethnic cleansing linked to the industries.

The actions we have seen from Myanmar would likely be described by the U.N. as crimes against humanity, which falls under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.  In 2005, each UN member state signed the “Responsibility to Protect” document, affirming that they would protect those who live within the country’s border, and intervene if this duty were not upheld. Myanmar has time and again proven that it cannot and essentially refuses to protect its people as the country itself is the perpetrator. It is for this reason that the international community must now act not by targeting economic gain but rather by working towards promoting and gaining both peace and human rights for these conflict-ridden groups.

In light of the U.S. aim to build stronger diplomatic relations with Myanmar, it must first prioritize eliminating the violent discord in the Kachin and Rakhine regions. Although Burma’s economic prospects may be alluring to the international community, the U.S. cannot free Myanmar of its restrictions until the Burmese government makes a deliberate effort to put an end to its inhuman, violent, and undemocratic practices.

Dina M. Perez ’15 is a classics concentrator in Leverett House.