While strong condemnations of the military crackdown against protesters in Burma are necessary, if predictable, the international community, including the United States, will need much more than harsh rhetoric to improve the situation. Given the chaos of recent weeks, international negotiators may have an opportunity to work with the secretive ruling regime to increase freedoms while also finding ways to improve the country’s economic outlook.

This dovetails with the Bush administration’s stated commitment to spreading democracy. With hopes of democracy at least temporarily smashed in Iraq, Burma gives the administration an opportunity to push for freedom in another arena.

The situation in Burma is so complex, international scholars warn, that even the country’s name is controversial: It was called Burma until the military put down a pro-democracy movement in 1988 and changed it to Myanmar, a name the U.S. State Department declines to use.

Because of the military regime’s extreme secrecy, it is hard to know the extent of economic deprivation among the country’s 49 million residents. Statistics on education levels and health services are also minimal.

A huge increase in fuel prices in August spurred rare demonstrations across the country. Last month, monks, highly revered in the Buddhist country, joined the protests, which in recent days have been met with increasing brutality from police and military forces.

While some have taken to calling the current uprising a “saffron revolution,” it is unclear where it will lead.

At the largest gathering of Burma experts, which was held in 2002 by the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, many speakers warned that misperceptions led to inaccurate conclusions. For example, a majority of citizens likely want a different form of government, but very few have said they want a democracy. For this reason, speakers, who were not named in the public summary of the conference to allow them to talk more openly, said that “democracy is not a panacea,” and that the military regime is likely to control any political transition.

From this perspective, working with the regime, rather than trying to topple it, is likely a more productive strategy. To do this, the United States would have to change its tone from one that is largely negative – criticizing, however rightly, the country on human rights, drug trafficking and AIDS prevention – to one that has some positive points. For example, work on economic reforms such as increasing the country’s exports could be coupled with a push for political change.

To be successful, the administration must also work with Burma’s neighbors and allies, including China, which is eager to access the country’s natural gas. Chinese pressure, coupled with that from within, could persuade the regime that change is necessary.

The most frequent message at the Johns Hopkins conference is that change in Burma will take time. Patience and persistence is a better strategy than punishment and condemnation.