Burma's people are on the streets. Simmering discontent with the military junta that keeps millions in poverty boiled over into saffron-clad streetrage this week. The biggest clashes since 1988 were sparked by a 500% rise in the price of fuel, which also sent the cost of foodstuffs soaring. The first march by students and monks on 19th August led to series of protests; a movement which has been confronted with countrywide curfews, tear gas and live fire. There is no doubting their courage but why the sudden outpouring of concern for human rights from the West's leaders? And why is it twenty years late?

Gordon gave us the answer in a comment piece in the Independent when he came to the heart of the matter - "Burma should be one of the most promising economies in south-east Asia. Instead, it is one of the poorest countries in the region."

Roughly translated - Burma's military junta just aren't very good at ensuring that enough of the country's natural wealth ends up in the hands of the western corporations. And recently, instead of opening the country up to western investment, the regime has become more friendly with regional superpower China. During the first seven months of this year, China-Burmese trade reached £600m up 40% compared to last year. So suddenly the West swings behind the idea of sanctions - maybe if the junta can be ousted then we could find more PR friendly people with whom we could do business.

The clashes in 1988 led to mass repression and the deaths of 3000, but extracted the promise of an election out of the junta. This was won outright two years later by the NLD, personified in the West by Aung San Suu Kyi who's been under house arrest for 11 years. Suu Kyi has achieved a Mandela-like status in the West in recent years, and Gordon demanded that any solution in Burma have her "at its heart". However her party has little control over the uprising. In fact they've been pleading from the sidelines for the gatherings not to become an excuse to topple the regime, preferring the adoption of sanctions by the international community to bring the junta to the negotiating table.

Burma solidarity campaigners have been screaming for sanctions for twenty years but apart from an arms embargo, the EU has only issued 'guidance' on investment. The largest western investor is French oil conglomerate, Total. The UK follows with $26m in trade but 'recommends' that the multinationals shouldn't increase trade with Burma. The EU - policing its guidelines - has confiscated a wallet-busting four grand. With such a brutal regime in power, it's also a little embarrassing when by 2000, the EU was responsible for almost three-quarters of all investment and nearly one third of those corporations doing business in the country had their headquarters based in Europe. Profits from foreign investment have helped double military spending at the same time the public health and education systems have crumbled. Outside investment is not the answer in Burma - it's the problem. What the west would like to see in Burma is a transition to 'democracy' of a wearyingly familiar market variety.

The question is: when the military junta eventually have to step away from government (although not necessarily power), will a free and newly elected Aung San Suu Kyi sign on the dotted line with the IMF and World Bank? And will there be a deal for Western support or will she think a little more carefully about the historical precedent and tell foreign investors where to shove it? Answers on a postcard to the usual address....

* For more background about Burma see  http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk

* Read John Pilger's book 'Freedom Next Time', about how corporate interests exert power over former authoritarian regimes -  http://www.johnpilger.com