The Union of Myanmar, or Burma, as it is more commonly known, is one of the poorest and most isolated countries in South East Asia.

While Burma may engender associations to Aung San Sui Kyi, George Orwell and British colonialism, media coverage of the country, its political situation and its people, is somewhat scarce to the untrained eye.

Inevitably, Israeli air strikes of southern Beirut and the horrors caused by the latest sectarian bomb blast in Baghdad will be more likely to make the headlines.

Yet despite its peripheral status as a news item, Burma is a country in great need of elevated attention from the international community.

The Burmese military leadership has monopolised political power for more than 40 years and reigns with an iron fist over what constitutes one of the most enduring dictatorships in modern times. In an attempt to preserve the unity of the nation, the generals in power have reserved the privilege of exclusive access to the political realm and the people of Burma are asked to linger at the sidelines.

In 1988, the military staged an internal coup and replaced one set of generals with another. Under the auspices of Aung San Sui Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD), thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The military leadership responded with violence and the protests culminated in the death of more than 1000 protesters with countless others injured, imprisoned or forced into exile.

After dealing the NLD a significant blow, the junta felt confident enough to allow for democratic elections in 1990. However, the generals were grossly mistaken as an overwhelming majority of the Burmese people voted in favour of Aung San Sui Kyi and the NLD. The generals disqualified the election results and have maintained their grip on power ever since.

Since 1990, Aung San Sui Kyi has remained under house arrest where she has spent most of her days since. Dissident groups in Burma, including those opting for democratic change, remain under constant scrutiny by the regime and whenever the status quo is challenged the generals respond swiftly with force.

Today, Burma is undoubtedly one of the most oppressive countries in the world with a leadership which denies its people basic political freedoms and aspirations for democratic change. The regime's military spending consumes up to 50 per cent of its annual budget, civil society is curtailed and human rights violations are common place.

The political situation in Burma has ignited an international debate over how democratic change ought to be encouraged and promoted. The US and the EU are united in their desire to isolate the regime and actively push for a UN Security Council resolution urging Burma to move towards democracy.

By contrast, Asean countries neighbouring Burma adopt a stance of 'constructive engagement' thereby aiming to promote change through dialogue. US and EU pressure, including economic sanctions, has not achieved its intended objectives. The leading English newspaper in Burma, The New Light of Myanmar, persistently accuses the West of neo-colonialism and has it labelled as a 'disruptive external element'. The generals' animosity towards the West has engendered further isolation from the international community at large.

Meanwhile, countries such as China, India and Thailand continue to invest in Burma rendering Western pressure relatively ineffective. This said, the Asean approach of 'constructive engagement' has also proved to have limited success. However, the Asean members have recently stepped up their efforts seeking to convince the regime that change is needed. The generals have responded that democratic change will be implemented gradually when the new constitution has been completed in the relatively near future. It remains a rather uncontroversial proposition to state that the generals' priority will be to consolidate power and in turn pay lip service to any de facto prospect for democracy. Voluntary handover of power is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, a policy of engagement with the Burmese regime is required by the international community. It may be far from ideal but it is necessary.

In a historical comparison, countries such as Cuba and North Korea provide examples of states that have been subject to Western interests advocating regime change. As a tool of political leverage, isolation and economic sanctions have consistently failed to topple leaders. On the contrary, Castro and Kim Jong Il have proved themselves to be resilient leaders while trade embargos have had a tendency to have a more severe impact on already marginalised groups under their rule.

In light of this observation, the prospect for democratic change in Burma must come from dialogue with the regime. Clearly, dialogue can never justify or recognise the generals' current modus operandi; the objective is rooted in pragmatism reflecting how external pressure can most adequately foster change. The international community has the choice of stepping up diplomatic efforts and attempting to promote change at the negotiating table. By offering incentives, the international community can have more leverage than by implementing punitive economic sanctions which mainly affect people living in poverty.

Ultimately, change must come from within and the responsibility of the international community should be to simultaneously support Burmese civil society and exile groups working towards democratic change. By achieving interdependence, the international community has a window of opportunity to assist the Burmese on the road to a better future. The first step in that direction remains to tell the story of Burma and its people. It is a story which truly deserves a more central position on the stage of world affairs.