Rosie Stock Jones questions whether Burma's recent reforms have political clout or are mere posturing.

In December, Hillary Clinton will be the first US secretary of state to visit Burma in 50 years. US sanctions on Burma have been in place since 1997 and in 2007 were tightened to target Burmese officials. However, after the introduction of a new government this March, the Obama administration wants to test the water. This u-turn in international relations is the result of a recent string of events, including the creation of a Burmese human rights commission and the removal of restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi.

Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), who has been under arrest on and off since 1989. Suu Kyi’s release last November was conveniently just a week later than the elections which her party boycotted. In light of the recent reforms, which also included the freeing of 200 political prisoners, Suu Kyi announced that she will work with President Thien Sien and his Union Solidarity and Development Party (USD) and the NLD are due to officially re-register as an opposition party.

This news is promising, but one must remember that Burma's issues are complex. In 2010, Amnesty International estimated that 2,200 political prisoners were being held. Some were sentenced to periods up to 65 years, just for organising a demonstration, thus in this context, 200 people being released seems unimpressive. Nevertheless, Burma is changing. Until recently, the government censored all media and labour unions weren’t allowed. Now the BBC reports that posters of Aung San Suu Kyi are openly for sale on the streets; a seemingly positive occurrence in a country where she was so long condemned.

Yet the implications of this burgeoning idolisation may be dangerous. Suu Kyi is just one woman, and putting so much hope on one head as she attempts to work out a compromise with the regime is bound to leave many disappointed. One only has to think back to the hysteria in the months before Obama entered the White House, when supporters were wearing his face on their t-shirts, and compare it to the middling, lukewarm opinions that so many of these same people hold now, to see that idols rarely live up to their initial hopes in reality. Furthermore, conversations that President Thein Sein held with Aung San Suu Kyi were in secret and not fully supported by her party. There is a real fear that Thein Sein may be using Suu Kyi and her iconic reputation to help reconcile Burma with the rest of the world, without them making any significant steps towards democracy. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) appointed Burma chair of the organisation in 2014 last week, suggesting that this tactic might work.

Clinton said on Fox News that she aims to do some “fact finding” as part of her visit, not just grace the government with a diplomatic visit and put them in the headlines. Let’s hope this is something that the visit achieves and that she isn’t seduced by what the BBC describes as the “fantasy-land” capital of this poverty stricken country.

The election of the USD in November 2010 was monumental, in that it was the first election Burma held in 20 years. However, the UN condemned it as fraudulent and it is widely recognised that the election process was designed to maintain the military’s grasp on authority. It is hard to believe the same officers that resigned from the military in order to stand in the elections are suddenly ready to give up their power. So while Clinton’s visit and the recent Burmese reforms are exciting developments, it is difficult not to remain a little suspicious of the motives behind this glossy make over.

As the chairman of the All Burma Students’ Democratic Front explained to The Daily Beast, while this visit may result in some positive promises from Thien, the government still have a long way to go before they “prove their legitimacy”.