Examples of the Bush Administration supporting or at least not speaking or acting against a less than savory regime appear in many other instances, as well. Examples include Mubarak's quasi-dictatorship in Egypt, a country which continues to rank second amongst recipient's of U.S. aid. Also, in Sudan, wherein domestic violence has resulted in the killing of several hundred thousand innocent civilians in the Darfur Region, as well as the displacement of millions more, the U.S. has turned a blind eye toward real action. Though supporting a resolution calling for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to the region, it has failed to put significant pressure on the Sudanese government to stop stalling the beginning of the force's work. The U.S. could issue a country-wide divestment from economic activity with the Sudanese government, boycotting and penalizing business entities that continue to do business with the country (note the lack of trouble the Administration has supporting an absolute economic boycott of Cuba, which has proven ineffective at advancing our aims there and worsened the welfare of the island countries several million inhabitants- if this doesn't seem to make sense, don't worry- it doesn't). In Saudi Arabia, the world's leading petrol exporter, the U.S. continually turns a blind eye to blatant discrimination against women and quasi-democratic governance. In Thailand, moreover, we sat by and watched a coup displace a democratically-elected (although admittedly ineffective) government from power, while we supported the deposing of Hugo Chavez, another democratically-elected official, because he is one of the most openly anti-U.S. leaders in the world. The point is three-fold. Firstly, the Bush Administration, while touting itself as the world'sleading defender of democracy, picks and chooses the scenarios in which it will back this form of governance, largely based on its economic and, or political interests. Secondly, it is ignoble and disgustingly contradictory for the president to claim a genuine support for democracy when it is, at best, implemented in an ad-hoc manner. Finally, following a promotion of democracy that is so contextually-dependent is irresponsible foreign policy and leaves our potential international partners unsure of what they will get in terms of the U.S. executive's commitment to democracy. Real and lasting partnerships are difficult to create in this setting.
Now, turn to Burma. For more than forty years, a military junta has ruled the country without any semblance of deomcratic intentions. Despite valliant, peaceful efforts from opposition leaders including Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to create a system of democracy, the junta has maintained its stranglehold on power in Burma, while world powers stand idly by, immune to any humanitarian or moral concerns for the Burmese.
Recently, Buddhist monks in the country, insulted and outraged by yet another unjust mandate by the junta on an already economically-ravaged populace, this time in the form of a gas tax hike, took to the streets in peaceful protest marches of unprecedented size and strength. Ordinary citizens, emboldened by the bravery of the reveled religious figures, joined in the call for change and a movement toward a more democratic system. As the world looked on, the junta, growing more and more anxious by the seeming lack of concern of protesters at the possibility of a violent put-down, took to the streets and simply mowed-down the movers and shakers.
Naturally, the world's leading promoter of all things democratic, President George W. Bush, sounded the alarm, issuing a meaningful, urgent call for a halt to the violence and change in Burma- right? Wrong. Instead, before a convening of the United National General Assembly, Bush tightened U.S. economic sanctions against the East Asian countries, with whom the U.S. has fiscal relations that are, to put it mildly, less than significant. Moreover, even were the U.S. and Burma more instrumental to one another's economic well-being, the merit of economic sanctions is, at best, disputable. In some instances, they have indeed had a significant impact on the behavior of evil regimes. In South Africa, for instance, as more and more countries and institutions across the world began to boycot business with the country, the racist regime had no choice but to cede power, ushering in a new day of democracy headed by one of this generation's most notable statesman, Nelson Mandela.
In their worst form, however, economic sanctions, in addition to not having their desired impact, actually harm the same populations they mean to serve. By denying business and revenues to a country's government and business entities, jobs can indeed be lost and vital sources of government support (even if vastly insufficient and ridden with corruption) are cut off, which worsens already horrendous living conditions for disaffected civilians.
In the case of Burma, the outside country with the most potential to implement measures capable of changing the junta's violent, decidedly undemocratic behavior is China. However, in the United Nations Security Council, a body which, if united, can indeed elicit desirable behavioral changes from member states, China (and Russia) have balked at supporting meaningful actions meant to reverse the violent trend, claiming the matter an internal affair not to be mettled with by the outside world. China is a vital market for Burmese exports and a key partner in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, an organization that continues to argue that opening Burma to close economic ties with the outside world is the best solution to its archaic domestic political system (in fact, this rhetoric hides many of the IGOs true intentions, wihch are to plunder resource-rich Burma of its hydrocarbons, timber, and other goods, which, of course, adds insult to injury in terms of the well-being of the Burmese masses).
Were China to issue a serious call for the Burmese junta to shape-up and begin moving toward free and fair elections, as well as insisting on a more meaningful political role for the opposition National League for Democracy, headed by Ms. Suu Kyi, it would little choice but to change its ways. However, it seems clear that China is less than willing to do so, as are other of Burma's critical trade partners, which means that the United States has a responsibility to pressure these parties to act. The Chinese economy, though surging ahead at unparalleled and unprecedented levels, depends tremendously on U.S. consumers on a market for its goods (note that the U.S.-China trade balance tips in favor of the latter to the tune of more than $200 billion per annum). Any U.S. restriction on the importation of Chinese goods would hit U.S. consumers, and Chinese exporters hard, but it would, at the very least, cause the country to think twice about its posturing on the issue of sending a serious call for change to the Burmese leadership.
Moreover, the U.S. could issue a call for top domestic athletes, as well as others from around the world, to boycott the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, an event China is hoping to use to show off its impressive push toward modernity. Without the presence of the world's leading athletes, the games would, to some extent, lose their luster, in turn weakening China's ability to showcase itself as a world leader.
Third, the U.S. could sponsor, and continue sponsoring, a resolution in the Security Council calling for a reconciliation force to be sent to Burma to force the junta to a: respect the rights of peaceful protesters (a right enshrined in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights) and b: encourage the movement toward meaningful talks between the junta and the opposition NDL party.
The time for the Bush Administration to stop trying to have it all ways on democracy has come. The lives of peaceful protesters and the well-being of millions of Burmese depend, to a significant extent, on real and touch action from the president and other policymakers in Washington. Action must come. It must come now. Let the U.S. stand up and be the international leader it could and should be.
Cheerio,
--Daniel
No comments:
Post a Comment