The Real Burma Problem
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled the United States will review its policy toward Burma. “Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta,” she said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021800273.html) in Jakarta, the second stopover on her first trip abroad as America’s top diplomat.
Burma—or Myanmar as the ruling generals have renamed their desperate nation—is one of the world’s most repressive states. President and Mrs. Bush, to their great credit, worked hard to force change but ultimately had little effect. Aung San Suu Kyi, the inspiring dissident, is still under house arrest, and the junta retains its firm grip despite—or maybe because of—widespread poverty.
As Mrs. Clinton also noted, engagement strategies have also failed to move the generals. Burma’s neighbors in the 10-nation Asean grouping have tried to gently nudge the junta. Like the United States, they have not succeeded in softening iron-fisted rule. The generals, unfortunately, cannot be reasoned with, flattered, or shamed.
They can, of course, be forced into exiled, imprisoned, or killed, but, even in view of the horrific crimes they have committed against their own people, almost no one talks about using force to remove them from power. So what should America do if neither pressure nor engagement works? There are many suggestions as to what we should do to solve this dilemma, but almost none of them gets at the real issue.
The world, after all, does not have a Burma problem. It has a China problem. China, unfortunately, sees Burma as a crucial asset. Beijing wants friendly authoritarian countries on its border—General Than Shwe’s hardline regime certainly qualifies as one—and considers his territory to be strategic—because it provides an outlet to the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea, thereby lessening Chinese dependence on the critical Strait of Malacca. Moreover, Burma is an important market. The generals’ new capital of Naypyidaw is, in many senses, made by (http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=7980) China. Burma’s primary protector and sponsor, not surprisingly, is Beijing.
With China in the picture, India feels it must compete for influence with the junta. And with both Asian giants on the regime’s side, Western sanctions are, as Mrs. Clinton suggested, meaningless.
Chinese diplomats may privately say they are embarrassed by their nation’s relationship with Burma, but they aren’t doing anything to change it. They will one day, and that is also the day they will work to bring democracy to North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. And when will this happen? It will happen when the Chinese people—and not the nine men who sit on the Communist Party’s Politburo Standing Committee—govern their own country.
If we get our China policies right—and these days we are making all the wrong moves by, among other things, downplaying (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/as_clinton_china) our concerns about the rights of Chinese citizens—we can solve many of the world’s other problems. So let’s stop talking about Burma and start identifying the real issue we face.
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."