Examining the American Policy on Burma?

Examining the American Policy on Burma?

Kanbawza Win

Attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in South Korea, US President George W Bush publicly pledged to help restore democracy in Burma, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the Junta as “one of the worst regimes in the world.” Even though Bush’s message reaches not only the Burmese military leaders but also the Junta’s friends, collaborators, psychopaths and apologists around the region, many, however will, turn a deaf ear to this hollow messages because of the simple reason that his words does not match his actions. One wonders why the current American Administration is exercising its megaphone diplomacy.

The very fact that Bush and Rice pushed the Burmese malaise at the UN Security Council against the wishes of the State Department, who are more knowledgeable and the fact that the Chinese and the Russian ambassadors had indicated very clearly that they will cast the negative vote, proves beyond doubt that the Burmese case is worth sacrificing in order to paint the negative picture of both China and Russia. The whole concept of the Burmese people’s struggle for democracy and human rights seems just a small porn to be sacrificed at the altar of the big international chess game of power politics seems to be pictured. It seems that President Bush, living in the niceties of the West, has little comprehension of how it is to live under tyranny, even though he uttered, “The people of Burma live in the darkness of tyranny but the light of freedom shines in their hearts. They want their liberty and one day they will have it,”

While many in the region, including China and India, want to engage with Rangoon, Washington had maintained a correct and bold stance towards the repressive regime. Many a Burmese who are prisoners in their own country admiring Bush’s statement will be flabbergasted when he wittingly pushed the Burmese problem at the Security Council, just to prove that American supremacy of moral high ground and that the Russian and the Chinese are the bad guys not fit to lead the world to a better place.

Last year, ASEAN leaders were faced with the embarrassing question of whether to accept Burma’s chairmanship of the group in 2006. They broke their silence on Burma, and voiced their concern and frustration and the Americans had miserably failed to take the advantage by squeezing itself into ASEAN. How that is to be achieved still demands an answer? However, it is time that the US takes a pro-active leadership role on Burma. Washington has imposed sanctions on Burma, and has called on the world to join in lobbying for the Burma issue to be discussed by the UN Security Council. During his tour of Asia, it seems that the US President and his administration officials were trying to seek the advice of governments in the region and forge relationships with those who share Washington’s concern with events in Burma. But we cannot comprehend of why did President and his Secretary of State push the Burmese Problem at the UNSC knowing full well that it will be vetoed.

It would be insane to think that President Bush was charmed by Charm Tong, a Shan woman human rights campaigner, from SWAN by giving her forty minute longer than schedule and after listening to her true story pushed the Burmese question to the Security Council.

The people of Burma know that President Bush is very hard headed, stubborn and can construe things only from his point of view and seldom takes advice. Obviously this is the mentality of a Texas cowboy, who was destined to become a President. But if he really believes in the Devine Right theory that it is his Presidential duty to right the wrong, as in the fable of Don Quixote of mistaking the Windmill for evil giants, then he should read the Bible that the Lord created the whole world including, the Muslim (Osama bin Laden is just one), the Buddhist, the Russians, the Chinese and so on and all human being should be treated with love and sincerity including the people of Burma. Why sacrificed the noble cause of the Burmese people just to paint the picture the bear and the dragon were on the wrong side. But the die is caste.

However, it will be more plausible to think that keeping China in line as the Chinese has been helping in the North Korean problem or in the Sudan's Darfur region crisis and so on and that it is worth sacrificing the Burmese case to the Russian and Chinese for after all it is just a small country far away from America, may be his thinking. The more I think about the rationale of Bush and Rice, the more insane I became and one day if I landed in Tadagale Hospital (lunatic asylum) then should I blame it to President Bush?

Perhaps the US president can expect a warmer public welcome than he received at the Mar del Plata summit of the Americas, which was marred by rioting and protests directed at him personally. Whether he is able to achieve much more than he did in Argentina, where he was given the cold shoulder by several Latin American leaders and his push for a commitment on a trade zone was ignored, is less certain. The Argentinean episode seems typical of the way the rest of the world is edging away from Washington. Hence the treatment to the people Burma speaks a thousand words of how the great American nation, leading a Judeo Christian world, treats the suffering people an entirely a small Buddhist nation. What category of moral obligation or superiority he intends to paint we could not comprehend.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw inadvertently alluded to this trend at yet another gathering of leaders, in another part of the world – the Middle East summit in Bahrain when he said: “It would be a disaster if this region thought democracy was an American idea.” It seems now that everything associated with US foreign policy is reflexively perceived as negative.

Much of this, of course, stems from Washington’s hugely unpopular decision to invade and occupy Iraq. It wasn’t just the cost of the invasion in terms of human lives and material resources, or the fact that it was staged for reasons that turned out to be unfounded, but rather Bush’s swaggering disdain for the opinion of much of the international community that upset so many people and countries around the world including the people of Burma who now question American sincerity and good will towards them. I think that it is time for concrete and firm action to be taken, under American leadership.

China is the first external power to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and in another three years ( 2010) will be the world's largest free trade zone with 1.7 billion people, a total GDP of $2 trillion, and total trade volume exceeding $1.2 trillion. Beyond economics, Beijing has raised its leading regional profile by backing the East Asian Summit, offering to take part in joint patrols in the Malacca Straits, and repeatedly suggesting an ASEAN-China Defense Ministers meeting. What has America done?

Because of their proximity, these small- and medium-sized states of Southeast Asia even though wary of Chinese domination, many Southeast Asian leaders believe that the region suffered when China was weak and divided, and they are more optimistic about a growing, self-confident China that embraces capitalist values. While acknowledging that they cannot avoid being part of the gambit of the big powers, Southeast Asian nations share a desire not to fall within the exclusive sphere of influence of one great power. China has started to counter incumbent American strategic dominance in the region. Southeast Asians fear much because of China’s economic growth in the region, after the United States and Japan. But China has inadvertently fulfilled ASEAN's imperative of strategic diversification. ASEAN must see that the other major powers, mainly the United States, but also Japan and India, are responding to attempts to draw them into closer strategic ties and the episode of Burma at the UNSC made the regional disgusted with America. It has becomes apparent that ASEAN doesn't want to alienate the United States but desires to maximize economic and technological gains from closer relations. No state in the region would willingly choose to place all its strategic eggs in the Chinese basket. Therefore, the United States retains an extremely favorable position in Southeast Asia, even in the face of China's growing influence. As China gains economic and diplomatic weight, ASEAN also needs more high-profile U.S. activity in these areas to avoid over-dependency on China. Thus, the agreement in November 2005 to expand relations through the U.S.-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, emphasizing more trade and investment and closer cooperation against illegal drug trafficking and maritime and border security, is a welcome development beyond the boilerplate issues of counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. The idea of an annual U.S.-ASEAN Summit with the Junta representative sitting smug, floated in early 2006, is still yet to come.

The turmoil in Burma and resulting refugee problem poses a threat to regional stability and if left to fester, could spill beyond its borders. Burma is as a country of concern in respect of its government's failure to stem narcotics trafficking. In a broader sense, unchecked misrule in Burma represents a clear-cut challenge to "freedom and democracy" agenda. We believe that in the American administration a small group of thoughtful and dedicated people can change the world to a better place and pave the way to liberate Burma from the evil clutches of the Military Junta.