Burma and U.S. Policy
Since the Saffron Revolution of 2007, many Buddhist monks have had to flee Burma (Myanmar) or are being held as political prisoners by the military junta that rules Burma. This makes U.S. policy toward Burma something of a Buddhist issue.
Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire wrote about Burma in the Boston Globe this week. He calls on the Obama Administration to listen to "the people of Burma and their elected representatives from the National League for Democracy." The head of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under house arrest in Yangon for many years. The NLD won a majority of the seats in Burma's parliament in 1990, but the junta would not relinquish power.
I don't disagree with anything Senator Gregg wrote in the Boston Globe. However, he leaves out the biggest reason the governments of the world, especially the United States, aren't doing more to help Burma
China and India are in the best positions to effect change in Burma, yet they do not. Burma supplies natural gas and other vital resources to China, and Chinese investment is a major source of income for the Burmese government. India competes with Beijing for Burma's oil and gas and also has sought Burma's help in dealing with insurgent groups. Both nations appear to have an interest in not upsetting the status quo in Burma.
The United States is on the other side of the world, but is it really helpless? In regard to China, probably it is. It's noble of Senator Gregg to ask that we "stand up for Burma." But China is the United States' biggest creditor. Exactly how much U.S. debt China is hard to pin down, but it is somewhere between 500 billion and 2 trillion dollars. One trillion is a safe bet. This, among other factors, puts the U.S. in a compromised position.
This debt to China bloated out of all control during the Bush Administration. It must be pointed out that the Bush Administration instigated expensive foreign wars and refused to raise taxes to pay for them. Taxes were cut, in fact. So to finance the U.S. government, enormous amounts of money were borrowed from China and elsewhere.
As I wrote on this blog about a year ago, in the political world economic considerations get more attention than human rights.
I believe the Republican senator from New Hampshire supported the Bush Administration on both the war and the tax cuts. So, while it's grand of him to declare we must stand up for Burma, he's part of the reason why we don't.
Photo Credit: Chumsak Kanoknan / Getty Images
Comments
Except that China is a thoroughly hamstrung by that debt as is the US. I’m just not quite buying that the US is paralyzed in it’s actions by fear of what China will do vis a’ vis its debt holdings. China dumps its US holdings and the dollar drops, hurting China as badly as the US, if not worse. Courting favor with China in a general sense, perhaps, but let’s get real about this debt issue.
Noone who has supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Bush administrations assaults on human rights at home and abroad has any credibility talking about Burma. It’s all hot air and posturing, nothing more.
George and Laura tried to make show of support for Burmese refugees but that’s all it was — empty show.
After Nargis, the US could have responded directly, obeying the international duty to protect civilians being harmed by their own government’s policies, but … nothing. Just like the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina — the assistance was available but the administration did nothing. That’s what compassionate conservatism amounts to, imho.
With metta,
Visakha Kawasaki
Bill H — It would probably be more correct to say that the two nations have hamstrung each other. It’s a complex situation, however. There’s also the trade deficit. There’s North Korea, which has plutonium-based nuclear weapons, and China is the only power it listens to. There’s the little matter of China having the largest standing army in the world. Etc. The debt is only one factor. The fact remains that “standing up for Burma” requires “standing up to China,” and no one is going to do that now.