Have President Bush Betrays Democracy
and the Burmese People?
Kanbawza Win
Even as the American election draws nearer, the international
community as well as the entire Burmese people are asking
themselves whether the leader of the greatest nation has turn
his back on democracy together with the people of Burma. The
spate of meetings, first at Bali followed by the regional
dialogue partners and the APEC heads of state convention in
Bangkok attended by non other than the American President
George W Bush has produced nothing substantial for the democratic
cause in Burma.
The Burmese thugs have won the war of nerves over the Western
countries led by the US and the Burmese pro democratic leader
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi together with her retinue of Burmese
democratic leaders were still lingering in jails. No doubt
the Burmese Generals were clapping their hoofs and congratulating
themselves. What went wrong?
We are afraid; the American diplomacy has miserably failed
these days. After September 11 the entire world was with America
but after the Iraq debacle it seems just the opposite. President
Bush high handedness of going it all alone against the world's
opinion, even though he managed to knock out the hated Saddam
Hussein, has caught the Americans in the quagmire with the
marines paying with their lives every day. So it became a
forgone conclusion that it could not pay much attention to
a far away Buddhist country called Burma in Southeast Asia
that has not a drop of oil to whet the appetite of American
consumers.
On the other hand the Chinese President Hu Jintao have approached
Southeast Asia like prosperous and benign businessmen touring
a marketplace while President Bush has come through more akin
to a general surveying the battlefield, with the Burmese porn
to be sacrificed in the big game hegemony of Southeast Asia.
Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's "charm offensive"
in Bali, finally led to the signing of the Treaty of Amity
and Cooperation that vividly indicates the acceptance of Southeast
Asian institution's norms and values, even though it is morally
bankrupt as far as Burma is concerned.
It focused primarily upon economic cooperation and mutual
gain, as Beijing's priority is to build up and strengthen
trade and interdependence between China and the region. China's
burgeoning and potential economic strength assure Southeast
Asians and Australians, that they can have an important stake
in China's continued economic growth and development. But
the crowning event is that China managed to convince the Southeast
Asians that there is no such "myth" as the "China
threat". It must be dispel once and for all. Beijing
has now demonstrated her desire to behave as a responsible
and benign regional power when it declares that it will help
solved the Burmese crisis. How a totalitarian regime, will
manage to fulfill the democratic aspiration of the Burmese
people and emancipate the people of Burma from the shackles
of military boots is still yet to be seen.
At the same time the Chinese sense that the American unilateral
decision have play to their advantage, as some countries evince
a preference for developing better working relations with
China as a hedge against American arrogance and other problems
in relations with the United States.
Lamentably we discover that unlike the Chinese, the Americans
seem less sensitive to the critical need to reassure this
region about its understanding of Southeast Asia's concerns
and constraints, its appreciation of common interests and
its seriousness in working towards common goals and mutual
benefit. Incidentally, the American president, on a visit
to this region, can find only two cities considered safe enough
for him to spend the night, a Hindu island resort in the midst
of the most populous Muslim nation in the world, and Bangkok
a one time "your most obedient servant"
Now to all intent Washington sees the region as the "second
front" in the "war on terror" and that it is
not so consumed by terrorism that it has lost focus on other
areas of mutual interest which are of greater benefit to the
region. But China understands, the economic imperative is
dominant in the region and Southeast Asian states want to
be respected and treated as partners by the major powers.
On the whole except the Burmese dissidents Southeast Asians
does want the United States to remain closely involved in
the region until Washington realize that this region goes
beyond bases, access rights and terrorist networks.
As far as Burma is concerned the US has vowed to keep in
place tough new economic sanctions and in its biannual report
the State Department said Washington would continue to lobby
other governments to impose similar sanctions on Rangoon to
force the junta to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and restore
democracy. But in Bangkok President Bush never uttered a word
even though in August, he imposed sweeping trade and travel
sanctions. Hence, even though the immediate US policy objective
in Burma is to secure the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
and encourage a genuine dialogue on democratic political reform
he has not done much when he come face to face with the Asian
leaders.
Sanctions are merely a first step. Sanctions alone will not
bring down the regime, but they may provide leverage to encourage
change. The military regime used American dollars not only
for its foreign trade but also to boost up the army. Enacting
sanctions and freezing the regime's financial assets in the
US has denied them this source of foreign capital. The sanctions
have also forced the Singaporean banks to downgrade the regime's
credit rating. But sanction can be measured only when the
regime stops throwing money at the army and starts spending
on education and health care. Unlike FW de Klerk, who in one
dramatic sweep ended the ban on the African National Congress
and talked of the end of apartheid, Khin Nyunt the self- style
Prime Minister has tricked the international community with
his road map. To push for change, the US must employ a vast
arsenal of policy tools, from "blunt" sanctions
to stinging human rights reports. The unkindest cut was that
it was in this critical stage that Darryl Johnson, the American
Ambassador to Thailand, bluntly stated that, "Military
intervention has never been entertained by American government,"
Nobody will be naïve enough to expect the US marines
landing in Burma but there are several ways to speak to the
Junta in the language they understands as the resistance forces
are doing.
It seems to the Burmese that they will have to wait for another
US election with a new President who will at least recollect
that in 1988, the people of Burma had deliberately chose to
demonstrate against the brutal military regime in front of
the American embassy in Rangoon, where more than 20,000 peaceful
demonstrators paid with their lives. We hope that America
will continue to maintain "The Arsenal of Democracy"
and do something worthwhile for the people of Burma.
Vancouver, Canada
The views expressed here are solely the opinion
of the author. (Kao-Wao Editor)
|
