![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Road to Burma
So, if you've been paying attention to speculation around recently, you'll have seen an interesting question being bandied about. Which is, should we, we being the UN, the west, or any convenient bunch of allies you care to name, invade Burma and replace her government?
It's an interesting question, and it's also a perfectly safe question, because it's entirely academic. In case you haven't noticed (and some people haven't), our army is mostly busy in a place called Iraq, and some in another place called Afghanistan. With the troops there, and the formations rebuilding their strength back home, we would have a hard time massing the military manpower needed to invade Puerto Rico, not to mention a dense jungle nation half again as large as Iraq in the middle of the tropics. And since the Chinese have no interest in doing so, the British are as busy as we are, and the French are having troubles of their own in Africa, nobody has the ability to invade Burma/Myanmar, so you can sit back and discuss the question to your heart's content, completely liberated from the awful responsibility of knowing that somebody might take your ideas and turn them into action, and then you'll have to accept some blame for the consequences.
It's interesting because there's no clear cut answer:
There is a series of strong arguments both for and against. On one hand, Burma is a nothing, an economic void, not in anyone's interest and, as the saying goes, never anyone's "strategically". It's hard to think of a more useless country than Burma in Asia, and events of the past fifty years have mostly borne that out. It's close to China, who would not take meddling lightly, it is an unknown quantity, because we know so little about it. Moreover, like it or not, it is a sovereign country. We've tried to occupy a sovereign country before for what we termed their own good, and look how that's turning out.
On the other hand, Burma is in desperate straits, and the military junta is desperately trying to keep people from being saved from them. It is less a nation then a disaster waiting to happen. We, as the big kids on the block, have a responsibility, according to the Uncle Ben School of Morality, to save innocent lives, even if that might mean saving them from their own government. And it may be within our interests. Certainly an open Burma is much more valuable to the world economy than the black hole it is now, and a closed Burma will only continue to breed instability, first at home, and then in her neighbors. In the very long term, the more stable, profitable nations there are in the world, the better things tend to be, and the only way Burma will ever get there involves getting rid of the junta.
Honestly, I think that we've already lost our chance. We should have supported the stillborn Saffron Revolution a lot more vociferously than we did, and backed those words with action instead of letting the Bush Doctrine die a lonely, unmourned death. That was the time; now is not the time. If anything, I would advocate straddling the middle of the road (a tactic that often means I have two different sets of tire tracks on my corpse), and propose that the UN declare temporary jurisdiction over Rangoon, using it as a base in the country to disperse aid and deal with the inevitable problems. That same group would have to be prepared to take advantage of any shift in the country caused by the breaking of its government's power in the largest city, but that would have to plaid by ear.
But ultimately this is a question of to what degree a nation's right to sovereign independence trumps our need to preserve the human rights of her citizens. I believe that, in the long time, adhering to a morally guided foreign policy will produce a stable and productive world, and that we should hew to our moral lights. But in this case I cannot state for certain whether we should intervene, or whether that would push things too far.
What do you think?
It's an interesting question, and it's also a perfectly safe question, because it's entirely academic. In case you haven't noticed (and some people haven't), our army is mostly busy in a place called Iraq, and some in another place called Afghanistan. With the troops there, and the formations rebuilding their strength back home, we would have a hard time massing the military manpower needed to invade Puerto Rico, not to mention a dense jungle nation half again as large as Iraq in the middle of the tropics. And since the Chinese have no interest in doing so, the British are as busy as we are, and the French are having troubles of their own in Africa, nobody has the ability to invade Burma/Myanmar, so you can sit back and discuss the question to your heart's content, completely liberated from the awful responsibility of knowing that somebody might take your ideas and turn them into action, and then you'll have to accept some blame for the consequences.
It's interesting because there's no clear cut answer:
There is a series of strong arguments both for and against. On one hand, Burma is a nothing, an economic void, not in anyone's interest and, as the saying goes, never anyone's "strategically". It's hard to think of a more useless country than Burma in Asia, and events of the past fifty years have mostly borne that out. It's close to China, who would not take meddling lightly, it is an unknown quantity, because we know so little about it. Moreover, like it or not, it is a sovereign country. We've tried to occupy a sovereign country before for what we termed their own good, and look how that's turning out.
On the other hand, Burma is in desperate straits, and the military junta is desperately trying to keep people from being saved from them. It is less a nation then a disaster waiting to happen. We, as the big kids on the block, have a responsibility, according to the Uncle Ben School of Morality, to save innocent lives, even if that might mean saving them from their own government. And it may be within our interests. Certainly an open Burma is much more valuable to the world economy than the black hole it is now, and a closed Burma will only continue to breed instability, first at home, and then in her neighbors. In the very long term, the more stable, profitable nations there are in the world, the better things tend to be, and the only way Burma will ever get there involves getting rid of the junta.
Honestly, I think that we've already lost our chance. We should have supported the stillborn Saffron Revolution a lot more vociferously than we did, and backed those words with action instead of letting the Bush Doctrine die a lonely, unmourned death. That was the time; now is not the time. If anything, I would advocate straddling the middle of the road (a tactic that often means I have two different sets of tire tracks on my corpse), and propose that the UN declare temporary jurisdiction over Rangoon, using it as a base in the country to disperse aid and deal with the inevitable problems. That same group would have to be prepared to take advantage of any shift in the country caused by the breaking of its government's power in the largest city, but that would have to plaid by ear.
But ultimately this is a question of to what degree a nation's right to sovereign independence trumps our need to preserve the human rights of her citizens. I believe that, in the long time, adhering to a morally guided foreign policy will produce a stable and productive world, and that we should hew to our moral lights. But in this case I cannot state for certain whether we should intervene, or whether that would push things too far.
What do you think?
no subject
And unlike the contentious R2P clause in the 2005 UN world summit (which goes that every state has a responsibility to protect its population against crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity) which some have suggested to be invoked by the UN in this instance to bypass the military approval, on what grounds would the invading country have? Some countries have a longer list of universal rights than others, and when does grounds for humanitarian intervention turn into intervention of state affairs?
The promise of neutrality is essential for success, simply because the only proper functioning institute in Burma is an army, plus a terrain that should not be underestimated. Backlash can be in economical and influential terms, if other countries condemn such an invasion as unethical (despite the good it'd probably do). If an invasion were to take place and succeed, the new government would have to be Aung San Suu Kyi's party but even then, would they feel it is feasible to take the rulership based on foreign intervention from a country that would definitely be under ethical fire?
Like some other countries, America refused to be legally bound by the R2P clause because it could compromise the country's freedom to make decisions and simultaneously place national interests at a disadvantage.
It would be an interesting exercise if things turn out the way your scenario sketches, to see which way things would move. The best thing from a realistic POV though, would be China making greater effort to influence Burma, as China is already starting to realise that given its own growing international clout and the global ballgame of checks and balances, moral non-interference of any sort is something it may not be able to adhere to for much longer (one example being the lessening of arms sales to the Tehran government).
Trying not to use the not-quite-applicable 'western Vs eastern mindset' stereotype was something that kinda itched my toe throughout this discussion (given that I'm being irritated by it elsewhere), but that's for another day.
no subject
I was throwing out a more general question: When is humanitarian intervention allowed? Is it solely a function of the UN's decision, or do neighboring nations have a moral duty to stop abuses? We all say that genocide should be stopped, but nobody seems to be really clear on who's job it is to stop it, or who should be sent out to deal with the problem whenever it occurs. We seem content with not confronting this particular issue, and paying only lip service to the old theories of rescuing another nation's people. On the other hand, there's a very thin line between intervention and invasion, and it moves from time to time.
If the world is going to grow closer together in this new economic model we've stumbled into, this question is going to crop up more and more. I normally agree with the Uncle Ben School of Morality: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, but there's now an important question: how much responsibility? Do we have a responsibility to do more than shake our heads disapprovingly? And if so, when and where?
There needs to be an agreement on this soon, before things get even messier.
no subject
China would gain a great deal from a stable Burma in the long-run but in terms of current economical gains and uh, other more attention-draining problems on home soil, there's no need for them to invest more effort on other fronts to help, given that China's current GNP (where foreign income is concerned) is more primarily reliant on other countries. And China still needs time to sort out its own understanding and its growing role of influence, when it comes to foreign interaction where moral/humanitarian effort is concerned. Comparing the 1976 quake in Tangshan (whereby the government thought that asking for external help would be a loss of face) with the present situation, the government is still a little awkward and uncertain when it comes to external help. The slight delay in accepting was probably a combination of aftermath inaccessibility + a policy involving how to factor in foreign aid/helpers that still needs tweaking + the last vestige of a rather inflexible mindset that has outlasted the Berlin Wall, I'd call this a major improvement in a somewhat quick time.
I can't quite comment on the US during the Cold War era Vs. China floundering in this era, given that it was USSR Vs USA geopolitics back then and now, circumstances have changed quite a bit. The EU could be the most influential sphere if it stabilises, but it is currently too divided to be of much use. Meanwhile, George Bush Jr. continues his part as the global clown, while Messrs Brown takes up the domestic honours.
As to agreeing on humanitarian intervention between countries... Idealogy tends to wilt, when confronted with reality. Everybody wants the glory, nobody wants the responsibility. Or to be less flippant, IMO it's just too draining for the various countries to commit themselves to form an active watchdog that upholds justice, due to idealogical differences, self-interest and various internal stability issues at home and in such an exercise. There'd be infinite squabbles on the definition itself, who commits how much, what action to take, etc. That the markers of relativity shift, as you've noted, do not help. Too bad there's no universal pause button to save us all a lot of trouble. The Uncle Ben School of Morality has merely gotten a little more complicated, and perhaps what needs primary refinement is the method of choice and how it is executed, not so much the question of doing more than shaking heads. As to how much responsiblity, perhaps it involves the main spheres of influence doing their part to lend a firm but patient hand to the country that's in question, and everybody else to be neutral. And by main influence, I refer to the country's partners/whoever it trusts. Look where South Korea's meek Sunshine Policy got North Korea, because there seemed to have been a fundamental flaw of not taking into account North Korea's aggresively oppressive regime.
Perhaps the UN will make itself tackle the issue another time. I'd give it another 100 years at least, unless a nuclear war happens to hasten things. Or perhaps, if the idealogy of governments grow closer in time with regards to responsibility and justice, along with a willingness to face up to such a topic, there could be a consensus of sorts. This would be easier, if there were less domestic problems such as inflation and what not to worry about. But whatever it is, engagement is the key, not stone-walling... except perhaps as a last resort (if justifiable).