My wife and I traveled to Myanmar (Burma) 4 years ago this week. We went with a partner at the firm I work for and a group that he put together. He is the founder of the Foundation for the People of Burma and has been quite active in making a real, quantifiable difference for many people there. Our reason for joining in on the trip was not necessarily humanitarian in nature. We really just wanted to see a corner of the world that is largely off the radar screen of the average world traveler. As my wife is fond of saying-we're travel tramps!
Every trip is unique in some way, but this trip was an eye opener. It's not everyday you have an opportunity to travel back in time. Burma seems to be a place frozen in the 1950's--countries ruled by military juntas or dictatorships tend to be that way it seems.
The first thing one notices about Burma is the gentleness of the people. They take their Buddhism very seriously. It's really all they have. Although we hit the few tourist destinations that exist, our itinerary focused largely on visiting the various projects the Foundation was funding around the country. The Foundation operates without the approval of the government by the way, so many of the projects are clandestine efforts. The government will let you provide humanitarian relief, but not TOO much; and you can forget about discussing politics or life outside the borders in public. Our guide warned us of this many times. I did witness a government agent following us around a deserted museum one day--not too close, but close enough to note seditious activity had we chosen to engage in any.
I've never been to North Korea but I've read enough about it to paint a picture in my mind that is not dissimilar to what we experienced traveling in Burma. The difference is that although the people are dirt poor, Burma is blessed with warm weather, fertile land and abundant water so nobody is starving or freezing to death (at least outside of the political prisoner population). However I can imagine if Burma were located at the same latitude as North Korea, the people would be just as destitute.
(For more on Burma see this link)
Today I opened the WSJ as I do most mornings and I saw this headline: U.S. Presses U.N. to Add Myanmar to Agenda. My first cynical thought was, "how odd, there's no oil in Myanmar--what business could we possibly have there?" (I'll paste the whole article as the link is subscriber only)
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.S. asked the U.N. Security Council Tuesday to put Myanmar on its agenda for the first time, accusing its military rulers of repressing political opponents including the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
In a letter to the council president, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton accused the regime of destroying villages, targeting ethnic minorities and failing to initiate democratic reforms. He also cited press reports that authorities in Myanmar -- also known as Burma -- are seeking nuclear power capabilities.
Russia and China blocked the last U.S. attempt to get the Security Council to discuss Myanmar in June -- and it was unclear whether they would do so again.
Mr. Bolton's letter to Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov, the current council president, was sent two days after the military government extended the house arrest of Ms. Suu Kyi, which began in May 2003. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has spent 10 of the last 16 years in detention.
The junta took power in 1988 after violently suppressing mass pro-democracy protests. It held a general election in 1990, but refused to recognize the results after a landslide victory by Ms. Suu Kyi's party.
In Tuesday's letter obtained by The Associated Press, Mr. Bolton said "the United States and other members of the Security Council are concerned about the deteriorating situation in Burma."
Mr. Bolton is expected to raise the issue at a Security Council meeting on Wednesday and the U.S. is hoping for a briefing later this week, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the letter has not yet been formally discussed.
Procedural rules prohibit the council from taking up issues not on its agenda, allowing nations to block discussions.
Since the last attempt in June, American diplomats have gone to several key capitals to try to convince other governments that the 15-nation council, the most powerful U.N. decision-making body, should discuss Myanmar.
China has long opposed taking up Myanmar because of its close ties to the country, while Russia is believed to object because fears such talks could lead to discussion of its breakaway Chechnya province.
In the letter, Mr. Bolton did not spell out any specific action that Washington is seeking.
He warned, however, that the flow of narcotics from Myanmar is a catalyst in spreading HIV and AIDS "and potentially destabilizing transnational crime."
In addition, Mr. Bolton wrote, the regime "has destroyed villages, targeted ethnic minorities, and forced relocations."
He also said that the government's "failure to initiate democratic reforms while repressing political opponents shows the regime's continued intent to maintain power regardless of its citizens' desires."
There are varying reports of late that the military junta that rules Burma has been moving the capital from Yangon (Rangoon) further into the interior. The reasons for this are all speculative at this point, but it seems that they might fear an attack from somebody--presumably the U.S.--in the near future, so they are moving to a more secure location. I thought that sounded like paranoia, but after reading this article their fears could be well founded. The one thing we can count on is continued Security Council non-cooperation from Russia and China. Their reasons are stated in the article, but I bet that's hardly the whole story.
Geopolitics are a tricky business. That is why it is so maddening to hear every action that is taken by the U.S. reduced to "imperial warmongering" or "profiteering for Halliburton" by the left. I am interested to see what those who say that we're derelict in our stated goal of spreading democracy around the globe--or who are angered that we're soft on rogue nuclear powers because we're not militarily involved in places like North Korea, Iran and Myanmar--have to say if anything comes of this. The chances that discussion about Myanmar makes it onto the Security Council agenda seem remote to me as long as China and Russia maintain their current stance, so I'll have to continue to wonder I suppose.
UPDATE:
U.N. Security Council delays U.S. move on Myanmar
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:56:09 PM (GMT-08:00)
Provided by: Reuters NewsRTRS
By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 30 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday delayed a U.S. bid to have the council discuss "the deteriorating situation" in Myanmar after China asked for more time to study Washington's request.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton proposed that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan brief the 15-nation council on developments in Myanmar after its military rulers last weekend extended opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest for another year.
The U.S. attempt to put Myanmar formally on the Security Council's agenda would clear the way for later council actions including the adoption of statements and resolutions.
Instead the council put off the proposal at China's request, council diplomats said. Algeria, Japan and Russia also raised questions about the U.S. plan, they said.
Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov, the council president for November, said Moscow acknowledged "difficulties" in Myanmar, "but we don't see any threat to international peace and security ... due to the developments in Myanmar."
An earlier U.S. attempt to raise the focus on political repression in Myanmar was rebuffed in June when Russia, backed by China and Algeria, argued that the issue was outside the council's mandate to ensure international peace and security.
Bolton plans to try again on Friday to get the council to agree to put Myanmar on its formal agenda. He had predicted before Wednesday's meeting that the matter would sail through.
British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who backs the U.S. request, assumes the rotating council presidency on Thursday.
Denisov said the council had two options.
It could choose to raise the issue informally, a move that would require no council vote. Or it could agree to formally add Myanmar to its agenda, clearing the way for a briefing by Annan. The second option would require a procedural vote and would need the support of nine members to prevail.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
DoublePlusUnGood
"We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."
--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1990 interview with historian Stanley Karnow
Although that quote is 15 years old, change the tense from past to present and it could have been said by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , the man claiming responsibility for the majority of bloodshed in Iraq today. As happend following the Tet Offensive in 1968, our nation's Senators seem to be losing their stomach for the task at hand in Iraq. It is one thing to have not supported the war from the onset--everybody is entitled to their opinion. It is quite another thing to change your story at this point in the game as many formerly pro-war Senators from both sides of the asile are doing; even if it is the politically expedient thing to do. It is quite another thing altogether to do as former President Clinton did when he told a group of students recently at the American University in Dubai that the Bush Administration had committed a "big mistake" by liberating Iraq. "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," said the former President.
This is the same man who in 1998 made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Why would so many politicians go to such lengths to change their story? Victor Davis Hanson thinks he knows why:
...what then is really at the heart of the current strange congressional hysteria?
Simple — the tragic loss of nearly 2,100 Americans in Iraq.
The "my perfect war, your messy postbellum reconstruction" crowd is now huge and unapologetic. It encompasses not just leftists who once jumped on the war bandwagon in fears that Democrats would be tarred as weak on national security (a legitimate worry), but also many saber-rattling conservatives and Republicans — including those (the most shameful of all) who had in earlier times both sent letters to President Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn their commander-in-chief for taking them at their own word.
In the triumphalism after seeing Milosevic go down without a single American death, the Taliban implode at very little cost, and Saddam removed from power with little more than 100 fatalities, there was the assumption that the United States could simply nod and dictators would quail and democracy would follow. Had we lost 100 in birthing democracy and not 2,000, or seen purple fingers only and not IEDs on Dan Rather's nightly broadcasts, today's critics would be arguing over who first thought up the idea of removing Saddam and implementing democratic changes.
So without our 2,100 losses, nearly all the present critics would be either silent or grandstanding their support — in the manner that three quarters of the American population who polled that they were in favor of the war once they saw the statue of Saddam fall.
In short, there is no issue of WMD other than finding out why our intelligence people who had once missed it in the First Gulf War, then hyped it in the next — or what actually happened to all the unaccounted for vials and stockpiles that the U.N. inspectors swore were once inside Iraq.
So the real crux is a real legitimate debate over whether our ongoing costs-billions spent, thousands wounded, nearly 2,100 American soldiers lost-will be worth the results achieved. Post facto, no death seems "worth it". The premature end of life is tangible and horrendous in a way that the object of such soldiers' sacrifices — a reformed Middle East, a safer world, enhanced American safety, and freedom for 26 million — seems remote and abstract.
The reason of this post is to point out the revision of history that is taking place before our eyes in the Senate. You, the reader, would do well to recall or read George Orwell's 1984. In it he describes the Records Department where the protagonist Winston works revising old news stories to reinforce Big Brother's version of history. Inconvenient facts as well as any stray piece of anything were tossed into the Memory Hole, never to be referenced again. Judging from the Senate's behavior of late, I'd say it must have been on their Summer reading list.
Side Note: Military deaths are as tragic at the individual level as any death. In an attempt to keep perspective on things I came up with what I think is a good demographic comparison to our Armed Forces: motorcycle riders. They're mostly young and mostly male just like a soldier afterall.
Single vehicle motorcycle crashes account for about 45 percent of all motorcyclist fatalities. More than 38,000 motorcyclists have died in single vehicle motorcycle crashes between 1975 and 1999. (Source)
If you do the math that works out to a little over 2,000 deaths per year. I realize this is not an exact comparison as the number of U.S. soldiers that have been killed in Iraq spans almost three years, and surely there's more motorcycle riders than soldiers in Iraq so the sample size is different. However, if you look at it strictly in deaths per year, riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than soldiering in Iraq.
--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1990 interview with historian Stanley Karnow
Although that quote is 15 years old, change the tense from past to present and it could have been said by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , the man claiming responsibility for the majority of bloodshed in Iraq today. As happend following the Tet Offensive in 1968, our nation's Senators seem to be losing their stomach for the task at hand in Iraq. It is one thing to have not supported the war from the onset--everybody is entitled to their opinion. It is quite another thing to change your story at this point in the game as many formerly pro-war Senators from both sides of the asile are doing; even if it is the politically expedient thing to do. It is quite another thing altogether to do as former President Clinton did when he told a group of students recently at the American University in Dubai that the Bush Administration had committed a "big mistake" by liberating Iraq. "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," said the former President.
This is the same man who in 1998 made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Why would so many politicians go to such lengths to change their story? Victor Davis Hanson thinks he knows why:
...what then is really at the heart of the current strange congressional hysteria?
Simple — the tragic loss of nearly 2,100 Americans in Iraq.
The "my perfect war, your messy postbellum reconstruction" crowd is now huge and unapologetic. It encompasses not just leftists who once jumped on the war bandwagon in fears that Democrats would be tarred as weak on national security (a legitimate worry), but also many saber-rattling conservatives and Republicans — including those (the most shameful of all) who had in earlier times both sent letters to President Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn their commander-in-chief for taking them at their own word.
In the triumphalism after seeing Milosevic go down without a single American death, the Taliban implode at very little cost, and Saddam removed from power with little more than 100 fatalities, there was the assumption that the United States could simply nod and dictators would quail and democracy would follow. Had we lost 100 in birthing democracy and not 2,000, or seen purple fingers only and not IEDs on Dan Rather's nightly broadcasts, today's critics would be arguing over who first thought up the idea of removing Saddam and implementing democratic changes.
So without our 2,100 losses, nearly all the present critics would be either silent or grandstanding their support — in the manner that three quarters of the American population who polled that they were in favor of the war once they saw the statue of Saddam fall.
In short, there is no issue of WMD other than finding out why our intelligence people who had once missed it in the First Gulf War, then hyped it in the next — or what actually happened to all the unaccounted for vials and stockpiles that the U.N. inspectors swore were once inside Iraq.
So the real crux is a real legitimate debate over whether our ongoing costs-billions spent, thousands wounded, nearly 2,100 American soldiers lost-will be worth the results achieved. Post facto, no death seems "worth it". The premature end of life is tangible and horrendous in a way that the object of such soldiers' sacrifices — a reformed Middle East, a safer world, enhanced American safety, and freedom for 26 million — seems remote and abstract.
The reason of this post is to point out the revision of history that is taking place before our eyes in the Senate. You, the reader, would do well to recall or read George Orwell's 1984. In it he describes the Records Department where the protagonist Winston works revising old news stories to reinforce Big Brother's version of history. Inconvenient facts as well as any stray piece of anything were tossed into the Memory Hole, never to be referenced again. Judging from the Senate's behavior of late, I'd say it must have been on their Summer reading list.
Side Note: Military deaths are as tragic at the individual level as any death. In an attempt to keep perspective on things I came up with what I think is a good demographic comparison to our Armed Forces: motorcycle riders. They're mostly young and mostly male just like a soldier afterall.
Single vehicle motorcycle crashes account for about 45 percent of all motorcyclist fatalities. More than 38,000 motorcyclists have died in single vehicle motorcycle crashes between 1975 and 1999. (Source)
If you do the math that works out to a little over 2,000 deaths per year. I realize this is not an exact comparison as the number of U.S. soldiers that have been killed in Iraq spans almost three years, and surely there's more motorcycle riders than soldiers in Iraq so the sample size is different. However, if you look at it strictly in deaths per year, riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than soldiering in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
