Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS

Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments

Chris in California writes:
1. Stop seeing the Burmese through Western eyes. The monks would not be served by our seeking revenge on their behalf.

2. When a store owner is an embarrassment to his/her community, people stop shopping there. Help the Burmese people tell the story of their government to the world.

3. Begin a serious effort to clear America's name of human rights abuses. The U.N. Assembly is right -- we are dripping in blood.

Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007

Fred in Georgia writes:
Start with the assumption that no one does anything unless the consequences to them of the change, economic or military, are favorable. If and when China ever feels that its interests will be better served by having a democracy as a neighbor, instead of a dictatorship, then it will pull back on its support of the dictatorship.

It is always about money and/or power. Legality, morals and ethics have nothing to do with it. As long as the dictatorship yields consequences more positive than negative to the Burmese junta and its supporters, the dictatorship will continue.

The United States has a history of supporting illegal governments just like China is doing (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua), so we really have no moral ground from which to speak against China's support of the Burmese dictatorship. In this era of worldwide absence of morals and character, starting with the world leaders and filtering down from there, no one can successfully effect change on moral grounds, because immoral, unethical behavior is so much the norm, and is usually rewarded. Rewarded behaviors get repeated.

Hopefully, the leadership of the U.S. can gain influence and respect when the Republicans are defeated in the next election. I am a lifelong Republican, but this time I will be voting for any candidate the Democrats put forth. Bush has been too shamefully dishonest and inept, and the entire Republican party deserves to be punished for putting him forth as a candidate.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Henry in Canada writes:
Why use the word "convince"? This means that there will be much much more lessons for UN Security Council to learn.

It's actually a very simple question for UN Security Council to learn if it looks back what the nation did in Korea and in Africa as well as in its own country.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Avery writes:
Let's make a timetable, like we did for Saddam. After all, human lives are more important than imaginary weapons... right? Right, guys?

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Sean in China writes:
Press China to do something.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Tom in Texas writes:
Why should we bother? We sat by and did nothing while the Serbs laid seige to Sarajevo for 4 years. That is 2 years longer than Stalingrad. Sanctions and peacekeepers did nothing until the Serbs attacked the peacekeepers. Then the siege was broken in short order. The same story has occurred in Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Eritrea, and now Sudan. Genocidal violence is endemic in the world, and we (the so-called civilized countries) are not doing anything except when it suits our economic interests. Myanmar is in a forgotten corner of the world (Southeast Asia) that is going to be ignored until the Security Council decides what to do about it.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Bo in Washington writes:
Get a new democratic president that knows how to handle big problems. No morons allowed.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Martin in California writes:
Don't exempt Chevron from the sanctions. Not that hard.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

G in U.S.A. writes:
I'm not usually in favor of sanctions because they tend to hurt the people they are meant to help (and South Africa developed nuclear weapons during apartheid sanctions). However, maybe consider luxury sanctions - sanctions against things that would ONLY affect the rich and/or powerful; maybe start with moving to revoke their UN membership.

Because the regime is focusing its injust acts on monks and a particular group of people, perhaps it could be considered (if not legitimately, at least in the public eye) as genocide.

I think it would be a mistake to hesitate to send a peacekeeping force there because it would violate their sovereignty. A country is only sovereign if its rule has legitimacy. Clearly the Burmese government does not have the consent of the governed.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Larry in California writes:
When I'm speeding down the highway and I see a cop, I slow down.

If a country is misbehaving, wave a large, menacing explosive device over their largest city. I'm sure Burma's capital is a large chunk of the nation's GDP (or Rangoon is)... bombs can be VERY persuasive.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Milton in California writes:
Simply put, China needs to know the cost of its intransigence. How much is our partnership with that country worth? What rewards are we receiving in exchange for our complicity in such diplomatic farces (and humanitarian tragedies) as Darfur, Burma, Iran, N.Korea, etc? Is it money? Last I heard we're still navigating a severe trade imbalance, but to paraphrase 'The Dude' from The Big Lebowski, 'I'm not privy to all the new s***.' My hope is that you guys are really getting something big out of this--but I have less and less faith as time goes on.

I realize there is little that the State Department can do to respond to the calls of average Americans--you guys live in an austere world where what someone says actually means something...kinda.

But for the rest of us out there--you know, the 'of/for/by the people' part--the bottom line is of greater importance. Right now, the USG has decided cooperation with China is worth more than their able, but forwent, prevention of death in the aforementioned countries. I guess that's cool if there's a bigger issue at stake (NB: Stalin in WWII), but you guys haven't really spelled it out for us.

What would I do if President for a day? Get cooperation from a Democratic Congress (already shaking with protectionist indignation over the undervalued yuan) and present a unified front: China, either you start cooperating on human rights issues that are at the core of Western values and government, or you stop profiting so callously off our economy. I imagine we could start with yuan-related trade sanctions, and if it really got bad in Burma/Darfur could dangle the threat of Olympic non-cooperation.

Surely there are many more areas of trouble we could cause for the Chinese--a systematic, slow, and bureaucratic 'safety inspection' of Mattel-esque consumer products to protect the Heartland, for instance. But the bottom line is, do we really care enough to act?

Do you care, Mr. McCormack? President Bush?

Respectfully,
Milton

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Ralph in Greece writes:
I love this blog concept.. Good job State! Now, to answer your question. "What should be done to convince those nations with the greatest influence...."

ANSWER: Use the Greek concept of "Filotimo". I.E., show them that it is in their interest as an ally/friend/trading partner of the USA to assist us in keeping harmony throughout the world. Or if that doesn't work, just park a few Aircraft Carriers nearby. (just kidding)

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Cho in Singapore writes:
The country with the greatest influence to Burma regime is mainly China who is quietly taking advantages from EU and US sactions. We believe China is master mind for recent bloodshed as well. The more Burma isolated, the more China gains Burma natural resources. As such, China may not want to see Burma as democratic country.

How shall we stop China and Russia to block in Security council? For China, 2008 Olympic is the biggest hope for them? Why don't we boycott 2008 Olympic in China if they are not helping Burma? This is right timing to pressure China. After 2008, they may not bother about West negotiation on Burma.

For Russia, they want to take Uranium from Burma to build up nuclear power. We do not have idea how to influence Russia at the moment. Let's think about it again.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Nick in China writes:
I'm still wondering what this blog is all about... to see what the public thinks, or to inform the public?

The answer to the writer's question on how to halt the bloodshed is simple. Stop supplying them with arms and bullets. The answer to the second part of the question, establish a framework for sustained democratic reform, it's even simpler: Declare Bush Emperor, and give him all the powers he wants, and he can then send troops there also, and achieve the same success as he is achieving in Iraq. But the question can't be answers in a statement. In fact, it requires an entire rework of American foreign policy, since we are generally the cause of conflicts in far away lands.

Posted on Tue Oct 09, 2007

Nick in Nevada writes:
I'm having a problem reading "gray letters on black background"... what's up with the aesthetics?

Do you want to leave us old gizzards out of the loop?

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

E.J. in New Mexico writes:
Change is inevitable.....peaceful change is desirable.....and democracy R U.S., sayeth the people....

No offense do I mean to anyone in saying this....wish I knew a better way to articulate what I see as "the bottom line" as it were.

...and strive to quench their thirst for freedom.

Half measures and underfunded, lacking global moral support, and continued hand-wringing as to proper international measures, when it is self-evident that it would be criminally negligent to support the junta one day longer via trade or diplomatic ties, the international community faces a clear choice, and the people will remember who supported their freedom after the inevitable fall of despots.

Without foreign assistance the USA would not have broke colonial chains long ago, even so, success was a hard won thing. Can't stand on principal with one foot...then or now.

Leaders come and go while the Earth abides, the people attending...as change is inevitable, and peaceful change is desirable....as of yesterday...

"Early Retirement" would be the operative solution to ethical infants.

...one may not sin by silence.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Patrick in Florida writes:
As a genuine antique (DOB 2-20-28)and a vet of both WWII & Korea.I have seen a lot of life. The most resent qoute I have seen that accurately describes "democracy"is attributed to Hryhory Nemyryaof the Ukraine In TIME mag."On the surface it looks like a mess.It looks like it is an eternal,permanent crisis,but at the same time this is precisely what democracy is about" With this in mind Peoples who have a long history of regimented governance will take several generations to equate chaos with freedom. The Russian Republic is a current example. S.E.A & Mid-East have the same history. We need to be very careful in our sales efforts to not overpromise the timing.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Marilyn in Canada writes:
Perhaps it would be helpful for the U.S. State department to address the country by its official name of Myanmar (since 1989 and accepted by the U.N.). Doubtful the Myanmar government is willing to speak seriously to governments that display a blatantly colonial attitude towards it.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Greg in Utah writes:
Burma is just another sad example of the "America First" thinking that has dominated America's foreign policy for decades. American administrations ignore the blatant lack of democracy around the globe until it can be used to further some other agenda.

Claiming the invasion of Iraq was to "liberate the Iraqi people" is a sick joke. What about nations like Saudi Arabia? The government there is a dictatorship too, but it would appear as though the friends of America can get away with anything, so long as we get what we want.

Saddam was put in power to rule with an iron fist over groups who would otherwise be at each other's throats. As soon as he failed to do as he was told, he had to go. Similar to "General" Noriega.

Sadly, America is no longer the shining beacon of Democracy it may have once been. Our own elections are plagued with problems and dubious winners chosen in court. THen our elected officials lord over those they were elected to represent and whittle away at the constitution they swore to serve.

America's best bet for a lasting and resounding foreign policy of any kind is to lead by example, and to act globally, instead of always in the interest of what is best for America.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Chanarad in Illinois writes:
I think the traditional carrot and stick approach should work. But that is not enough. We need to have good intelligence on what is actually going on there. What are the motivations of the military junta and who are giving the orders and what are their motivations? Will they shut up if their needs are met? Are they coming from an idealogical position? If so, is their ideology threatened?

I think U.S. should lead the way in getting to the inner circle of the dictators and find out what is going on. Use that information to formulate the carrot and stick policy.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Seth in Illinois writes:
1. Call them by their real name: Myanmar.
2. Give them Permanent Normal Trade Relations as that route has worked wonders in China...oh wait...forget it.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

William in U.S.A. writes:
Maybe we should consider the history behind the dictatorships in Burma/Myanmar? What started the power vacuum that allowed such a regime to rise was Western interference in their local politics. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere close to convincing the dictatorship that allowing the people of Burma/Myanmar to rise to power will not weaken the nation's sovereignty? Maybe this is a wound that time can only heal?

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

I am well aware of the actions that go on behind the scenes. However, you are asking for an answer that really has no diplomatic solution, only an illusion. Yet, military actions is not the correct answer either covertly or openly. Therein, the action taken it will always be one that is, "you are damned if you do and damned if you don't". I have witnessed dictatorial actions such as this on several continents and the result always seems to be the same. The "Peaceful nations" take a "Wait and See" attitude, while keeping the "less peaceful nations" at bay. Had it not been for Saddam's attempt to spread his military focus on other Near East Nations, threatened oil production, and other contributing factors, such as mass terrorism. We (the USA) would probably still be sitting on our hands, while his actions decimated Iraq.

There is no diplomatic, or military solution to actions such as this! It boils down to one point, who will be the worlds policemen. If we are going to rid the world of "ONE" dictator, we should probably rid the world of them "ALL". But, then again, who wants to take that bold of an action?

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Jordan in Minnesota writes:
If there ever was a need for revolution, it's in Burma. We're fighting a losing war in Iraq, but what about the Burmese? They likely deserve our help as much as Iraq does. Given the situation, we could easily stabilise that country in just months. I seriously doubt anyone would complain, unlike the insurgents in Iraq.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Nyein in Illinois writes:
The only way to end the vicious cycle of Burmese political conflict is to realize a Negotiated/Compromise Transition to Democracy in Burma. The violence will end only if both camps of the Burmese political conflict view the protest-repression dynamic as a lose-lose scenario. That is, if the Burmese Opposition realize that they are not going to be able to topple a hierarchically-led military regime by mobilizing tens of thousands of people into the streets and if the Burmese military government realize that they cannot govern their country and establish their legacy, protect their interests, defend their values -- individual/institutional --without using force and violence. On the other hand, if the Burmese Opposition gloat on their ability to mobilize so many people to confront the military regime in the streets at the risk of being killed or arrested, in an unrealistic hope that the repression - with the death of a couple of dozen people - would lead to an intervention from United Nation Security Council which acts only in the context of threat to international/regional peace and stability, and if the Burmese military government take confidence in their ability to crush an unarmed rebellion of such scale, which had garnered the material and technical support of many Western governments, including U.S government (See U.S National Hadley's strategy: to marry internal and external pressure on the webpage of Whitehouse), another round of protest-repression scenario is inevitable.

How to end the political gridlock in Burma? Democratic icon Aung San Suu Kyi (DASSK) is not willing to compromise her principles of democracy - based on her view of ideal democracy with the civilian supremacy over the military and no involvement of military in politics. SPDC does not want to accommodate the legislative-style deliberation of their opponents � unending talks, squabbles, debates, maximalist demands and idealistic expectations. These two positions make a political deal impossible and Burmese political conflict runs into a gridlock when both camps attempt move forward with their plans and ideas.
DASSK and Burmese Opposition think that they can offer amnesty to the military leaders in exchange for the latter's exit from power. DASSK and Burmese Opposition failed to notice that they are not dealing with a defeated army or a regime near its collapse. Attempts to make such a dream a reality would certainly lead to more bloodshed, not a compromise transition to democracy.

NLD Chairman (U) Aung Shwe did propose to recognize the military government as de jure in exchange for leaving the ultimate authority to the parliament of the people�s representatives elected 17 years ago in 1990 elections.

A tiny minority of the Burmese Opposition understands where the real deal breaker is and unsuccessfully attempted to cope with the long-term power equation. Zaw Oo et al. proposed sunset provisions on the political prerogatives of the military as contained in the emerging constitution. Sunset provisions are a good idea although Zaw Oo et al. have never proposed any concrete time frame. The earlier counter-offers from some thinking members of Burmese Opposition incorporate such sunset provisions.

Some elected representatives of the 1990 elections who have been attending the military-sponsored constitutional convention - ex-NLD (U) Kyi Win and his colleagues - proposed that there be a moratorium on amending constitution for ten years; thereafter, all provisions of constitution be amended with the support of 50% plus one members of parliament (both chambers combined). These are non-fliers.

gradual and step-by-step disengagement of military from politics would be more acceptable . It would have been much better if the basis unit of time for a country is a decade rather than year or a presidential term. This might be a possible solution out. Whatever negotiation and compromises are, they must be centered on the emerging constitution.

Here is one positive role that the Western state and non-state supporters of Burmese Opposition and DASSK can play: they can tell the latter that it is OK to make a compromise deal with the military and to allow the Burmese military some political role in a transition to democracy. The constitutionally-recognized military's role in politics even in 21st century is not more undemocratic than constitutional slavery in the American South in the earlier centuries. The constitutionally-recognized military�s role in politics even in 21st century is not more undemocratic than constitutional segregation between Blacks and White in the 20th century America. The Burmese Opposition and DASSK would not be held accountable - no more than framers of American constitution are - about such a political deal for compromising their democratic ideals. As for the respect of Human Rights and civil liberties, it depends on the government in power, not on any written document.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Ron in North Carolina writes:
We need to accept a number of realities in how we proceed.

1. Economic sanctions increase poverty and repression and will not work on an already isolated government. Burma is rich in natural resources and not nearly as dependent on foreign economic pressures as some other nations.

2. The American government will have little influence on the military leaders of Burma. We also lack credibility in our policy with other nations of influence.

3. The people of Burma are basically non-violent and only want a better life. There is no strong anti-government alliance that can force change militarily from within.

4. Who are we to decide what is right for these people. The people of Burma must decide and we must support them in their decision.

The only real way that we can make a difference is to help lift up the people of Burma. We must help to ensure that the children of Burma receive a proper education and that they can live without fear of diseases that have been eradicated in countries near to them. We need to work with local governments to help the Burmese government introduce social programs to reduce poverty. Along with this, we need to help them understand that healthy people are far more productive to a nation.

Regime change is not always the answer. Sometimes we must deal with the cards that we are dealt in life and make the best of the situation. Who is to say that the next regime would be any better...

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Victoria in Florida writes:
Maybe the corporations that outsource jobs to the Chinese should threaten to cancel their contracts for cheap labor if the Chinese gov't doesn't use their influence in Burma. Snowball's chance in hell of this happening. Mustn't let anything interfer with their highest possible profit margins. American citizens/consumers might replace a product on the shelf if it says, Made in China. That might send a message.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Zharkov writes:
The first thing you do is cut off foreign aid to Burma, and also foreign aid to any other nation that supports the military junta, including World Bank loans, IMF, etc. That little step alone should convince them that it is a serious matter that is taken seriously. Beyond that, hug your teddy bear and hope that the CIA leaves Burma alone, because their government-changing efforts seem to worsen the situation (i.e. Iran, Iraq, Cuba, etc.)

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

S.J.C. writes:
Reports out of Myanmar before the internet cut off estimated 200 monks had been killed by the government by having been lined up against a wall at their monastery, and having their heads bashed into the wall. Their saffron robes were stripped off of their bodies and tossed onto a truck like rice bags. Still, other reports say that thousands of monks, who are conspicuously missing, have been killed.

Since France's Total Oil Company, and U.S.'s Chevron Oil, supply what may be two thirds of the 'brutal dictatorship' Junta's income, excluding China's siphoning off of energy profits, perhaps the solution is at the level of multinational corporations whose influence is obviously far greater than that at the state level. Perhaps our Secretary of State, has the best vantage point for influence, given her close and longstanding ties to Chevron whose influence has been the source of international lawsuits previously.

Taking responsibility for bloody profits would seem to be key. Perhaps we should legislate moral responsibility onto corporate persons, since they enjoy legal rights under our system of laws ?

We can't siphon and extract resources and market profits around the world, ignoring the bloody trail left behind us, and then cry when the blood rises into the international news papers.

This is the ultimate hypocrisy. Its time to clean up our act around the world. We can no longer ignore the fact that many, many, many people around the world have been killed, tortured, mutilated, oppressed, and slienced in the name of "interests" and profits.

Its time we all took a long look in the mirror.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Steve in New Mexico writes:
I believe that getting the Chinese to exert pressure. Except that the Chinese have not been shown to care much about Human Rights.

If the United States had paid more attention earlier, and exerted more pressure tradewise on China regarding Tibet (for example) then our job would be easier now.

Added to which basic Civil Rights in the U.S. have been infringed by the Bush Admin. We cannot wait for him and all his cronies to be gone!

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

J in North Carolina writes:
@ Mason: Get back to work! Now there's a practical outlook. Mason sounds like a young person who doesn't realize how far apart The People and its government have gotten. I WELCOME this opportunity to fling my two cents at Big Brother! Hit em in the EYE, I hope. We are so mired in our own messes around the world--how can we honestly address ANY of the humanitarian issues unfolding around the globe? Our credibility under the current administration is nil.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Gil in Europe writes:
I think the most important thing is that U.S. starts from itself ans halt bloodshed in Middle East and stop supporting dictatorships in Arab world. All problems in Middle East stem from wrong policies of US government. It first supported the Bin Laden Group and Taliban. It also supported and helped Saddam to start and continue a war against Iran. It also gave a green light to Saddam to invade and occupy Kuwait and so on...

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Ben in U.K. writes:
I don't really see what can be done. The nations with the greatest influence over the situation have that influence due to the large amount of money and power that their special relationship generates for both parties, either in the short or longer term.

The only way that I can see to force countries to exert that influence is to either threaten to reduce their income from another source or offer a large enough reward to enough to outweigh the benefits of supporting the junta.

At the end of the day I don't believe either of these events will occur. Both would require large amounts of time, money and influence to implement, which countries may not even possess. Far worse massacres have occured and nothing but idle debate and ineffective sanctions have resulted. Soon the newscycle will move on and the world will forget.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Jason in California writes:
The most important focus of humane treatment is lost over the excitement of promoting and establishing democracy.....

...Establish a framework for democratic reform?.....Seems quite a presumptuous and naive answer to this crisis. Yes, halt the bloodshed to its people, this is a moral issue that should be the focus.....but to introduce democracy?....very noble but quite overreaching at this point. i'm hopeful our diplomats aren't THAT ambitious...?

By the way, good idea to put up this blog....but good luck on managing swarmth of comments...haha

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Seth in U.S.A. writes:
The thing to keep in mind is that, for the last 45 years, China especially has become a good ally and trading partner with the reigning generals. So, ignoring all ethical issues, why should China work to condemn the junta? And the point the Chinese make against Security Council action is valid - the internal happenings, however bad, do not constitute a threat to international peace. This ability to hide behind text belies an underlying problem with the U.N. and the Security Council - the Security Council itself is too small and its members too powerful, while the threat of sanctions is usually too watered down to have an effect - the U.N. is too weak to be a global governing body, as some countries try to use it as. The 5 permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council have the power to negate any action that is not in their best interest, disregarding any problems with the international community as was intended with the beginning of the U.N. For examples, study not only the situation with Burma, but also Iran and other countries who act with impunity because at least one veto-holder has their back - that's all they need to either avoid any Security Council action and face such watered-down sanctions that they have little to no effect. The U.N. and especially the Security Council need to be restructured, not only for several other reasons, but also so that we can end this ability to hide behind one of only 5 countries and be protected from international condemnation and punishment.

Back on subject after my rant (sorry), about all that can be done is to try using dialogue to get China to influence the generals ruling Burma, while also talking directly with them to resolve these problems. Force, especially military but also economic, is out of the question, at least from the Americans, because we cannot afford another war [spreading democracy by war rather than example is a long, expensive process that never goes as planned (study Iraq, then and now)] and because the Burmese do not need us. But if China were to cut off trade, then the generals would have no choice but to capitulate or be slowly strangled from power. So convince China that Burma as a democracy would be more profitable in the long run, and the crisis will end much more quickly.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Roy in Oregon writes:
When one of China's generals offhandedly suggested China's missiles could reach the west coast of the United State, Duh'bya did nothing. Of course, if he had and China decided to cut exports Walmart would have been out-of-business.

Uh, isn't the United States using Walmart diplomacy to preserve economic and strategic ties to China helping to prop up the regime in Burma?

Should I hold my breath waiting for Walmart to pressure China?

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Gary in South Korea writes:
The question is moot. There will be no change as long as money and power are at stake. The powers that be, including those who condemn the regime in Burma, will do nothing to jeapordize their international trade positions. The deaths of hundreds, thousands, or even millions, of protestors mean NOTHING to big government. Yes, they make the appropriate verbal responses: "Oh, my goodness. That's terrible! Someone should do something!" But no one is going to do anything significant. They'll condemn the regime, then swoop in to make their money once the media stops covering the story.
It's up to the people of Burma to take matters into their own hands. Expect heavy civilian losses in exchange for change. It's all or nothing.

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

Jenny in Tennessee writes:
Just exactly WHAT does everyone think will happen, if the Burmese ruling junta were to be cast out, huh? Let us think this through (since nobody bothered to do this with Iraq, now did they?)

Is everyone's sweet little dream for Burma to have Aung San's ethnically Burmese political party take over, (which, btw, is a party that proudly won't compromise, is proudly anti-tourism -uh, how else is the Burmese economy expected to grow without tourism?)and then, all sweetness and light, and flowers being thrown at the military will occur, because everyone else, all the other ethnic groups in this artificially created by Britain land-the Shan, the Mon, the Karen, will instantly lay down arms, and embrace the ethnic Burmese NLD party of Suu Kyi, like long-lost relatives???? Is that what people think is gonna happen? Think Again!

Oh I know! The idea of an oppressive military junta is innately distateful to everyone-but it also may not be as bad as the alternative-which may be continuous civil war and bloodshed in the streets, a total breakdown of law and order, with thousands of people killed in an insurgency which will ruin whatever economy the Burmese may have at present!

Sound familiar?

Posted on Mon Oct 08, 2007

A in DC writes:
And one more thing: Just exactly what does everyone think will happen, if the Burmese ruling junta were to be cast out, huh? Let us think this through (since nobody bothered to do this with Iraq, now did they?)

Is everyone's sweet little dream for Burma to have Aung San's ethnically Burmese political party take over, (which, btw, is a party that is anti-tourism to begin with-how else is the Burmese economy expected to grow without tourism, huh?)and then, all sweetness and light, and flowers being thrown at the military will occur, because everyone else, all the other ethnic groups in this- artificially- created- by-Britain land-the Shan, the Mon, the Karen, will instantly lay down arms, and embrace the ethnic Burmese progressive party and Daw Aung San Kyi, like long-lost relatives???? Is that what the pundits out there think is going to happen? Think again!

Oh I know! The idea of an oppressive military junta is innately distasteful to everyone - but it also may not be as bad as the alternative-which may be continuous civil war and bloodshed in the streets, a total breakdown of law and order, with thousands of people killed in an insurgency which will ruin whatever economy the Burmese have at present!

Sound familiar?

Posted on Sun Oct 07, 2007

Arrabbiato in Washington, DC writees:
As I like to say, THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY SEEM. The reason the Europeans aren't excised about this situation is that they know the area, unlike the Americans, and they know, it ISN'T as bad as it looks. If the rank and file Burmese are not in revolt, then quite simply, the situation ain't that bad. And they aren't!

But of course, that's not good enough in this country. Here's dear old George, jumping on that tired old bandwagon of "sanctions"-instituting a fresh round of these things, which will do absolutely NOTHING but further impoverish the Burmese people-oh, that makes A LOT of sense, doesn't it? The youth of the world have taken on the cry "Free Burma"-but again, these are youth who are just taking up a rallying cry and a cause celebre-they see a crackdown against monks on the internet, and automatically, without knowing anything, they have their cause celebre. And don't even get me started on Aung San Sui Kyi-sitting there living off her book royalties like she is some sort of Burmese queen-out of touch with the people, in her SELF-IMPOSED house arrest (she was given the option to leave the country for her insurrectionist activities long ago-but she left her family behind in England to play the martyr-left her husband in England to die alone of cancer-she could have gone back then, even, but again, she would not have been allowed back in, so she decided to continue her martyr role-so her husband died without having seen her for years-and of course, that just adds to her useless and irrelevant "martyr" mystique, doesn't it? She makes me ill, quite frankly, and I understand the ruling junta general can't even stand to hear her name-you know what? I sympathize a bit with him on that score! (and ask the foreign diplomats of the region what THEY think of Aung San-privately they will say, not much!)

And why is it that that the American media think that China has SO much influence over Myanmar, huh? Myanmar is NOT TAIWAN! The Chinese have virtually no political influence over Myanmar, nor are they INTERESTED in having such influence. Now, if you wanted to go to a country that arguably at the moment has some leverage with Myanmar, you should be looking to Burma's old enemy to the south, Thailand! Since Thailand as of last year is ruled by a military junta, (juntas both, but somewhat different-the Thai junta at least states it will go back to civilian rule at some point)the two juntas, and the relations between the two countries is at an all time high. Now the Thais get huge financial and other military assistance from the US-why not pressure THE THAI JUNTA to talk to the Burmese military, huh? That makes a heck of a lot more sense than the Chinese, who don't get involved in Burmese affairs, they have enough to do with their own areas in revolt to deal with Myanmar as well! Simply because China does business with Myanmar then, (the leap in logic goes) we should then boycott the Chinese Olympics and crack down on China to do something about a situation that does not involve them, and really isn't all that bad to start with? Sorry, I don't get that-the Chinese WILL NOT be pressured into doing something about Myanmar-they will not meddle in their internal affairs-and THEY WILL NOT BE PRESSURED by the US and the UN to do so! How ridiculous for Kristol and others to even SUGGEST that, cannot be overstated.

I suggest that everyone take a time-out, and watch the situation to see what happens in the future-the last thing the Burmese military junta want is further coverage on oppressive crackdowns-I predict there will be no more of these types of brutal crackdowns in the future.

Posted on Sat Oct 06, 2007

Don in California writes:
Instead of convincing friends of the Burma junta, the U.S. should arm Burmese Buddhists, to include the monks. Buddhists are not known as fighters, but the Japanese have a strong Buddhist segment, and did a convincing job of fighting on their way to a loss in World War II.

There should be plenty of AK-47s available from Iraq, and I imagine that M-1 Carbines would also prove effective.

Listen State~ don't make nice with dictators. It gets embarrassing after a while.

Posted on Sat Oct 06, 2007

A.T.K.H in Myanmar writes:
The democratic forces for change inside Myanmar need assistance from the international community to succeed. However, international pressure must come in its most effective form: collective action. The United States can do more to bring about a peaceful solution to this standoff, sustain the momentum for change, and promote democracy in Myanmar. While our emotional need to do something shapes our response to this recent crisis, we must also keep in mind what is good for the people of Myanmar.

First, instead of acting alone, the United States should build an international consensus to formulate a collective response to condemn the regime�s violent repression of dissent and press for lasting political and economic reforms. Likewise, gathering support from the EU and the United States' other allies on a common position may be more effective when trying to convince Myanmar's neighbors to act.

Second, the United Nations Security Council may not be most appropriate forum to take action given that the last attempt to formulate a resolution there met a rare Sino-Russo double veto. Instead, the United States should put its full support behind the "good offices" of the United Nations Secretary-General to build a consensus among China, India, and ASEAN member countries to use their political and economic influence to encourage the military government in Myanmar to stem the violence, foster a peaceful dialogue, and begin the process of national reconciliation.

Myanmar�s neighbors should act now. First, unexpected escalation of sporadic protests over fuel prices into a country-wide anti-government movement may have come as a surprise to the ruling generals. Though the government in Myanmar acted violently and inexcusably in repressing the demonstrations, the level of relative restraint shown - when compared with their violence in 1988 - and the decision to allow the United Nations special envoy to enter the country suggest the regime may be open to dialogue under the right circumstances. Moreover, the need to generate political support for the recently completed national constitutional convention may motivate the military regime to listen. Coupled with the pressure exerted by the Myanmar people themselves, a common position from China, India, and ASEAN could encourage the military regime to implement lasting reforms.

Although the United States has minimal political and economic leverage over the military regime, it is in a unique position to encourage Myanmar�s neighbors. First, it has significant influence over China, India, and ASEAN�the countries that can most effectively influence the military regime in Myanmar. Second, it is in the best interest of these countries to have a peaceful and prosperous Myanmar for regional stability. Most importantly, the United States� moral commitment to freedom resonates in Asia, especially among the people of Myanmar. In the long term, we must again become an important player in the Burmese people�s cause for freedom.

That said, the United States faces a number of challenges. First, The United States must rely on Myanmar's neighbors to effect change�the same neighbors that have supported the regime in the past. Ten years of U.S. unilateral sanctions have depleted our already-minimal political and economic leverage over the regime and alienated some of our allies in the region. Not only did Myanmar's neighbors refuse to join the US led sanctions in the past, we may not be prepared to employ the kind of leverage necessary for them to act on our behalf now. Likewise, the idea that political stability in Myanmar will lead to better economic opportunities may not be incentive enough for Myanmar's neighbors given their geopolitical interests.

Second, it will extremely be difficult to create a common position among Myanmar's neighbors since their interaction with the Myanmar regime is shaped by their specific economic and geopolitical interests. To create a common position amidst this diversity will require us to frame properly what we want them to use their influence for. For example, it is highly unlikely that a common position grounded on regime change and promotion of democracy will ever be adopted by Myanmar's neighbors. However, a common plea to stem the violence and begin a dialogue as a first step may be possible.

While the spirit of the people of Myanmar to rise up against tyranny has never wavered, what happens after the risk is taken has become as crucial an issue. Before the next opportunity arises, the United States must work together with regional powers as well as stakeholders inside and outside the country to develop a vision of free and prosperous Myanmar and pave the way for future political and economic reforms. Likewise, the United States should be prepared to reassess its failed sanctions-only policy in light of the recent events. A policy grounded on diplomacy and dialogue is much more likely than the sanctions to bring about a positive change in Myanmar.

Posted on Fri Oct 05, 2007

Quinn in Texas writes:
The U.S. government uses dictators if it suits U.S. interest, once they've outlived their usefullness, they are then demonized. Backing a brutal dictatorship is something the U.S. government is quite familiar with. I'm always amazed at how the U.S. Gov has kissed and made up with it's past enemies, but still holds a illegal economic strangle hold over Cuba. Cuba has nothing to offer economically, so the USG can affort to bully them into submission. An old Joe Stalin tactic, starve them, hold an economic gun to their head until they realize what a great thing democracy is. 'WE WILL CRUSH YOU IF YOU DON"T SEE THINGS OUR WAY'.

Back to the subject at hand. Nothing bothers the Burma Govt. There is only token noise spoken from world leaders as Burma doesn't have any economic interest worth the fight. Not like the oil rich Middle East, where is is worthwhile economically to wage war. At least that was the game plan. The Burma Govt doesn't think much of hollow words. What ever actions are taken, will mean little, and this will soon disappear from peoples minds.

Posted on Fri Oct 05, 2007

George in Indiana writes:
How about removing MFN from the People's Republic of China and sending an Ambassador to Taiwan? (After all, we are really talking about the influence of the PRC. If you want to let the PRC know you are displeased, do it so they get the message loud and clear.

Of course, I imagine members of the Striped Pants Brigade are pissing their pants at the idea.

The worst thing to do would be to go to the UN (which is dominated by regimes who see the Burmese actions as a good example, and where the PRC has a veto). The next worst would be multilateral "talks" - which are generally used to look like something is being done when nothing really is - basically, meaningless political cover.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Alex in Virginia writes:
Leverage the anti-Bejing 2008 activist groups to shame China in the Burma case as that is seemingly beginning to work in the Sudan issue. Though it will likely take more activism and behind-the-scenes diplomacy to get China to act on this issue, that is much closer to home for the Chinese, using the 2008 Olympics as a lever is the bets option when dealing with the Chinese at this point.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Ashley in New York writes:
As a U.S. Mission to the UN intern this fall, I have quickly learned that there are many, many ways to influence other nations.

This issue in particular has a high public profile, and the public should continue to press other nations to become involved. Through the internet, the public holds a lot of power, especially with the rising popularity of blogs and social networking sites like Facebook.

The United Nations Special Envoy to Myanmar Ibrahim Gambari is scheduled to brief the Security Council on Friday, October 5, about his recent trip to the country. The format for the briefing is currently being debated. The United States feels that the briefing should be open to the public for a number of reasons, including the fact that this should remain a transparent issue open to the public, and so Burma can voice its opinion as well.

Open dialogue between countries (and the public) seems to be an avenue that has worked in the past. Hopefully it can be effective in resolving this issue as well.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Mason in U.S.A. writes:
This whole idea is dopey. If you want a blog, do it as a hobby on your own time. Get back to work. Incredible!

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Brian in Colorado writes:
The U.S. should do nothing. The same people who are begging for American to act on behalf of the people of Burma will turn on us and call us imperialist aggressors if we actually do anything. After all when we actually did liberate 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, all people do is whine and quote made up statistcis about how we killed 750 million Iraqis or some such non-sense.

Let Europe do it if our moral authority is too tainted.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

John in Ohio writes:
Let's be frank, here. We're talking about China. No one else is in a better position to stop what is going on in Burma and to reform it. What is in China's interest is stability on its borders, and China must be made to understand that this untenable situation cannot lead to genuine stablility. The Chinese will not accept "democracy" as a goal for Burma -- why would they? They don't share that goal themselves. No, the Chinese must be made to understand that a Tiananmen-type response to protests only works in China. China must understand that other nations will not be passive, and will work hard now to undermine the Burma junta, and that will mean more protests and potential chaos in Burma. They must be made to understand that it is in China's interest to install a new government that is more aligned to the interests of its people than the current regime.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Ray in Tennessee writes:
I suggest the U.S. State Department's professional diplomatic corps grow a backbone and make it clear that the United States will not tolerate any further abuses. And if they did not stop, we should use what should be our considerable influence to affect change - economic, political, diplomatic, and if necessary, military.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Louis in Spain writes:
Mr. McCormack, as you are aware, there are lots of problems around the globe, different kinds of problems. Who should solve those problems? I think the entire globe belong to each of us, we inhale the same air, we drink the same water and our dreams are the same. All human-being in their good sense pray for democracy. These days, in some countries, there are so proud leaders by force, and they believe they can do whatever they like, after all a country is made of many souls and not just few. From my point of view the UN should be empowered, and should start working solving the problems of each of its members. And in those countries with dictatorships the time should give the answer, at the end of the day the people will conquer the democracy.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

José in Brazil writes:
First of all, I think the western diplomacy should avoid to urge China to act using the human rights claiming . In my point of view it’s necessary to use Real Politick here. I think that the commercial approach is more useful to convince the Chinese government about the advantages of a peaceful region to increase trading. The western must to show that the establishment of confidence to make commercial deals depends in large scale of political stability in the nations in that region. Political stability came before Business. Although the bloodiest “ancient regime” I firmly believe that China can be persuaded to impose their influence in Burma to protect their own economics interests.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Murat in Turkey writes:
In every possible way, the U.S. should follow an active strategy and take all necessary measures against this junta. Otherwise, a huge majority worldwide will continue to think that the U.S. intervened in Iraq only because there was petroleum there, and ignores Myanmar simply because it's not an oil-rich country, a view that I personally do NOT share since I remember the U.S. rescue operation in Bosnia.

Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007

Madeline in Florida writes:
Demand that U.S. companies stop doing business with Burmese junta.

Have some courage and be real democracy builders.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Chris in Virginia writes:
There seem to be lots of things we can do. First, freeze financial holdings and transactions with that country, including those by American companies. Ban arms sales to the country. Provide funds for human rights, news, and health care organizations to send large numbers of people there as observers. Call the country to explain its actions to the UN. Work with the UN to establish a dialogue with the government. Support the people arrested with diplomatic status. There are lots more ways. We could be doing more.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Kyle in U.S.A. writes:
Voice of America in Burmese!

It doesn't have to say a lot. It just has to tell the truth about the junta. That will keep the Burmese motivated, and that helps them resist. Remember, Soviet dissidents said that listening to VOA kept them motivated. The same will be true in Burma.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Avery in Canada writes:
Covert funding of international consumer groups seeking to boycott all Chinese\Burmese goods.

In short - a Global Boycott.

An efflorescence converging at the opening of the Beijing Olympics.

Why?

Is China merely an innocent bystander in the slaughter of harmless monks, countless unarmed citizens, and a Japanese photographer gunned down and murdered for no better reason than being in a crowd taking snaps? This has the makings of a holocaust.

It is obvious, Burma would never have acted this recklessly without seeking China's explicit consent, if not overt encouragement.

Militarily - the US can do nothing - a travel embargo, a goods blockade or a bombing mission on the general's capital would provoke a financial crisis and\or WWIII.

Diplomatically - the US can do nothing. Without further tangible disincentive the CCP leaders never have ears for humanitarian complaints which, to them, merely are annoying interference in domestic affairs.

If it were otherwise, and China was respectful of international concerns, Tibet would again be a sovereign nation, and the routine egregious "organ-harvesting" of Falung Gong prisoners would have ceased.

I think that the only operation which could affect the Chinese Communist dictatorship is a deniable one, using passivity and a real threat of greatly reduced mass revenue.

A global consumer-led rebellion against China's perverse recklessness would grow quickly, and as the trade numbers fell, China in turn would call on foreign governments to complain.

An appropriate response would be a mirror-image of China's own indifference to questions of human rights: feigned helplessness.

"We can do NOTHING! In Democratic countries people are free to purchase goods and services according to their wants. If they choose to punish your country for sheltering the murderous psychopaths ruling Burma, then that is their decision."

This leaves China with a clear message and a dilemma - not only do tens of thousands of annual riots within China indicate rejection of CCP policies internally, but income otherwise derived from Chinese\Burmese slave labour is about to collapse.

What could alter this consumer perception about China?

- Should the CCP recognize their economic position is in jeopardy and generously house the Burmese junta in Beijing?

- Should they cease killing people to sell their organs?

- Loosen their iron control over Tibet?

The boycott would most likely subside.

Indirect methods? Certainly.

But nothing direct has worked for decades, or is likely to, is it?

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Armand in Canada writes:
Well - if the US State Department was serious about pressuring the junta, it wouldn't ask suggestions from members of the public, would it ?

I mean, you know better than we do how to get this done - so I can only assume that this call for suggestions is a polite way to say you don't want to do anything.

Which, by the way, is a defensible point of view. But it didn't sound like President Bush was seeing things this way when he talked at the UN.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Racine in U.S.A. writes:
One useful course of action might involve the United States itself refusing to support countries that run repressive, anti-democratic, quasi-totalitarian regimes.

You can't take the moral high ground if you're waist-deep in the mud.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Student in Egypt writes:
@ Student in U.S.A. -- I think the poster was referring to the Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the war not killed by U.S. forces. Although 1 million is a high number, according to the John Hopkins study done last year it may be as high as 650,000 which is also not a pretty number.

I wonder what the global reaction would be if the U.S. unilaterally sent peace-keeping troops to protect the demonstrators?

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Steve in New York writes:
Can't you guys send some drunken armed Blackwater employees in there? That junta doesn't stand a chance.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Augustine writes:
What can be done is to stop the policy perversions that have occurred under the Bush administration? The United Stated has lost its standing in the world as a result of Bush's policies.

I wish Congress would impeach both Bush and Cheney, it would be a great step in showing the World that we are a peaceful nation.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Ryan in Michigan writes:
I'm not even remotely a foreign policy expert. (given the state of the world, who is?)

But, given that, the thing I see that is absent in many of the world's responses to atrocities and government crackdowns on freedom...is knowledge.

Knowledge of culture, knowledge of the political complexities, knoweledge of how the average person in burma feels about his or her government.

I feel like the U.S. (and others, obviously) react without really knowing what they're reacting to. Your actions are only going to be as effective as your knowledge of the situation.

So, whether its obvious or not why the crackdown is happening, there are going to be nuances there that we need to know.

This is almost useless as a comment; it takes time to gather that information, and we really should act soon to respond to the violence there. But, as an outside observer, someone who hadn't given half a thought to country of Burma in years, my guess is that acting all tough and enacting sanctions will only end up aggravating the situation (and the people on the ground, who will suffer the most from the sanctions.)

I guess it seems sort of hopeless. Do any options sound like they'll work at this point?

Consider this a formal request for a blog post to explain what actions (or lack thereof) the State Department is taking (or considering) to deal with this situation.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Student in U.S.A. writes:
@ To the poster who claims that "1 million iraq" citizens have been killed by the US -- ...Where are you getting this number from? Are you out of this world? Do you seriously believe the moonbats that claim we are killing innocents over there? Maybe you should have a "discussion" with the terrorists who blow themselves and their victims up.

Don't ever forget, the death toll in Iraq lies in dead SOLDIERS and dead terrorist attack victims.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Ron in Kansas writes:
Burmese much as any other nations people have something for which they yearn. Mainly the right to figure out and follow what that is.

In dealing with China it would seem to be prudent that we maintain what the actual benefit to China or Russia for that matter would be in the long term sense of things.

From their perspective. Only through this awareness acceptance and relevant adjustment in how we address the issue will we (as inferred by Emil and M) actually stand to achieve any forward momentum.

Greed is not always a motivating factor as many times money is but a very small slice of the power pie in organizations. Find whats truly valuable and work with it.

Just a thought...

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Jan in The Netherlands writes:
This would par excellence be a field where the U.S. State Department could weigh in. If and when the U.S. government exerts pression upon the Burmese regime (How? Well, by threatening, e.g. with trade bans ), whether or not this be done in coordination with China, ignoring it would be foolish, for the Burmese generals. And they know that. This is an excellent occasion for the U.S. government / State Department to show the world that results CAN be achieved and that democracy CAN be spread by diplomatic means. Just like in the North Korea case.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Kathy in U.S.A. writes:
Thanks for a chance to wonder aloud, and to the powers that be, how the U.S.A. after an illegal preemptive attack on a sovereign nation, Iraq, gets on a human rights high horse? The number of Iraqis killed is estimated at over 1 million, but the U.S. doesn’t count these deaths. One can only conclude the U.S. doesn’t care.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Aye Aye writes:
I recently returned from a trip to Yangon. As you know, the situation in Burma is quite tense. We are estimating over a thousand monks, nuns and civilians arrested and around 100 have died. Everyone I spoke with in Yangon thought that the U.S. or the UN or some foreign government would come to rescue us with their military might. I did not have the heart to say otherwise. Besides, this time who knows the U.S., U.K. and France under Sarkozy might be able to pass a resolution in the UN Security Council - but only if China and Russia cooperate.

UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari arrived there last night and got whisked away to the new capital where there is no action. (The government, anticipating events like this, recently moved the capital from Rangoon to a remote town now populated primarily by civil servants.) I highly doubt that he could do anything effective. China has greater potential to make an impact. Predictably, Chinese government has asked for restraint but refused to get involved further as it claimed not wanting to interfere in other countries' domestic issues. The fact that it is selling arms to the junta puts it in the central place in Burmese internal affairs as was rightly pointed out at the UN recently.

Please write to your governments urging them to put pressure on the Chinese government to urge the Burmese generals to talk to the opposition. Additionally, the UN should pass a resolution banning sales of arms to the Burmese government and imposing sanctions on those who don't comply.

On the other hand, I think the western media and critics should avoid calling the Burmese military things like "thugs." There may be splits within the military between moderate and hardline factions. This kind of label only unites the military against such criticism. If we want them to act responsibly, we have to behave responsibly as well. We need soldiers to stop shooting and join us in our struggle. Calling them names does not encourage this. We need to show respect and remind them that our national hero Bogyoke Aung San was an army officer who gave up his army post. History will remember who is good or bad.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

M in Egypt writes:
Surely this is something the state department has extensive experience with, given its years of close relationships with repressive rulers? How do you pressure the Egyptian regime to stop beating up protesters and journalists and throwing them in jail? It seemed to be working at some point a few years ago, till the US administration backtracked - perhaps YOU could give others some tips? It's a bit surreal to see the U.S. suddenly outraged at crackdowns being carried out by non-allies.

If this blog is to be something more than a PR exercise, or a virtual playpen for U.S. diplomats to get - who exactly? - to discuss non-controversial foreign affairs matters in a hypothetical, carefully limited way, I hope "diplo bloggers" will exercise just a bit of honesty. But perhaps that's asking too much.

Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007

Eric in New Mexico writes:
As an American, and Buddhist, I hope the following may serve to help my government assist in bringing China to accept a role which may be unfamiliar to them, but indeed must be taken up by them to be "stakeholder" in the common cause of peace.
Crisis = danger over opportunity, as I once put it to Sec. Rice. It is a Chinese trigram I am sure the Chinese are familiar with, and it is definitive of the moment in Burma today, with the world as witness.

Pardon me for posing a "hypothetical", but the key word is "If" the Chinese are willing to accept a mission in which they have much opportunity to gain from in their standing with the international community, and much to lose in terms of "face" if they cannot bring themselves to realize that were they to actively support the people of Burma in this "Saffron Revolution", and use all measures neccessary to assure transition to a new begining or "full circle" as it were; empowering the legitimately elected government denied to the people for almost two decades; That the people would be most grateful.
Chinese economic interests would not suffer thereby, as populations generally remember who helped them obtain their freedom.

I make a formal request that my government challenge China to step to the fore, and take its rightful place in the family of nations, just as my President has challenged all nations to adhere and protect the tennets of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. And a most worthy and timely speech it was that he gave.

I challenge our Chinese friends to act, assist the UN in the transition period, and contribute as needed to bring about a successful conclusion to this crisis that is like a running sore on the human condition.

I dedicate this Koan to the people of Burma, in the hopes that the international community will figure it out.

"When Battleships give way to Sailboats, how does the world realize its true self?"

In Buddhist training, a student is given a Koan, a question to
meditate on and learn understanding of the source of all things, life being
dualistic in nature, this is the essential struggle for enlightenment.

The above is such a Koan, or "life question".

Sometimes a conscious mind can construct great changes, with a single question, asked at the right moment, to the right people.
But words are all too often giving way to the sword, silenced in utterance, and stilled with overwhelming force. Words of good will, with hope for the future.

I am not worthy to be called teacher, in fact even the 98 year old Japanese monk who taught me considers himself a simple student.
The universe however, is a most worthy instructor.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Emil in Washington, DC writes:
Interesting question--while Ronnie has a good point about sanctions, sadly they do not work. Mr. McCormick--there is no simple answer here, since the interests of primary and secondary global powers are all in play.

To establish a viable framework for democratic reform in Burma? Hmm--I am a firm believer that quiet talks between the principles would be the first step. Subtle diplomatic initiatives involving the Chinese, Burmese and perhaps surrounding governments led by seasoned diplomats and professionals in negotiation. These would need to be informal discussions at first, which could ultimately result in formal and public (meaning--media presence) debates. This all would depend on the speed and direction of the talks. Unfortunately, I question whether this is a viable step considering how "I want it now" our world is becoming.

BTW (by the way)-- Thank you for initiating this blog! Good luck.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Ronnie in North Carolina writes:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out the principles and guidance for all nations to follow, when it comes to these kinds of atrocity. So, the nations that have a conscience regarding "true justice" for humanity, should stop talking and begin acting out their God ordained responsibilities. In conclusion, strict sanctions should be imposed against nations that has a direct or indirect influence in Burma.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Robert in Ohio writes:
Maybe we could set an example. Maybe we could quit propping up the Saudi Royal family ;)

Just a thought.

Posted on Tue Oct 02, 2007

Page 1 of 1 pages