OPINION & EDITORIAL
Myanmar protests mandate US action
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben White:
- Bush's isolation on Iraq War highlights need for withdrawal (November 26, 2007)
- Biden, Kucinich true Oval Office material (November 12, 2007)
- Liberal arts merit alumni attention (October 29, 2007)
- Child gun access allows shootings (October 15, 2007)
- Myanmar protests mandate US action (October 1, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Hmong deserve political asylum (March 1, 2007)
- Can the United States unite? (September 14, 2001)
- Letters to the editor (September 23, 2001)
- Remember the history of war (March 1, 2002)
- Attacks a reminder of sanctity of life (September 14, 2001)
by Ben White
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar, or Burma, as it is sometimes called, is a nation presently stuck at a crossroads that carries a historical significance of the greatest magnitude. The country has been dominated by military rule for the better part of the past half century and has committed the most violent of acts to keep it that way. This type of society is one in which a modern-day America has promised to assist, and recent actions taken by the desperately eager Burmese citizens have established a necessity for us to do so.
Over the past few weeks, a push for change has drawn many Burmese citizens to the streets, led by the highly regarded Buddhist monks and their political leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the party leader of the National League for Democracy. Ms. Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been under house arrest under arbitrary terms of the Myanmar legal system. She has fought hard for the democratization of her nation and the freedom of her people. In fact, Ms. Suu Kyi was elected prime minister in 1990 when the military junta allowed a one-time general election. Although she won handily, she would never gain the office for which she was elected; instead, she was locked in a prison cell.
Such a reprehensible denial of the democratic process cannot be and has not been accepted by the American government in recent history. To envision this, imagine what actions the Bush administration would have taken if North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il had been demolished in a national election in favor for a democratically inclined leader. We would have forced the change to take place; yet in Myanmar, almost 20 years have passed since Ms. Suu Kyi was elected, and the oppressive military government still reigns supreme.
The message from the Burmese people has been simple: They want democracy. Throughout the last 20 years, they have voted for a representative government and have undertaken the arduous task of nonviolent resistance against an oppressive regime to fight for it. The results of their protest sent chills down the spines of peoples all over the world. This past week, while a group of citizens and monks were involved in a peaceful street demonstration near the location of Ms. Suu Kyi's detainment, the Burmese military opened fire, brutally murdering nine people, while beating and detaining countless others. Most of those killed were peace-preaching Monks who ordinarily hold so much sway in this extremely religious nation.
In an age in which the Western world, and especially the United States, seems to believe that we are predestined and ordained to spread democracy and freedom to the world, Myanmar makes a perfect case for us to intervene. If President George W. Bush is sincere in his desire to spread the word of democracy and bring freedom to peoples throughout the world, he must force the hand of the Myanmar military government in a way that exceeds economic sanctions. Mr. Bush has assumed a mandate to democratize in the past. Yet, he did so in a situation in which it was seemingly impractical to attempt such an endeavor. The case of the Burmese people is different. The most important element of a democratic revolution is that the citizenry desires change. In March 2003, this was not evident in the Iraqi people. While their desire for the ousting of Saddam Hussein was genuine, they had made no specific request for a democratic, representative government. Despite this, Mr. Bush apparently understood his mission was important enough to overlook this fact.
To prove to the world that his undertaking of a forceful push to democratize Iraq was for the positive intention of improving people's lives, Mr. Bush must step forward and assist in the Burmese push for change. In order to show us that he did not overthrow the Iraqi government for ulterior motives, such as oil or redemption for a certain family member, he needs to do whatever he can to free Ms. Suu Kyi and put her in the office to which she was elected. If he does nothing in the 15 months that remain in his tenure as leader of the free world, his major ideological flaw will be exposed.
Myanmar represents the perfect case for justifiable foreign intervention: The people want the change, the government is committing unconscionable acts that force the outside international community to act, and — if the morality of the situation is not important to you — the notion that a democratic nation in Southeast Asia is strategically beneficial for the United States.
It is still possible, as my inner optimism forces me to consider that Mr. Bush has had good intentions throughout his term as president. I can understand his idea that a free Iraq will serve as a beneficial example to the Middle East, and I want to believe that he had a desire to give the people of Iraq a sense of freedom. Well, now he has a chance to prove just that. I will watch closely to what our president does and how seriously he approaches the conflict in Myanmar, for it may just shine a bright light on his entire presidency.
Ben White (bwhite2@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and sociology.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 7:20am):
Your analogy to North Korea is juvenile. In what alternate universe do you imagine Marxist dictators EVER permit elections? You might as well have opined for a Bush invasion of Tibet to free them from the claws of communist China.
The champion of Lady Liberty is not omnipotent. America can ill afford to send her military to every democracy-forsaken corner of the globe merely to prove (in sacrifice of blood and treasure) the sincerity of our commitment to the cause of freedom.
Moreover, just because Americans can't do everything, does not mean we should do nothing. Our recent interventions in Iraq were animated (quite properly) by American self-interest-- as demonstrated in the 23 separate casus belli listed in Congress' bipartison Iraq War Authorization.
American intervention must always be tied to American interests. There is no compelling American interest in Burma. To suggest otherwise is sophomoric.
Grade: D-
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 8:41am):
So yersayin they'll welcome USA soldiers as liberators? You guarantee no "insurgents" or IEDs?
How is this different from Iraq?
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 9:21am):
Shut up. Who cares about Burma?
The US needs to keep out of this crap (See: Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia).
They can deal with this themselves, it's been 19 years.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 12:14pm):
What about UN intervention? Even if it's not American forces, peacekeepers are needed to prevent a massacre and maintain the freedom of communication, press and assembly for the Burmese people.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 2:19pm):
"What about UN intervention?"
Perhaps they've heard about the "peacekeepers" and their corruption.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 2:52pm):
I believe many of you are missing the point of this article. It goes to the consistency of decisions made by our government. If we are truly devoted to spreading democracy, we cannot pick and choose where to spread it based on apparent strategic interests.
By not helping the people of Myanmar we are telling them that they deserve less than the people of the other nations with which we do provide assistance. America needs to stand for something in the eyes of the world; without a consistent foreign policy, we are nothing but hypocritical aggressors.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 5:51pm):
right..lets just ignore this completely. it worked in germany and poland in 1939. And Rwanda. And Darfur. what happened to human compassion?
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 9:58pm):
We didn't ignore Iraq and look how that turned out.
We didn't ignore the Balkans and look how that turned out.
Bah, let the rest of the world get along without the great satan, big bad USA for a few decades.
Put up good fences, bring the troops home from everywhere and put them on the borders. Build up the Navy and Coast Guard.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 2:28am):
I am writing to you from Burma. I have many friends here, and have discussed this issue endlessly. I can assure you that whoever rids this country of this tyrannical regime will be welcomed with open arms. It seems impossible for the Burmese to overthrow this bunch of mafia generals without military support from outside.
Anonymous (October 10, 2007 @ 10:15pm):
THis is the same White house gang that was reported by CNN on March 2001:
"March 1, 2001
Web posted at: 2:14 AM EST (0714 GMT)
By John Raedler
CNN Bangkok Bureau Chief
BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- Some diplomats and analysts are asking if the Bush Administration is softening the United States' attitude toward Myanmar's military government. "
"The US official also made clear in his briefing that any rapprochement that might eventuate from the dialog will involve compromise not just by the military leaders but also by the democracy advocates.
"It's an interesting process," he said. "You have give and take on the part of the NLD [Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy] as well as the SPDC [the State Peace and Development Council, which controls the military government]. And it's the international community's role to encourage that."
"Interesting," responded an analyst CNN spoke to in Bangkok. "The US encouraging 'The Lady' [Aung San Suu Kyi] to compromise ... Are we seeing a change of approach to Burma-Myanmar from Washington?"
In a rare public assessment of the dialog from the Myanmar government, Deputy Foreign Minister Khin Maung Win told CNN at the weekend: "We are quite satisfied with the way the ongoing process is going on ... it is going quite smoothly."
WHAT WE NEED IS A GOOD IMPEACHMENT! (He said, raising his voice)
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
