Resignation sinking in
Monday, October 22nd, 2007
After my Russian lesson today, I read an extremely depressing article in the Times about what’s happening in Burma now, more importantly what’s happening among the Burmese people. I know I’ve been posting about this a lot, but this is the most blatant example of an anti-democratic government that is getting away with the repression of it’s own people without the U.S. being able to extend any influence over what happens. These cases are the reason why I don’t actually believe the U.S. is the most powerful defender of freedom and democracy around the world. It’s more like the U.S. gets that title by default. Burma and Sudan are the two most obvious current examples of failure on the part of U.S. international leadership as the “benevolent hegemon.” We obviously bow, especially in the case of Burma, to the influence of the world’s rising power China. It’s the same in Sudan, where China’s influence has done nothing but prevented peace and protected a genocidal regime.
I believe whole-heartedly in the United Nations. I think without the organization and it’s work, the international system would be unmanageable and would lack a legitimate and disinterested negotiator in times of crisis, as no one country could take its place. But too often the Security Council reflects the interests of its members, or rather the lack of interest from its members in seriously committing to freedom and security around the world.
Here’s why this is all especially pertinent to the Bush Administration- Iraq. The Bush administration tried to prove something by invading Iraq (after we didn’t find the WMD’s of course)- if democracy and human rights are threatened by a murderous regime, we will militarily assist the people who want to be free from such terror even if the UNSC is unable to rally together and do something concrete about it. I’m not naive enough to believe that was the true intention of invading Iraq, but that’s what we purported to the rest of the world. Here’s the problem- while we are and have been fighting in Iraq under the auspices of freeing people who want democracy and peace for their country, Sudan and Burma have respectively been facing brutal government (sponsored) violence and repression. And we have done so little, that we hear the kind of resignation like in the Time article.
By perpetrating what most Burmese felt was unthinkable — the beating and killing of monks — the ruling generals proved that they would stop at nothing to keep their grip on power. People were again cowed into subjugation. Now dissidents worry that the world, after its initial uproar, will again leave the Burmese people to cope with the junta on their own.
“We want to explode our feelings, but if we do, who will help us?” said a 58-year-old businessman who, like many, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “The U.N.? The U.S.? China? They all said they would help us. But all they did was blah, blah, blah.”
It’s a vicious circle. The U.S. complains the SC isn’t doing enough, then demotes the power of the UN by arrogantly “going at it alone,” which then further voids the authority of the SC, which then terranical regimes ignore and the U.S. can do nothing about because China’s protecting these governments and the U.S. does not have the resources or public support to do anything concrete. So where does that leave us? Just saying we’re the most powerful country in the world, defending democracy and freedom for all, blah blah blah.
If you couldn’t tell, I’m hoping to spark some debate on this so please open up- a debate on U.S. leadership and what all of these events mean in defining image versus reality. I’m even opening up a new category for my posts just for things like this 