I just came across this great OpEd piece describing precisely what I wrote about yesterday with a few additional considerations I didn't think about regarding China's relationship with Burma. China has the same relationship with Sudan (Darfur). Therefore, the same strategy can be applied. China is no doubt the 'key'. Nevertheless, the U.N. Security Council needs to approach China with a financial economic tone and not a human rights tone. Meet China in their understanding, their perspective. China MUST be made to feel secure that they will benefit from a Burmese and Sudanese change in governance. This is the only way China will cooperate and respond. Use this strategy and you will beat the military dictators from both Burma and Sudan at their very own game! These dictators have been FEEDING the beast's insatiable appetite for natural resources which has kept China loyal to them. Now you MUST find a way to ENTICE the beast away from them with an alternative satisfying feast. Preferably the same in order to sustain the Burmese economy but with extra incentives! Help China envision a new Burmese tourist paradise with productive Burmese workers earning a wage. I say help them look upon the Burmese people as potential chinese product consumers!
For the record, the Myanmar (Burma) military regime USURPED it's power over the people. The junta is NOT A LEGITIMATE ruling government! This means that their constitution and thus their LAWS are ILLEGITIMATE and should be recognized as such by the U.N. Security Council and ASEAN! Therefore, Burmese governance should be abdicated to the winner of the ONLY democratic elections held in Burma. Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was elected with an overwhelming 80% of the votes back in 1990. She is the RIGHTFUL chosen leader of the people of Burma! World Leaders NEED TO BE STRONG in AFFIRMING this TRUTH! The junta court does NOT have a RIGHT to try Aung San Suu Kyi nor do they have a RIGHT to keep her imprisoned. With that being said, I hope and pray that the world leaders do the RIGHT THING for Burma. I have taken the following from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace website:
****************************************************************
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
China, Burma, and Sudan: Convincing Argument
written by Josh Kurlantzick
The New Republic Online, May 11, 2006
The country's ruling regime routinely makes Freedom House's list of nastiest governments and Parade magazine's lineup of the world's worst dictators. Its military conducts brutal campaigns against ethnic minorities in one region of the country, campaigns that reportedly have forced over 11,000 people from their homes in just the past three months alone. Ostracized by the world, it refuses to allow in U.N. monitors, who want unfettered access to document the nation's human rights situation. Since the United States has slapped sanctions on the oil-rich state, and American companies have little business there, Washington has limited leverage over this country's government. China, meanwhile, has all kinds of influence. China is the country's biggest investor, major consumer of its resources, and primary arms supplier, and thousands of Chinese laborers have flowed into the country.
Sudan? Try Burma, where the government's abuses, though probably not a genocide as in Darfur, rank among the world's worst. According to one report, "The Burmese military regime is allowing its troops systematically and on a widespread scale to commit rape with impunity in order to terrorize and subjugate the ethnic peoples" in the country's northeast. By slapping sanctions on Burma, the United States has tried to prod the Burmese government towards reform, to little avail. But while China, Burma's major patron, has hardly become an advocate for democracy in Rangoon, there are signs Beijing might cooperate to reduce the Burmese government's worst abuses--signs that could provide lessons for convincing China to act more benevolently in Sudan.
Although pro-democracy opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won Burma's last free election, held in 1990, the Burmese military simply nullified that poll, and since then it has held Suu Kyi under house arrest for most of the time, while also jailing hundreds of members of her party. Without a doubt, Chinese officials do not care whether Suu Kyi ever comes to power. China remains an authoritarian country, a nasty, Leninist regime if not a Marxist one, a state consistently characterized by Freedom House as unfree, a government showing no signs of liberalization. Its leaders and diplomats reflect that thinking: In years of doing research in Asia, I've never met a Chinese official who expressed concern that Burma has locked Suu Kyi up for so many years.
But pragmatic China does care about several problems caused by horrendous governments, whether in Burma or Sudan or elsewhere. First, China worries about instability. Instability threatens Chinese commerce and disrupts China's worldwide hunt for energy; China takes more than 50 percent of Sudan's oil, and plans to get 6.5 trillion cubic feet of Burmese gas over the next 30 years. Growth and energy are vital to the Beijing government maintaining legitimacy, since it has basically abandoned any ideological appeal to its populace. Any slowdown in China's economic growth makes it more likely that middle-class Chinese, who've essentially kept quiet about Beijing's limits on political freedom as long as they're making money, will start to question the government.
The more China can be convinced that bad governance in places like Burma or Sudan fosters instability that is bad for Chinese investment, the more Beijing will try to rein in its nasty client states. In Burma, the junta has become increasingly unpredictable, moving its headquarters from the capital, Rangoon, to a jungle redoubt--reportedly on the advice of the Burmese leader's astrologer--and sacking a top leader, Khin Nyunt, who was close to China. A string of unexplained recent bombings across Burma has contributed to instability.
If the killing in Sudan continues, and China is perceived as doing nothing to help while taking out vast quantities of Sudanese oil, individuals might wind up directing violence at the thousands of Chinese who've come to Sudan to set up businesses or work in the oil industry. In addition, anger against China would mean that, if conflict ever ended in Sudan and Khartoum actually transitioned to better government, China might be cut out of Sudanese resources by Sudanese officials angry for China's past support for authoritarian rule.
Again, this provides a lever for Western countries to use against Beijing. Ultimately, a Sudan-China policy will require this combination of SHAMING China and trying to frighten the Chinese government--targeting China's growing sensitivity about its global image, worries about instability, and desire to hedge against any possibility of political change in Sudan. With so many lives at stake--more than 400,000 people have already died in Darfur--it's certainly worth a try.
Joshua Kurlantzick is the New Republic's special correspondent.
Please click HERE to read this entire article...
China, Burma, and Sudan: Convincing Argument
written by Josh Kurlantzick
The New Republic Online, May 11, 2006
The country's ruling regime routinely makes Freedom House's list of nastiest governments and Parade magazine's lineup of the world's worst dictators. Its military conducts brutal campaigns against ethnic minorities in one region of the country, campaigns that reportedly have forced over 11,000 people from their homes in just the past three months alone. Ostracized by the world, it refuses to allow in U.N. monitors, who want unfettered access to document the nation's human rights situation. Since the United States has slapped sanctions on the oil-rich state, and American companies have little business there, Washington has limited leverage over this country's government. China, meanwhile, has all kinds of influence. China is the country's biggest investor, major consumer of its resources, and primary arms supplier, and thousands of Chinese laborers have flowed into the country.
Sudan? Try Burma, where the government's abuses, though probably not a genocide as in Darfur, rank among the world's worst. According to one report, "The Burmese military regime is allowing its troops systematically and on a widespread scale to commit rape with impunity in order to terrorize and subjugate the ethnic peoples" in the country's northeast. By slapping sanctions on Burma, the United States has tried to prod the Burmese government towards reform, to little avail. But while China, Burma's major patron, has hardly become an advocate for democracy in Rangoon, there are signs Beijing might cooperate to reduce the Burmese government's worst abuses--signs that could provide lessons for convincing China to act more benevolently in Sudan.
Although pro-democracy opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won Burma's last free election, held in 1990, the Burmese military simply nullified that poll, and since then it has held Suu Kyi under house arrest for most of the time, while also jailing hundreds of members of her party. Without a doubt, Chinese officials do not care whether Suu Kyi ever comes to power. China remains an authoritarian country, a nasty, Leninist regime if not a Marxist one, a state consistently characterized by Freedom House as unfree, a government showing no signs of liberalization. Its leaders and diplomats reflect that thinking: In years of doing research in Asia, I've never met a Chinese official who expressed concern that Burma has locked Suu Kyi up for so many years.
But pragmatic China does care about several problems caused by horrendous governments, whether in Burma or Sudan or elsewhere. First, China worries about instability. Instability threatens Chinese commerce and disrupts China's worldwide hunt for energy; China takes more than 50 percent of Sudan's oil, and plans to get 6.5 trillion cubic feet of Burmese gas over the next 30 years. Growth and energy are vital to the Beijing government maintaining legitimacy, since it has basically abandoned any ideological appeal to its populace. Any slowdown in China's economic growth makes it more likely that middle-class Chinese, who've essentially kept quiet about Beijing's limits on political freedom as long as they're making money, will start to question the government.
The more China can be convinced that bad governance in places like Burma or Sudan fosters instability that is bad for Chinese investment, the more Beijing will try to rein in its nasty client states. In Burma, the junta has become increasingly unpredictable, moving its headquarters from the capital, Rangoon, to a jungle redoubt--reportedly on the advice of the Burmese leader's astrologer--and sacking a top leader, Khin Nyunt, who was close to China. A string of unexplained recent bombings across Burma has contributed to instability.
If the killing in Sudan continues, and China is perceived as doing nothing to help while taking out vast quantities of Sudanese oil, individuals might wind up directing violence at the thousands of Chinese who've come to Sudan to set up businesses or work in the oil industry. In addition, anger against China would mean that, if conflict ever ended in Sudan and Khartoum actually transitioned to better government, China might be cut out of Sudanese resources by Sudanese officials angry for China's past support for authoritarian rule.
Again, this provides a lever for Western countries to use against Beijing. Ultimately, a Sudan-China policy will require this combination of SHAMING China and trying to frighten the Chinese government--targeting China's growing sensitivity about its global image, worries about instability, and desire to hedge against any possibility of political change in Sudan. With so many lives at stake--more than 400,000 people have already died in Darfur--it's certainly worth a try.
Joshua Kurlantzick is the New Republic's special correspondent.
Please click HERE to read this entire article...
No comments:
Post a Comment