Are we going soft on Burma?
posted at 8:55 am on February 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The US has imposed sanctions on the ruling junta of Burma for a number of years, hoping to dislodge the military junta ruling the Asian nation since 1962 in a manner similar to that of North Korea, at least economically. The junta uses force to shut down democracy activists, including Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, held under house arrest for years for her non-violent activism on behalf on her fellow Burmese. But the Barack Obama administration appears to be signaling an easing of sanctions rather than fighting for Burma’s freedom, which the Washington Post buries at the bottom of an article on Hillary Clinton:
At the town hall meeting, Clinton also said that the administration was reviewing policy on Burma, suggesting it was considering a major shift that would ease some of the strict sanctions the United States has imposed on the ruling junta there that has long kept under house arrest Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Prize-winning democracy activist. “We’re looking at what steps could influence the current Burmese government, and we’re looking at ways we could help the Burmese people,” she said.
That is the last paragraph in a story about Clinton’s outreach to the Islamic world, but one that should have prompted an article on its own. We have led the world on sanctions against the Burmese junta, which long ago nationalized all of its industry and made dissent treason. They consistently rank among the worst abusers of human rights in Asia and the world, ranked in a tie with North Korea for economic freedom. They hold power by force and fear, and represent exactly what America should oppose in the world — and not what we should engage and enable.
What’s more, the sanctions we have applied have achieved the rare result of targeting the right people. In testimony to the Senate subcommittee on East Asia in March 2006, Australian professor and Burma sanctions expert Dr. Sydney Turnell said that the sanctions only affect the ruling class, and not their victims:
As shall be examined below, economic sanctions are necessary in Burma to help dislodge the real obstacle to the country’s economic development. This obstacle, the regime that has been oppressing the country for four decades, has never given any hint that it can engage in meaningful economic reform. …
It is the elite of Burma’s economy, instead, who are most affected by the sanctions thus far imposed on the country. A sizeable number of this elite are ‘connected’ with the ruling regime in Burma, and a high proportion are personally related to the members of the SPDC itself. Sanctions are likely to contribute to a successful policy when the relevant incentives of important groups are consistent with the change desired. The sanctions currently imposed upon Burma, by the EU but most effectively by the United States, seem to meet this requirement. …
Rewarding Burma through the removal of sanctions, despite its leaders’ recalcitrance yet at the moment that pressures upon them seem to be building, is surely ill-advised.
And yet it appears that Clinton just dropped a big hint that the Obama administration intends to do just that.
In days gone by, critics of Republican administrations used to claim that they cared less about human rights than business transactions. Obama himself rejected the Colombian free-trade agreement on those grounds, despite the massive improvements in human rights from the Alvaro Uribe administration in Bogota. Now, though, Obama apparently has no problem selling out the Burmese in exchange for … what, exactly?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
We have led the world on sanctions against the Burmese junta, which long ago nationalized all of its industry and made dissent treason.
……..
Um, that’s where WE are headed.
Therein lies the answer.
We are all Burmese now.
artist on February 18, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Obama would talk to the devil… if the devil would say nice things about him.
And I’m sure he will.
profitsbeard on February 18, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Here’s my problem with sanctions — The economic downturn they cause only lets the thugs in charge shirk blame for the crappy state of the country. Then they can say that its the US that is the reason everyone lives in poverty. They simply use this to steal more control away from their citizenry. Especially in places like Burma, the idiots in charge have no idea that economic freedom = prosperity for everyone. They simply think about how to make themselves personally wealthy, in the only way they know how — theft. When the population objects to this theft, they simply crack down even harder.
jimmy the notable on February 18, 2009 at 9:04 AM
We shouldn’t sanction them, we should just take ot the gov and replace it with nothing. That’s the mistake we made in Iraq, now isn’t their gov the second most corrupt in the world?
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Don’t they have sweat shops in Burma? Think about the unions…
ninjapirate on February 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM
What amazes me is that the left has made a career out of complaining how Republicans “cozy up to” dictators.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:06 AM
artist you beat me to it, but I got stuck on this line, too. Think we all know why. Hasn’t Hillary been touted for her record on human rights? lol. Alinsky’s lil darling is big time now. Woe is the USA.
RepubChica on February 18, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Of course the evil Rethuglican Bush & Co. just want access to Burma’s oil and natural resources.
Oh wait, I keep forgetting we’ve had regime change here.
This shows the pragmatic approach by Dear Leader to reach out, with soft power, to help guide other nations such as Myanmar to open up.
rbj on February 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Liberal Leftists don’t give a rip about human rights. It’s only important to them when they can get some political capital out of it. A Gitmo detainee gets slapped and it’s front page NYT. An entire country gets slapped and “well you know it’s their problem . Now let me eat my waffles.” 500 Palestinians die in a war of their own making and it’s hideous injustice. A million Africans are killed each year in the Congo and it’s “well you know we can’t over extend ourselves while we’re cutting the Pentagon Budget. Now go out and inflate your tires and let me eat my waffles.”
I’m doing my best to hold back the puke.
RadioFreeUSA on February 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM
I thought Rambo took care of Burma?
Now, though, Obama apparently has no problem selling out the Burmese in exchange for … what, exactly?
Change for the sake of change?
Personally, I think we’re heading for a foreign policy breakdown of epic proportions. They’ve congratulated Venezeula for “voting” in a dictator. They want to lift sanctions on Cuba, just for the hell of it. They told an ally surrounded by leftists to shove it (Columbia). They’ve appeared weak to Iran, excused terrorism in Indonesia, (apparently) let Russia score a big win in Kyrgyzstan, made life more difficult for moderate Pakistanis…
What’s next, Dream Team?
reaganaut on February 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Obama apparently has no problem selling out the Burmese in exchange for … what, exactly?
For being a UNITER…duh. Oh sure, tens of millions of people need to be basically enslaved for that to happen, but there is no price too high for sake of Ogabe’s ego.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM
A better question would be “Where are we NOT going soft?”
I think the list would be a lot shorter and easier to manage.
JeffC_95 on February 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM
There is some secret, liberal formula for determining such things as human rights and because conservatives can’t think like liberals we’re not smart enough to understand their nuance…or something.
genso on February 18, 2009 at 9:10 AM
It’s hard to impose those sanctions when this is the new model for America.
Disturb the Universe on February 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM
A better question would be “Where are we NOT going soft?”
I think the list would be a lot shorter and easier to manage.
JeffC_95 on February 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM
That’s true. For example, I hear Ogabe is going to take a tough line with the Republic of the Marshall Islands over their breadfruit protectionism.
As Biden said, Ogabe has steel in his spine, yessir.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM
That’s why Obama wants to drop the sanctions. He wants to use them as advisers.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM
What will Obama get in return — a better price for Burma rice?
Maybe he needs a copy of this LA Times article::
unclesmrgol on February 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM
The left doesn’t give a damn about human rights.
CP on February 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Burma? I thought it was now Myanmar…?
jgapinoy on February 18, 2009 at 9:19 AM
You’re on to something there.
jgapinoy on February 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM
The only country in which we should drop sanctions is Cuba.
A nation 90 miles off our coast is ripe for a flood of US products, tourists and influence. There is no way Cuba could resist moving in our direction if we embraced them.
The one caveat is that Cuba must release her political prisoners for sanctions to be dropped and relations normalized.
If Obama changes one thing foreign policy wise, I hope this is the one.
dantana@charter.net on February 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM
This is where I disagree with Ron Paul. First of all, I’m an anarchist, secondly, states don’t deserve to be respected via NAP. Government should be voluntary. Allow citizens to opt out!
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Cigar aficianado, eh?
jgapinoy on February 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Our direction is left.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Government should be voluntary. Allow citizens to opt out!
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Where do you plan on living?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Soft…left…same difference in this context.
genso on February 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Well, in defence of the Burmese regime, they at least seem to understand Islam better any other nation. Hillary and Obama could learn from them on that issue.
thuja on February 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Who will guarantee your right to opt out. You fail..
the_nile on February 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Unless they can use them as political pawns. Same with global warming, womans rights, torture and any other “right” they deem useful.
Now that BO has accended all this stuff is no longer an issue. The issue is now being cover for BO so that he will never leave office.
jmarcure on February 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
You might want to modify your philosophy a little.
artist on February 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM
You say I fail before I get to respond? lol. Might as well have a conversation with yourself, eh? It should be in the organization’s bylaws. You could also be a member of a defense organization that would assist if that happens. That’s what separates statism from voluntary social interacion, the mafia mentality of government. Such rights can be defended in many ways, use your imagination.
Do I need someone to guarantee that I can leave the ACLU or NRA? No. I just stop paying my dues.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Template for Hot Air Titles: Are we going soft on
ignorantapathy on February 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM
insert hostile state
ignorantapathy on February 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM
First of all, I’m an anarchist
And that will last until I put a gun to your head and take everything you own.
I get the feeling you would have a serious change of heart afterward.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
The American experiment was an experiment of minarchism. We found out that it leads to socialism. So yea, failure. Time to look elsewhere
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Yeah, but soft on Burma means hard on Columbia, for ex. So I just think left is clearer. We’re sidling up to leftists, and leaving a bunch of others to drown. Nothing “soft” about that. It’s hardball.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
So if I opt out am I immune to the laws because the country gave me the choice? Can I go around shooting, rapping and stealing to satisfy my needs?
jmarcure on February 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
There’s nothing to gain here (that I can see), Obama is just an idealist. He believes that if he’s nice the junta, they will become Good Citizens of the World. Idiot.
FuriousAmerican on February 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Unless I do it first. Even so, I might be a member of a defense organization that might come after you. :p
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
How do you opt out of society to pursue your anarchic lifestyle when you live within a society that is non-anarchic?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Sounds a lot like a “goverment”..
the_nile on February 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
No, if you do those things to members of a voluntary organization that provides for their protection, that might give them the reason they need to come after you. You don’t know the ties of people. Violence was less in the “wild west” than it was in settled towns with law enforcement.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
We found out that it leads to socialism. So yea, failure. Time to look elsewhere
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I do agree with that.
artist on February 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
No govt does not mean that each person has to fend for themselves.
It is probably that voluntary associations will form in which individuals agree to watch each others backs.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
agorism
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Only if you have the resources to defend yourself against those you have injured. All of their friends and relatives, plus those who recognize that there personal safety lies in making sure the likes of you are put down as quickly as possible.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:39 AM
What part of ranged weapon don’t you understand? You are living in anarchy so just shoot him from a distance and then take his stuff. This accomplishes two things one, it keeps you out of his reach. Two, it makes it easier to search him for stuff and three, he will not be going after you to get his stuff back.
jmarcure on February 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Unless I do it first. Even so, I might be a member of a defense organization that might come after you. :p
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
A defense organization…organization…wouldn’t that mean like, teamwork, chain of command, structure so that your “defense organization” isn’t a mob of machete-wielders running around?
Anarchy is an absence of authority and order…how does that jive with a defense organization?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Why do you assume that self defense, even mutual self defense, is impossible unless it is ordered by govt?
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
It is, with two differences. Joining it is voluntary. There are multiple defense organizations, each vying for your membership.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
jmarcure on February 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I like you because you speak my language.
Yes, this romantic view of anarchy is odd, I don’t think they’ve really considered all the implications such as long range sniping and no one to give a damn when they’re killed.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
What if I restrict my actions only to citizens that don’t opt out? If I’m lucky they will have laws about things like murder, gun ownership and vigilantism. I’d be safe because they have no options because the laws apply to them but not me.
jmarcure on February 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
um yea, there’s nothing wrong with government. The problem is when you can’t take your land and decide you don’t want to be apart of the system any longer. Statism. You must take it or leave. In a voluntary society, let’s say the gov creates a 10% property tax, you decide to “opt out,” but keep your land, now you would be in charge of your own defense but you don’t have to pay the property taxes since you chose to leave.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Anarchy is the absence of govt.
It is not absence of any and all organization.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I do not understand the nature of your question.
If you restrict your plundering to those who have not opted out, then how is that different from the world of today?
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Why do you assume that self defense, even mutual self defense, is impossible unless it is ordered by govt?
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I don’t, but it would seem odd that a defense organization would exist in an anarchic society.
Wouldn’t it suck if you were being hard-pressed by an opponent who wanted your commune if half of your guys suddenly decided to go swimming and abandoned the fight? How do you keep that from happening, institute rules that say you can’t do it? That means order.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Tribal.
genso on February 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
True. The “Postman” book and I guess the movie showed anarchy more or less.
jmarcure on February 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM
You can have order, without having govt.
How do we handle people who violate trust now?
We never trust them again.
If someone makes an agreement to help defend others, then runs when things get sticky, they will never be allowed to join another defense organization, which means that they will have to handle their own defense from now on.
Actions have consequences. Learning to live with those consequences is one of the prices of being a grownup.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Somebody check the Clinton Library donor list for Burmese sounding names!
Wine_N_Dine on February 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Two points on this.
1) A Nobel Peace Prize is no recommendation. That award was polluted a long time ago.
2) Be careful what you wish for. Democracy means different things to different people.
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Anarchy is the absence of govt.
It is not absence of any and all organization.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
It is also the absence of law, and what are laws but prescribed rules of conduct? A defense organization would presumably need some sort of code, rules in effect, to make sure that everyone gets defended equally; you defend me and I’ll defend you.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Thailand is facing the same kind of threat, are they not? It would be a shame to see them go down this road as well.
genso on February 18, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Only if you rap like NWA, no Jay-Z or fifty cents crap! :-)
Alden Pyle on February 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM
It’s pretty sad what’s going on in Burma. It’s even sadder what’s going on in this country.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM
nah. It’s the absence of involuntary government. There’s nothing wrong with voluntary governance. Where do I sign?
Somalia is doing better than what the media would have you believe. But there’s still state intervention there
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Funny how liberal democrats pick and choose which human rights they will defend.
They boohooed over Darfur, the poor Palestinians, but they didnt care about Iraqis being gassed, the Chinese and now Burma. Morons..
becki51758 on February 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM
You can have order, without having govt.
Who decides things?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Well you know what He said: “When you’re driving towards a cliff, ya gotta change direction.”
Not: Stop, get out a map and see where it is we really need to go.
But we’re getting there faster his way, wherever that may be…
MarkT on February 18, 2009 at 9:57 AM
How can someone live a life of absolute liberty if they allow themselves to be governed, freely chosen or not?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Somalia is doing better than what the media would have you believe.
Yah, it’s a veritable garden of Eden.
“Better” is a relative term.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Under Section 10 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, the Secretary of State is required to prepare a report, not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act, and annually thereafter, on Military and Intelligence Aid to Burma from foreign countries, companies and other entities. Subsection 3 specifies that the report must include information on “the provision of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, capabilities, and technology, including nuclear, chemical, and dual use capabilities.”
The report is to be submitted to the Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees of the House and Senate, respectively. An unclassified version “shall be placed on the Department of State’s website.”
President Bust signed the JADE Act into law last July 29th. This means the 180 day preparation period has expired. We assume that the report has been completed and submitted to the committees. Indirect evidence of this is that on January 15th, Senator Richard Lugar, as part of Susan Rice’s confirmation hearing as Ambassador to the United Nations, asked Ms. Rice her position on Burma, including “its growing relationship with North Korea.” She declined to answer this element of the question.
CommentGuy on February 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Anyway, back on topic. The Burmese government is really bad. What will Obama do? Probably nothing. He’s too busy running the US economy into the ground.
Sanctions do not work http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=86&sortorder=articledate they just hurt the people. But the people are being oppressed, why will we go and take their food and medicine away from them? That makes no sense.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Dump on Uribe and help the Burmese junta. Astounding.
batter on February 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
It may be the absence of law, but it is not the absence of rules.
There is a big difference between a law and a rule.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Bishop,
You seem to be confusing anarcho socialism with standard anarchism.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
To vague a question.
Does govt decide what you are going to have for lunch?
Name the thing that needs to be decided and I will tell you who could decide it.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Another false dichotomy.
Nobody is claiming a right to “absolute liberty”.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Name the thing that needs to be decided and I will tell you who could decide it.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Who chops the wood for the fireplace?
Who stands the midnight watch in the cold tower?
Who grows the food?
Does the only community doctor have to be a doctor?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
My take, it would be hard to justify sanctions on a country that you intend to emulate.
4shoes on February 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM
People that own a fireplace or want to make $$$
I think we’re beyond those days. People.
Farmers.
No.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Nobody is claiming a right to “absolute liberty”.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Then it isn’t anarchy.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Liberty to do as you want…
Liberty for others to retaliate…
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Only if one excepts your narrow and non-standard definition of anarchy.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
More to the point, your DefOrg is going to need soldiers, troops who will have to do certain things to uphold the order of the organization.
Who is the sniper, radioman, point man, medic? Who decides how a defense will be conducted, who will respond and when? Are twenty people going to come and defend my homestead when I call for help? At 2am on a freezing January night?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
The person who wants to be warm in the winter.
The person who agrees to do it.
Anyone who wants to.
Only if his customers want him to be.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
The leader of the defense organization will decide what role individual members play. Same as for any other business.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Liberty to do as you want…
Liberty for others to retaliate…
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
As I said waaaaay back at the top of the thread, I have a feeling that attitude would change if a gun were pointed at your head. Dead men can’t retaliate and I really want your stuff.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
The leader of the defense organization will decide what role individual members play. Same as for any other business.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Really? I’m the only one in the org with medical training but I have no wish to be the medic, and look, the only other person to volunteer for the position is the blind guy. Now what?
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Stimulus.
Burris.
Voted.
Done.
Get thee.
Under my bus.
Burma?
Burma Shave.
Mr. Joe on February 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Only if one excepts your narrow and non-standard definition of anarchy.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I’ve left it as wide open as possible just to leave wiggle-room and see how you answer.
Anarchy: cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
The problems arise when other people want to expand on that and live free even of those restrictions, especially when their desires include the love of planting landmines in your vicinity.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM
It’s been pointed out several times why your example is faulty.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Then your Defense Organization goes out of business, and another takes it’s place.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
From another perspective, if you don’t want to follow the directions of your boss, you will be fired. Same as with any other business.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I don’t see anything in your definition that requires no rules of any kind.
Secondly, nobody has taken the position that there should be no rules of any kind.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Hope? Change?
irishspy on February 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Recent snippets of conversation with Obama and the NSC:
“Burma? What problems in Burma?”
“There’s a bit of a problem in Myanmar…but Burma? Haven’t heard anything bad happening there in decades.” /s
coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Oh, sorry. I had to go back and read that this was a statement about BURMA , not post TARP/Bailout/Stimulus/Geitner/Eric Holder/Obama America.
My bad.
Amendment X on February 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Maybe Burma is going to supply some Burmese rubies and pot to Obama’s Administration (sort of a pension plan) in exchange for lifting sanctions.
eaglewingz08 on February 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »