Burma and the Democratization of Global Politics
Published October 24, 2007
Burma has lately been relegated to the op-ed pages, yet news continues to trickle out of the country. The US has continued to tighten sanctions on the junta's generals, and simultaneously, calls for India and China to pressure the military continue to grow.
For some, the Burmese conflict is seen as a watershed for China's future role in the world order. As the IHT commented, would China, with its new found wealth and power, be a responsible nation that strove to further universal human values such as democracy, or would it be opportunistic and display its (thus far suppressed) hegemonic ambitions?
If the quandary of how to approach Burma was uncomfortable for China, it has been embarrassing for India. Indian diplomats never tire of reminding the world that India is the world's "largest" and "fastest growing free market" democracy. So how can a democracy support a dictatorial junta's suppression of popular protest?
Both countries did indeed fail to pressure, or even criticize, the junta. But their response and the subsequent denouement of the crises are not as illuminating for judging the stands India and China took. Rather, it is a compelling commentary of how global values are judged and global politics now functions.
Why This is Not Hypocrisy
It is easy to judge these two countries, because there is an obvious contradiction between their espoused values and actual practice. Yet, as Robert Gates, the US Defense Secretary said recently, "It is neither hypocrisy nor cynicism to believe fervently in freedom while adopting different approaches to advancing freedom at different times along the way."
It is also prudent to consider if these countries did indeed have substantial leverage over the outcome. While they are close "allies", they are allies that compete with each other for Burma's resources – oil and geography. This makes their cooperation unlikely, if not impossible, and consequently reduces their individual leverage. Moreover, it is unclear if sanctions would have worked. They have not worked in the past to dislodge dictatorships in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Syria. It is unclear why they would have worked now.
Towards an Oligopoly of Value Brokers
The impracticability of action does not, of course, excuse India (or China). It begs the question of whether India should have chosen morals over geopolitical considerations, in deciding its foreign policy.
- Burma and the Democratization of Global Politics
- Published: October 24, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Government, Politics: International, Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: War and Terrorism
- Writer: Dweep Chanana
- Dweep Chanana's BC Writer page
- Dweep Chanana's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Of course, the 'K. C.' in 'K. C. and the Sunshine Band' includes others, too, apart from the Chinese anthropology author. Consider whether, now, the monk shown in a photo dead and lying in water is a relative of the monk said to be stabbed in Golden Gate Park, within the city boundaries of San Francisco, CA, peninsula -- while what? Fielding demands to have an accurate bloodline history from the Chang family? Are we all supposed to vote that they be interrogated until they die somewhere -- is that democracy in action?
The most important statement in this piece is that this is the FIRST time India has supported a patently dictatorial regime.
OPENLY supported, maybe.
What about all the patently dictatorial regimes that the US has OPENLY supported:
Papa Doc and Baby Doc
The Somozas, Father and Son
Trujillo
Batista
Pinochet (they put him in power)
ALL The Various Argentinian Generals}
Fredinand Marcos
The Shah
Saddam Hussein (he was their guy longer than when he wasn't their guy anymore)
Pérez Jiménez in Venezuela (even received a MEDAL from Ike)
Several in Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay
Ditto for Bolivia (Hugo Banzer more than once)
and a LOOOOOOOOOOONG list of etceteras--including almost next door in Pakistan.
THe US putting sanctions in Myanmar is just bullshit.
Give me a break.
The US has spread tyranny and dictatorships around the planet like peanut butter.
"The US has spread tyranny and dictatorships around the planet like peanut butter."
You like that line, don't you, Marthe?
You don't mind if I use it in my own pieces, do you, since Blogcritics will not pay you for any articles you post?
It is a great line - and I feel an article coming on.....
Have a good week,
Reuven
PS I remembered reading in my Time/LIFE books long ago that Venezuela had a dictator who was a stutterer - that was Pérez Jiménez.
PPS If you really do want credit for the line, just sing out...
Reuven
Hi, Ruvy.
Please quote me, since you know the name I write under. I despise peanut butter--it is just so insipidly gringo.)
Pérez Jiménez was the Venezuelan dictator who received the Legion of Merit (US's highest civilian honor) from the hands of DD Eisenhower.
I believe that makes my point very nicely.
Thanks.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/70156)
"India itself supports the violent actions of Sri Lanka's current government"
And so India should, after arming, training and funding one of the most deadliest terror groups in the world - the Tamil Tigers.