[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Burma on Washington Post Editorial
- Subject: Burma on Washington Post Editorial
- From: freeburma@xxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:39:00
Subject: Burma on Washington Post Editorial (June 24, 1996)
Support for Burma's Democrats
Monday, June 24 1996; Page A16
The Washington Post
NEARLY A YEAR has passed since Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house
arrest amid hopes of a dialogue between her democratic movement and the
thugs who rule Burma. But although her party won 82 percent of the popular
vote in 1990 elections, the regime, which refused to transfer power, still
won't talk. Recently there have been more political arrests and
disappearances.
The United States has taken the lead in pressing Burma to democratize by
withholding foreign aid. Recently President Clinton sent two envoys to
consult about next steps with Japan and Burma's neighbors in Southeast
Asia, who until now have favored a policy of "constructive engagement."
That policy must by now be counted a failure, and critics in Congress say
the same of U.S. diplomacy. Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and others now press for a ban on U.S. investment.
Can the outside world best help oppressed peoples -- in Nigeria, Cuba,
China or elsewhere -- through engagement or isolation? When should the
United States do the right thing, even knowing other countries won't
follow? Each case must be decided on its merits, based in part on the
following questions:
How bad is the regime? Here, Burma qualifies hands-down. Its regime
press-gangs children and adults, practicing forced labor "on a massive
scale under the cruelest of conditions," according to a recent U.S.
government statement.
Would continuing investment promote democratization? So argues the
largest U.S. investor, Unocal, stakeholder in a billion-dollar natural-gas
project. In China, where economic freedoms run far ahead of political ones,
foreign investment may carve out havens that nurture the sprouts of a civil
society. In Burma, the regime is too centralized and all-controlling for
that to apply.
Would sanctions harm U.S. businesses? Inevitably, yes. But while U.S.
investment is sizable from Burma's point of view, it is tiny by American
standards. Compared to the investments that U.S. companies left behind in
South Africa when sanctions were enforced against apartheid, losses would be
minimal.
Would sanctions hurt Burma's 42 million civilians? Again, yes. But Aung San
Suu Kyi herself has cautioned foreign firms not to invest, saying they are
mostly enriching the regime. As with Lech Walesa in Poland and Nelson Mandela
in South Africa, Nobel Peace Laureate Suu Kyi speaks with a moral authority
that the outside world cannot ignore.
Would sanctions work? At first, other nations' firms might assume forsaken
U.S. contracts. But strong U.S. action would bolster Aung San Suu Kyi and her
followers while weakening the regime. If the Clinton administration needs
time to enlist or inform other nations, Congress should listen; U.S. action
should not be needlessly unilateral. But there can be no doubt that stronger
U.S. action is called for.