[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Subject: Uncle Sam vs. Burma: Princ



There is no such thing as consistency in prescribing foreign policies as one
nation's national interests on another  nation won't be the same as the
interests placed on a third nation.No ideology has set a rule saying foreign
policies must be consistent.

The United States government, in prescribing its foreign policy on a nation,
has four perspectives: national security, business interests, human rights
and drugs. In the case of China, it is unequivocal that China is  playing a
pivotal role for the strategic business interests of the United States. In
the Burmese case, Burma is in no strategic business interest of the United
States. In terms of human rights, China is cooperating with the United
States according to Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. Burma, on the
other hand, is having worsening human rights records: recent arrests of 54
peaceful demonstrators, restrictions on opposition leader Aung Sann Suu
Kyi's travels to her supporters nationwide , continuous forced labour and
workers' rights abuses. In terms of drugs China seems to pose no big threat
according to DEA's latest reports but DEA isn't clearing drug traffic from
Burma despite decrease in trafficking within this year.


Sincerely,

Julien Moe


>Seinkyaw@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Uncle Sam vs. Burma: Principle or Preference
>To: Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-Gateway: conf2mail@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Errors-To: owner-burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Lines: 28
>X-UIDL: c286b28d0c798675ffbb3457ed7ad477
>
>Recently, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs
>reiterated its policy of maintaining economic sanctions on Burma.  For the
>Burmese opposition groups, this is really a pretty good deal. In the best
>interest of people, I am not so sure to say it's right or wrong at this stage.
>The point I like to make here is how moral or immoral is U.S. policy towards
>Burma.  We all know how bad is human rights situation in Burma, as it's in
>China, Vietnam and some Latin American countries.  Moral pragmaticism is one
>of the three patterns of thought and action in setting the American foreign
>policy.  The Monroe Doctrine, the best known statement of unilateralist
>position and  Roosevelt Corollary, we have seen in the history, were the
>influence of moral pragmaticism.
>
>Please do not forget the CIA-sponsored overthrows of the Arbenz government in 
>Guatemala and the Allende government in Chile.  What about 1965 invasion of
>the Dominican Republic? 1983 invasion of Grenada? And 1989 invasion of Panama?
>What are the elements of presto chango in the U.S. foreign policies
>toward China and Vietnam? The United States gave China "most favored nation"
>trading status. Is this an important matter of principle? What about human
>rights situation in China? Vietnam is still one-party communist country, so is
>Cuba, so is North Korea.  Why did the Clinton administration make plans to
>waive the provisions of a 1974 anti-communism law to pave the way for Vietnam
>to obtain
>"MFN" status. Why not to Cuban and North Korean people?  I do not think U.S
>foreign policy is consistent.  
>******** ********** ********* ***********
>
>
>