Words but probably no real action
In the aftermath of the Burma protests
By Jon Fernquest[Introduction|Vocabulary|Article]
[Reading Questions|Answers]
 |
"Who will step forward to help?"
This is the title of a Bangkok Post op-ed piece today.
It sums up the quandry that Burma is currently in.
After four years of disastrous foreign intervention and war in Iraq, military intervention is obviously an impossibility.
Without China's help no solution is possible.
China's economic presence in Burma has grown significantly since Burma's isolation after the 1988 protests and crackdown 20 years ago.
China's economic interests (businesses, real estate holdings, roads, future pipeline) are great in Burma. Burma is dependent on imports from China.
The reality of China's critical importance in the conflict is acknowledged by almost every expert on Burma. Most have written on the conflict recently. [See List, historian Michael Charney].
Here are some of the issues to think about and discuss:
- Impossibility of US or any armed intervention because of Iraq failure.
- Economic sanctions won't work if China, India, and ASEAN countries don't participate.
- Economic sanctions also make Burma more isolated and military dominance even greater.
- Economic sanctions also mean reduced contact between the west and Burma, so that people don't know what is happening in Burma.
- A boycott of the China Olympics may be the only sanctions that really work.
Here are words above defined:
aftermath - the situation after an important and destructive event
op-ed piece - opinion editorial piece (often written by subject area experts outside the newspaper)
a quandry - a dilemma, in a difficult decision-making situation
reeling - surprised, shocked, and unable to function correctly
satellite - a country that depends on a much larger country
acknowledged - accept that a fact or situation is true
Reading Questions
Here are some questions to guide your reading (See answers at end):1. Has the UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari succeeded in the past with the Burmese junta?
2. What has the gap between words and action been in the latest international response to repression in Burma?
3. What will likely happen next internationally regarding Burma?
4. Does any country defend the actions of Burma?
5. What unwritten rule governs international relations between civilised nations?
6. Despite unanimous condemnation, who could change the situation, but is unwilling to act?
7. Does the military junta in Burma take the UN seriously?
8. Is the Burmese junta behaving like a civilized nation?
9. Does the Burmese junta demand to be treated like a civilised nation?
10. Since the internet connects the world and there is a lot more political awareness worldwide than there use to be, shouldn't it be possible to control oppressive regimes like Burma's Junta? Why or why not? (Express your opinion)
11. Is there any possibility that China can be convinced to act against the Burmese junta?
12. Why is: 1. expressing outrage when you see your neighbor beat his wife, or 2. failing to help someone hit by a car laying in the street, like expressing outrage about the Burmese junta's repression but then doing nothing to stop it? (Express your opinion)
13. Can ordinary citizens in ASEAN do anything about the situation of oppression in Burma? (Express your opinion)
14. Who should the UN be approaching rather than sending ineffective missions to Burma's military junta?
Bangkok Post Article October 01, 2007
EDITORIALFeeble response to brutal regime
In reply to a new round of killing, torture and beatings by the detested Burmese military junta, the United Nations has relaunched an old and failed response by sending a special representative who has faced the dictators several times, always emerging as the beaten man. Ibrahim Gambari took the long route to Rangoon, through Singapore, and soon will be speaking with one general or another. Because he is essentially an old friend of those violent military officers, the Nigerian will be well treated, and will be assured that the military takes the UN concerns over murder and mayhem seriously. It might be just as productive for him to note the Thai government's travel advisory and postpone his trip to Burma until a better time.It is an unpleasant fact that when the most hideous governments begin to slaughter their citizens, the world is united in words, yet paralysed in action. The unworthy military group which controls Burma at gunpoint knows what will happen next: Nothing all that serious. Many UN members and even Burma's own partners in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have expressed outrage. An envoy has travelled halfway around the world to express distaste. And the authorities in Rangoon continue to beat, shoot and arrest even monks and innocent bystanders.
detested - hated
hideous - very ugly and horrible
paralysed - unable to act
envoy - representative sent from one government to another
distaste - dislike and consider unpleasant
bystanders - people not directly involved in the action
Civilised nations have long agreed as a matter of principle and of international law to keep out of each other's affairs. This polite, common-sense behaviour does not account for the uncivilised governments. Burma today stands naked to the world, without a single country or prominent leader standing to defend its actions. Yet the United Nations, the superpowers, Burma's neighbours and its business partners all are unwilling to act in any manner that could turn the Burmese government from barbaric to humane.
It is unfortunate that in the past 20 years, the Burmese dictators have grown so strong that they are able to smile at UN condemnation, beat monks and kill their citizens, and shoot and kill even foreign visitors, all at the same time. There is no apology, no explanation and no accountability. In essence, Burmese authorities are hiding behind the rules followed by civilised nations in order to protect their own barbarism.
In an increasingly connected and aware world, it should be possible to rein in repulsive regimes like the self-styled State Peace and Development Council. There is no reason to rule out force, if it is required to stop the appalling and distressing events that people around the world are witnessing from Burma. The UN would seem to be best for deciding just when a despicable regime steps over the boundary. In fact, the world body has rarely been able to take such a clear stand. Often, one or two selfish nations will stop an otherwise general consensus to act. For example, there is no hope today that China and Russia would agree to punish the Burmese generals so they agree to act responsibly.
civilised - has advanced laws and customs
as a matter of principle - action based on a general principle, not specific circumstances
common-sense - ability to make good and obvious practical decisions
prominent - important and noticeable
barbaric - extremely cruel, laws and customs far behind others
humane - showing sympathy, doing no harm to other people and animals
unfortunate - something unpleasant and unlucky happened to them
accountability - held responsible for actions (for example, if you do something bad you are punished)
in essence,... - talking about the most central and important aspect of an idea
barbarism - a barbaric act
connected - connected by the internet
rein in - control
self-styled - what you call yourself
rule out - say it is impossible
appalling - shocking and very bad
despicable - impossible to like because it is so unpleasant
take a stand - make clear what your attitude is about controversial political events
take a clear stand - express you attitude towards political events in a clear fashion
general consensus - what most people believe
What is distressing for now is the unwillingness of Burma's most important neighbours to do the right thing. India only recently stated that it has decided to hold its nose and do business with a detested regime suspected of involvement in a drug trade that is harming thousands of Indians. China tries to sound lofty in claiming it does not get involved in others' domestic affairs, as if expecting praise for the equivalent of failing to help an accident victim or stopping your neighbour from beating his wife. Then there is Thailand's government, blind and unfeeling toward the torturing of Burmese monks and killing of peaceful citizens.
No one responsible has asked for the use of military force to unseat the Burmese regime. But the UN can do more than send yet another diplomatic mission to plead with a thuggish regime. The UN should be strongly appealing to world leaders, financial houses, businesses and the media to lend their weight to solve the chronic Burmese problem. Asean, once a leader in regional affairs, should be at the forefront of demands for a proper government in Burma.
distressing -
hold its nose - close nose with fingers, so that you don't smell something bad
sound lofty - seem as if it is acting on principle from higher motives (and not just to protect business interests)
unseat - remove from power
thugs - violent criminals (for example, pro-junta people with sticks to beat monks and protesters)
thuggish - acting like thugs
chronic - long-lasting problem
at the forefront of - among those acting first
Answer Key:
1. Has the UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari succeeded in the past with the Burmese junta?
No.
2. What has the gap between words and action been in the latest international response to repression in Burma?
"The world is united in words, yet paralysed in action."
3. What will likely happen next internationally regarding Burma?
Nothing serious.
4. Does any country defend the actions of Burma?
No.
("Civilised nations have long agreed as a matter of principle and of international law to keep out of each other's affairs. This polite, common-sense behaviour does not account for the uncivilised governments. Burma today stands naked to the world, without a single country or prominent leader standing to defend its actions.")
5. What unwritten rule governs international relations between civilised nations?
They keep out of each other's affairs. They mind their own business.
6. Despite unanimous condemnation, who could change the situation, but is unwilling to act?
a. The United Nations
b. Superpowers (China, Russia, United States)
c. Burma's neighbours (Thaialnd, Singapore, India)
d. Business partners (China, Tailand, Singapore, India, Russia, Malaysia)
7. Does the military junta in Burma take the UN seriously?
No, they "smile at UN condemnation."
8. Is the Burmese junta behaving like a civilized nation?
No, they:
a. Beat monks
b. Kill their citizens.
c. Shoot and kill even foreign visitors.
Without:
a. Apology.
b. Explanation.
c. Accountability.
9. Does the Burmese junta demand to be treated like a civilised nation?
Yes, the Burmese junta is "hiding behind the rules followed by civilised nations."
10. Since the internet connects the world and there is a lot more political awareness worldwide than there use to be, shouldn't it be possible to control oppressive regimes like Burma's Junta? Why or why not? (Express your opinion)
11. Is there any possibility that China can be convinced to act against the Burmese junta?
("...there is no hope today that China and Russia would agree to punish the Burmese generals so they agree to act responsibly.")
12. Why is: 1. expressing outrage when you see your neighbor beat his wife, or 2. failing to help someone hit by a car laying in the street, like expressing outrage about the Burmese junta's repression but then doing nothing to stop it? (Express your opinion)
13. Can ordinary citizens in ASEAN do anything about the situation of oppression in Burma? (Express your opinion)
14. Who should the UN be approaching rather than sending ineffective missions to Burma's military junta?
a. World leaders
b. Financial houses
c. Businesses
d. The media
