China, Burma, Great Powers And Responsibility

Freezing bank accounts is a good step that but that doesn't stop guns from firing or empty the prisons.

Who is Burma's main benefactor? And where does this benefactor get the money to support Burma?

Business begets evil in many instances around the world.

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand Gilley's argument. He seems to be saying: "Responsible = Consensus. Consensus = Murdering Monks. Therefore, Responsible = Murdering Monks."

Is this a correct interpretation of what Gilley is saying?

Thank you.

"If Western countries want to regain their moral leadership in world affairs, they need to take a page out of China’s current foreign policy, which is premised not just on the creation of soft power but also its use in ways that reflect the consensus of world opinion."

nh,

So you don't like capitalism?

Who is Burman's main benefactor? I thought it was India. Seriously.

Steven Blayney,

I don't think that is what Gilley is saying. I think what he is saying is that the American/Western way of looking at Burma is not the way the rest of the world looks at Burma and by the standards of the rest of the world, China did not shirk its responsiblity.

I found it interesting because I am always accused (rightly so, I think) of looking at the world very much from an American perspective.

I agree with you though that the use of the term "moral leadership" is a bit troubling to the extent Gilley seems to equate morality with majority. I certainly do not agree with that. Morality is independent of numbers.

nh,

Not saying two wrongs make a right, but I am saying Jimmy Carter was the worst foreign policy president in US history and is not the US acting all buddy buddy with such repressive regimes like Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, sometimes realpolitik has to overwhelm human rights. I for one wish we would cut off Saudia Arabia completely, but I am in the minority on that and that is somewhat understandable. But is China's relationship really any different from the U.S.'s relationship with Saudi Arabia?

I don't have a problem with Chinese leadership, provided that it reflects a reasonable "consensus", i.e., a consensus reflected in international law, rather than a "consensus" contrary to international law. The Burmese position does not reflect this "consensus".

In contrast, one area where China is showing leadership is on energy issues:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/26/132838/22

Thank you.

Who is Burma's main benefactor?
--------------------------------
Chevron? Total?

@Charles Liu:

You are completely clueless and you admit you've never even been to China.

"Who is Burma's main benefactor?"

The PLAN, who supports the regime to maintain its submarine base, which it uses to harass India.

Here are the facts:

- George Soros (the guy who wrecked Thai Baht 10 year ago) is bank rolling the uprise. The Burmese democracy activists have openly acknowleged receiving support from Soros' OSI.

- Aung San Suu Kyi’s connection with the CIA (thru our intel asset Albert Einstein Institute operated by DIA officer Col. Robert Helvey) is an open secret:

Here's the backgrounder on Col. Robert Helvey:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein_Institution

“Helvey “was an officer of the Defence Intelligence Agency of the Pentagon, who had served in Vietnam and, subsequently, as the US Defence Attache in Yangon, Myanmar (1983 to 85), during which he clandestinely organised the Myanmarese students to work behind Aung San Suu Kyi and in collaboration with Bo Mya’s Karen insurgent group”

- According to Andrew Small of German Marshall Fund, China had go thru an intermediary to even get a word into Burma:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/26/wburma1226.xml

The fact is many countries are involved, including Russia, Indonesia, India, France, Thailand, US, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore.

China is far from being the deciding factor.

nh,

You make my point. Sometimes countries all but have to dance with the devil.

Charles Liu,

I generally hate spending time in parsing out motives, since they are usually irrelevant. Burma's is a repressive regime so I hardly care about the purported motives of those seeking to overthrow it.

Froog,

Did Gilley really say China was showing moral leadership?

Charles Liu,

What you have done is not fair. Involvement is one thing, but involvement for the right or the wrong side is another.

@Dan;

"nh,You make my point. Sometimes countries all but have to dance with the devil."

If you say so, my point re: the Saudis is that things would be alot worse without the royal family. Can you imagine the Taliban controlling the world's oil? But unfortunately we need oil, we don't need China's cheap junk.

Charles;

Do you really believe the Burmese gov't allows CIA funding and training of anti-authoritarian activities?

As for the link, here's a nice quote:

"Nation-building should be done carefully, carried out by the nation's people in accordance with their peculiar history, culture and national character. Thus, the international community should not interfere politically but should support the country's endeavors through aid, trade, investment and technology transfers"

What is it with some Asians and Africans and a love for authoritarianism? Of course, this Japanese writer probably lives a comfy life in Japan and enjoys the freedom of criticizing Tokyo and prefecture policies and personnel just like you live in the US (and openly criticize everything you don't agree with) and yet support such form of gov't overlords in other peoples' lives.

Why don't you grow a pair and move to a NK, Burma or such? And the panda-lickers who openly support Beijing at the same time whine and moan about internet access, the nationalism of Chinese youth and the unending, mind-numbing "different is good" message of CCTV.

You people are worse than me because you support the suffering of others as long as you have cheap goods and try to paint yourselves as "internationalists". But if you were in NK, Burma, the middle east or Africa you'd have a different tune. Even in China, if you slightly resemble some guy who robbed a foreigner and the police see you, your day just got alot worse. I've had to talk Chinese friends and coworkers out of having their a-hole foreign managers beaten for that very reason (your friends might not get caught but the PSB will find a group of innocent guys, decide they are guilty and force them to confess to something they didn't do).

And here's the key quote from Overholt in the above LA Times article:

"China is not Myanmar's biggest trading partner; Thailand is. "You keep seeing these references to Chinese oil and gas assets in Burma," Overholt said. "The reality is that they're trivial. China's attitude toward Burmese gas is that the Thais have already signed up for most of it and the Indians want the rest." China is building an oil and gas pipeline -- but the gas it will carry will flow to the Middle East. This is weak stuff to hang a boycott on; Overholt calls the idea "nutty."

So why all the focus on Beijing? The West has been repeatedly frustrated in its attempts to influence a small group of secretive generals; a decade of sanctions has not brought Myanmar closer to democracy. It may be that leaning on China -- a country we expect to respond rationally to incentives -- channels the need to "do something" in the same way embassy protests, candlelight vigils and online petitions do. It may also be that China is a locus of negativity already, ripe for scapegoating. Western companies with valuable oil holdings in Myanmar have attracted less attention than has China."

Who trains and equips Burma's military? Who provides the guns, bullets and armored vehicles that were used to massacre the monks, students, etc?
First, I'm Chinese.

"Everyone looks down upon Chinese people." Tell me who. I know there are racists everywhere, but Chinese look down upon racists, espeically those racists pigs that look down upon Chinese!

And, why killing the monks and students is illegal or wrong, just because they are monks and students? From when do monk and student become symbol of innocence? Why are you so sure those monks and students are not CIA-trained agents? Your Colonel Robert Helvey is certainly not a very good witness for that, I'm sure.

In central America there used to be assasinations of nuns by right wing death squads, and I would be glad to know who financed those people.