China is Myanmar's UN Security Council protector and patron. This stark fact is the first thing to consider before entering into a long-winded debate about how much pressure China should apply to Myanmar diplomatically, or in any other way.
Given that Myanmar's military government has done very well for itself in the face of present sanctions, any sensible retaliation against it by the international community will require new tactics. But sending in a UN envoy to smooth over atrocities and lend the junta dignity by advocating half-cocked solutions is not one of them: The UN will be toyed with in the same way that Myanmar has toyed with the world over the fate of activist Aung San Suu Kyi.
The severity of the international response to Myanmar's latest assault on unarmed civilians and basic human dignity will need to be felt more by Myanmar's unofficial partners -- China, India and Singapore, in particular -- than the regime itself, at least for the moment.
Tighter sanctions are unavoidable and necessary, even if in the medium term they appear ineffective. However, their impact would be greatly increased if Myanmar's advocates were also carefully targeted. States and companies that continue to sustain this military government with non-humanitarian aid, weapons, economic opportunities or international influence must have real pressure placed on them. Otherwise, it's all hot air.
The US and the EU in particular must seize this opportunity to punish countries and companies outside their borders that profit from the misery of the Burmese people. In this regard, it is encouraging that some in Europe are seeing through the nonsense that China spouts about non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries -- and naming the Beijing Olympics as a possible point of retaliation over China's ignoble history in Burmese affairs.
One fundamental reason why China will not transform the style of Myanmar's government is that Beijing uses the same methods to control its own population. China has deployed troops against its own unarmed civilians before, and will do so again if corresponding circumstances present themselves.
It is also important to note that a genuinely democratic Myanmar would jeopardize Chinese interests in Southeast Asia.
Yet, if Taiwan's envoy to the US is to be believed, the latest violence may see the US cozying up to Beijing -- again -- in the belief that the Chinese are in the best position to bring this vicious little junta to heel, as with the North Koreans.
We can only hope that the US State Department will have the wisdom not to allow engagement with China on this matter to turn into a gambling chip for cross-strait maneuvering. In so doing the US would reward China -- again -- for its support for repressive governments.
As with China's enthusiasm for autocracy at home and abroad, the truth about Myanmar is stark and unforgiving.
It will not compromise unless it is forced to do so. It understands only the brutality that sustains the garish privileges of the ruling clique at the expense of the welfare -- and lives -- of ordinary people.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS