The despotic regime in Myanmar has again proved itself to be among the most odious governments on earth. What to do?
Attempts at "smarter" sanctions and penalties targeting leading junta members and their families are probably worth a try. But without an international consensus they are likely to fail.
Unfortunately, ousting the so-called State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) is not a priority in Asia. Some of Myanmar's neighbors pay lip service to the need for democracy, but few are prepared to sacrifice economic or political advantage to encourage democracy.
The latest round of protests in Yangon has highlighted the futility of previous international democracy campaigns. Some human-rights advocates have turned their eyes to China -- to see if it would force reform in Myanmar. But while China called on the Burmese regime to "show restraint," it was more concerned about stability than democracy.
Thus, human-rights activists and pundits now want to pressure China. Many of them are urging Washington to threaten a boycott of next year's Olympic Games.
For instance, Washington Post columnist Fred Hiatt recently said: "Tell China that, as far as the United States is concerned, it can have its Olympic Games or it can have its regime in Myanmar. It can't have both."
"If a threat to those Games ... could help tip the balance, then let the Games not begin. Some things matter more," Hiatt said.
British Labour Member of Parliament Ann Clwyd said: "One of the things the rest of the world should do is say to China, `You either stop using your veto on the [UN] Security Council and do something to make this regime understand this can't go on any longer [or we will] boycott the Olympics."
Yet why single out Beijing? The Burmese dictatorship has more than its share of enablers.
To start, the US company Chevron, through its subsidiary Unocal, remains active in Myanmar. So are several European companies. Thailand is the largest purchaser of Burmese products. The state electrical company Egat plans to construct dams in Myanmar. Next on the list is India. Major exporters to Myanmar include Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea.
None of these nations seem prepared to sacrifice their economic interests to punish the SPDC. Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar dismissed proposals for the ASEAN to suspend Myanmar's membership and impose economic sanctions. Japan continues to provide humanitarian aid, even after the killing of a Japanese journalist during the demonstrations.
Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has said his country would not impose sanctions. New Delhi inked a deal worth US$150 million early last month to explore Burmese gas reserves.
Beijing has substantial economic interests in Myanmar, with US$1.4 billion in trade last year. Moreover, the Chinese military is improving Myanmar's harbors and has established an electronic listening post on Myanmar's Coco Islands. Beijing also hopes to build a US$2 billion pipeline to improve access to oil in the Middle East.
But even if the Chinese government were willing to put all this at risk, it's not likely that the Burmese junta would yield. The SPDC has long accepted international isolation, foreign sanctions, pervasive poverty and eternal war.
Moreover, Washington is unlikely to convince any of its allies and friends to join any Olympics boycott. China has greatly expanded its economic and diplomatic activities in recent years. Its ties have grown significantly even with US allies, such as Australia and South Korea.
In any case, targeting China for its policy toward Myanmar would have serious and far-reaching consequences. The US-China bilateral plate is full. Denuclearization of North Korea remains incomplete. Cross-strait relations remain tense.
Any UN action against Iran will require Chinese acquiescence. China has been expanding its economic and diplomatic reach throughout East Asia.
The US has also pressed China to display greater transparency in reporting on its military expenditures. Washington is concerned about evidence of Chinese military espionage and reports of Chinese weapons ending up in the Taliban's hands in Afghanistan.
Moreover, over the longer term, the US and China must work to forge a peaceful and cooperative relationship. An Olympic boycott would unnecessarily poison official relations, placing bilateral cooperation in many areas at risk.
A boycott would also fan popular hostility toward the US. As James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly said: "China as a whole -- not just its government, but also the great majority of its people -- would take such a boycott as a deeply hostile act."
There is no simple answer to the tragedy in Myanmar. But bashing China is no answer. Washington must work with all of Myanmar's neighbors to forge an international package that mixes carrots and sticks to encourage the Burmese government to respect its own people.
Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. He was a special assistant to the late US president Ronald Reagan.?
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS