Give China a Chance Give China a Chance Christopher Smith ( 14, 2007 - In many circles it is the norm to criticize Chinese policies regarding Burma. And by most accounts the Chinese are attempting to exploit Burma for all it's worth. This insistence on condemnation was only strengthened by China's recent refusal to back the United States and British sponsored Security Council resolution against Burma. However the situation in Burma might just be aided if the international community and opposition groups were willing to reach out and work with C 土地買賣hina. In addition to future conjecture, there is a historical argument to be made as well. Chinese policy drastically differed from that of both the United States and Britain following the 1962 assumption of complete power by the military under the command of Ne Win. During this period the Chinese government actively supported, monetarily and otherwise, opposition and rebel groups to the military dictatorship, most notably in the form of the Communist Party of Burma (CPB). Chinese support for the insurgents enabled 澎湖民宿 the CPB to become a major force inside Burma and threaten the very existence of the regime in Rangoon. And where were America and Britain at this time? Or, maybe better put, where was Ne Win at this time? He was enjoying the hospitality of the Americans and British and taking in the horse races. A joint statement from the White House on September 9th, 1966, following meetings between Ne Win and President Lyndon Johnson, stated that "During the visit the President and the Chairman discussed the further development of the friendly r 酒店打工elations existing between the United States and the Union of Burma and exchanged views on international questions of common interest. These discussions were held in an atmosphere of cordiality and mutual understanding." Meanwhile, commencing in the mid-1970s, military assistance from the United States was forthcoming in the form of guns, rocket launchers and helicopters. This support went uninterrupted during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, a presidency that was said to be beholden to the pursuit of human rights. In 1977 the Office of Drug Abuse P 襯衫olicy in the United States issued the following statement: "It is unthinkable that any representative of this administration would negotiate with representatives of insurgent groups opposed to the legitimate government of Burma." Chinese policy only began to flux following the deaths of both Mao and Zhou Enlai in 1976 and the subsequent change in tack as Deng Xiaoping cemented his position as leader of China in the 1980s. United States and British policy only drastically altered following the fateful events of 1988. A more recent instance of Chinese policy 租房子toward Burma that in hindsight looks a better alternative is the support and preference China demonstrated for the leadership of Khin Nyunt as opposed to the current senior generals. "There is no doubt that China lost one of its main allies in Burma when Gen Khin Nyunt and his supporters were arrested and purged at the end of 2004. At the time China had dubbed him Burma's Deng Xiaoping", wrote columnist Larry Jagan. This is not to say that Burma under Khin Nyunt would be a workers paradise or that he has no blood on his hands. However, policies enacted and steps taken by 花蓮民宿Khin Nyunt appear now to be more favorable than what the alternative has provided. Khin Nyunt is considered by many a pragmatist who sought to bring both political and economic reform to Burma. It was Khin Nyunt who initiated many of the ceasefire pacts with rebel groups and he is also believed to have been behind the idea of seeking negotiations with Aung San Suu Kyi. Additionally, on becoming Prime Minister in 2003, Khin Nyunt brought to the table a seven step road map to democracy. So while China was interested in securing the position of Khin Nyunt and engaging with the country, actions such a 商務中心s economic sanctions leveled against the Burmese state were pulling in the exact opposite direction, making any attempts at reform extremely difficult and, by default, strengthening the position of hardliners within the military. As a result of this struggle both the United States and China lost. However the biggest losers, by far, continue to be the Burmese people. True, China's policies vis-a-vis Burma have always been directed by realpolitik and economic analysis and interests. But hindsight tells us that if past Chinese positions had been afforded more strength and support, the Burma of today may be vas 酒店兼職tly different. Would it be a burgeoning democracy? In all likelihood no. Would there still be human rights violations? In all likelihood yes. Yet only the staunchest of idealists would fail to admit that a Burma in some ways in the image of China as opposed to the Burma of today would not be an improvement and provide more hope for the future. While certainly not directly responsible for the current state of Burma, Western policies contributed to the ability of the Ne Win regime to maintain control and helped foster an environment conducive to the ousting of Khin Nyunt in favor of Than Shwe and company. Concurrently, Chinese p 土地買賣olicy was directed against Ne Win and in favor of Khin Nyunt. Idealism has its time and place. But for now, ask what can actually be done to improve the lot of the 50 million plus Burmese citizens. The answer to this question may very well lay not in seeking Security Council resolutions, but rather in an understanding and working relationship with China. And the force brought to bear on the Burmese government by such a consortium just might lead to an altering of the social, economic and even political landscape inside Burma. Far from perfect, but far better than the present. 票貼.html  .
創作者 sv78svmwds 的頭像


sv78svmwds 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()