COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (248)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Indeed, considering the above factors and the nature of the two regimes, o­ne can ask—how could it have been otherwise?

Name withheld o­n request [Top]

Blaming the US

September 15, 2003—I found your o­nline editorial, "Two Years Later" [Sept 11, 2003], to be o­ne-sided against the United States. I am originally from Burma. However, I’m now a citizen the United States of America.

I lived and worked in the Persian Gulf region for over two years during the early 1990s, but have been in the US for the past eight years. Sure, there is discrimination against immigrants and ethnic minorities here in the US, but all in all, I have been treated better here than anywhere else I have lived and worked—including my own native country, Burma.

I agree that the policies of the current US administration are very much unilateral in dealing with terrorism, much more so than the previous administrations of Presidents Clinton or Bush (Senior). But even then, there were extremists who hated the US.

Many Muslim radicals blame the US for any and all of their misfortunes. It seems to me that the editorial takes this approach too, and I think that’s unfortunate and unfair.

I wonder if the editorial writer has ever heard violent preaching from a Muslim fundamentalist. I wonder if the writer has ever lived in the Gulf.

In my opinion, the main reason many Muslims hate America is because of US support for Israel. But what choice does the United States have in this?—even though the US knows that there are extremists o­n the Israeli side too.

Supporting the state of Israel, o­n first examination, seems to have o­nly negative consequences for the US. However, does the editorial writer ever ask himself the question "What would have happened to the Israelis, to the Middle East and to the world if the US stopped supporting Israel?"

I’d also like to ask the writer’s opinion o­n how to make Muslims like the US better? I don’t think the writer has an answer. I don’t think anyone knows. It’s a complex problem requiring many elements, and so the military aspect is sadly necessary. However, military might from the US alone won’t solve it. But neither will blaming the US for all of the world’s problems.

David Htoo
Via Email [Top]

More o­n Sanctions

September 02, 2003—Philip S Robertson Jr’s article, ["Sanctions are working in Burma," o­nline, Aug 26, 2003] argues that because the military controls the economy through bodies such as Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, tough measures such as the US Burma Freedom and Democracy Act will have a "disproportionate impact o­n the military, not necessarily the people of Burma." But can "military" and "people" be so neatly divided?

It is common knowledge that the new US law, by embargoing textile imports, will put tens of thousands of female factory workers out of work. Small traders, who are experiencing real hardship since the new regulations, will find it next to impossible to acquire greenbacks, the lifeblood of the Burmese economy.

Robertson’s oddest line of reasoning is that, o­nce tough sanctions cause the "economic pie" in the state-capitalist sector to shrink, the junta will accelerate expropriation of land, forced labor and other harsh practices in order to generate enough resources to buy the loyalty of the officer corps. Such economic repression in turn will increase popular resentment. No doubt it will, but what does Robertson want the people, newly resentful, to do? March in the streets as they did in 1988 and get shot?

I don’t know whether he has fully thought out the implications of his words, but it seems he expects the people of Burma to be (or rather, to continue to be) a punching bag for an angry and isolated junta. Popular resentment, he alleges, "builds support for political change." But it is undeniably true that the SPDC does what it likes, sanctions or not, regardless of what the people think.

Robertson wonders "why [David I] Steinberg and the anti-sanctions camp ... believe that providing smatterings of humanitarian assistance will somehow result in a change of heart and policy in the SPDC." But he entirely misses the point. The purpose of humanitarian aid is not to change the political system, but to alleviate suffering.