[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

US POLITICS and ITS POLITICIANS



	US POLITICS and ITS POLITICIANS
			(by Min Aung Min)

	I had the opportunity to meet MS Madeleine Albright 
when was in Myanmar, in her capacity as the U S 
Ambassador to the UN. I watched her carefully at a reception, 
and observed that she never had serious dialogue as such 
with any one but was literally wandering around picking at 
tit-bits from the tables. Members of her staff were huddled 
in nooks and corners with the anti-elements, whilst 
government officials were representative of the UN and 
various international organizations were ignored. At the end 
of her tour  made far reaching statements on matters she 
knew little or nothing about.  In other words, like all 
politicians she delivered those statements as tutored.

	It was apparent that her visit was a deliberate exercise 
to be able to meddle more in Myanmar. Even before her 
appointment to the State department, MS. Albright was the 
most vocal advocate for sanctions. I often wonder if Ms. 
Albright and her cronies are aware of the implications their 
actions will have on  millions of lives? Surely they have seen 
it in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and are witnessing it vividly in North 
Korea?

	Sanctions deprive a nation and its people access to 
investment capital from the international community. It places 
severe constraint on social, economic and human resources 
development. It denies millions of people the right to job 
opportunities, income generation, enhanced standards of 
living, uplifted morale and morals; in other words, a chance 
to a healthy, happy, productive life. Health and eduction 
standards effected; environmental conservation concerns 
shelved. The work force being denied accessibility to modern 
technology, market expertise market expertise, market 
familiarization make modernization nigh on impossible. The 
ultimate objective of sanctions is to force a nation and its 
people to their knees.

	Once achieve, it puts them at the mercy of their so-called 
benefactors upon whom they become totally dependent and 
who are in a position to call all the cards.

	Applying of sanctions is the cruelest form  of Human 
Rights abuse, for it is intended to force whole nations and 
their people into dire straits. The worst part of it all, is that it 
is undertaken not for the love of anyone but as a coercive 
political tool. No respectable responsible nation or politician 
aspiring to a leadership role should stoop to such depths; 
especially if they or their kin are not going to suffer with the 
people, or their children are  not going to lose out in 
education and career opportunities like the rest of the nation's 
youth. It is utterly immoral.

	I can cite hundreds of incidents of human rights 
violations in the U.S.A alone. John M.Broder?s article in the 
3rd March 1997 issue of the New York Times, gives a vivid 
account of the crimes committed against humanity by 
generations of American politicians under the dictatorship 
of the C.I.A and F.B.I. President Clinton?s early 1996 address 
to the nation about the rise in violent crime and under age
violent drug addiction and drug related crime, increase in 
broken marriages, unwed teenage mothers, rising abortion 
wife abuse, child abuse, loss of family values etc. all profess 
severe depravation and inequities that have led to a frayed 
social fabric; and present a bleak future for the U.S.

	Poverty in America used to involve mostly Black 
American; they were later joined by the Hispanics; now a 
large number of Whites, including war veterans have joined 
the army of lost souls. These deprived underpriveleged 
people have become so disillusioned with their political 
system and their politicians, that armed and trained militia 
groups are growing. Their aim? To defend themselves against 
the Federal government. And now the independent 
statehood movement has started in Texas. How would Mr 
Albright explain this? Does she feel that these groups  are 
within their legitimate democratic right? If not, why are they 
making a big issue of the Myanmar military subueing their 
insurgents they have had on their hands for over 50 years?

	Recent post election revelations have exposed the 
American political system for what it is. Big money is the 
game; and no individual can be elected to high political posts 
without limitless funds. As such-principled honourable, well 
intentioned and qualified people are automatically excluded 
from the political process, resulting in a leadership  crisis. 
But may be worse is the trade off deals which have made the 
pursuit of self interests standard norm in American politics.

	Many nations have learn from bitter experiences that 
U.S  national self interest was too often used to justify 
ignoble means. The U.S has long interfered in other nations' 
inter affairs, toppling or installing leaders in every 
continent. The congress appropriates tens of millions of 
dollars yearly for covert and overt operations to influence 
domestic politics abroad, and the C.I.A arrogantly exercises 
power to intervene in the internal affairs of others.

	When Ms. Albright was asked why it was that the U.S 
did not apply the same standards and norms it did to 
Myanmar to other similar but much worse off censorious'? 
She replied not so brightly - that it was " due to national 
interest?. It is clear-that these people are willing to play 
eallously with the izal:e of nations and their peoples as a 
gambit, as though they were pawns in a chess game.

	The world needs to understand that the ultimate aim of 
all their machinations is the containment of China, why else 
would they be pressuring for the expansion of NATO to the 
east; to the extent of including Russia? Myanmar because of 
its strategic geographical location has historically been 
known as the back door to China. Being wedged between 
India and China, the two most populous nations in the world, 
any super power that gained a foot hold in Myanmar could 
do a lot to destabilize the region.

	Many positive things are happening in Myanmar 
today. Infrastructural development is taking place at a 
phenomenal pace with little  or no external support.  But all 
this is being ignored. They have not stopped to think 
sensibly as to why it is that 15 major insurgent groups that 
have been up in arms against successive governments for 
half a century would choose to seek a peaceful settlement at 
a time when a military government is in power. Would these 
groups have done so if  SLORC were as repressive as it is 
being made out to be? Certainly not. They have sought peace 
because they respect and trust SLORC's goodwill and 
sincerity. For once in its history, Myanmar is in a very good 
position to achieve peace and prosperity If not for this bizzare
malady.

	All this posturing about propping Suu Kyi up in the 
guise of defending democracy and hum right is merely a 
ruse to attain their selfish evil means.

	Their imposition of sanctions have misfired; for the 
world at large is disgusted with their bully-bouncing. We 
need to be grateful for the wisdom and far steadiness of the  
leaders of the Southeast Asia Region in particular; together 
with Japan and Australia who have come out on the side of 
right against might. We anticipate that the EU and Canada
will follow suit and make a " Hands off Myanmar ? stand as 
they did valiantly for Cuba.

**********