[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
US POLITICS and ITS POLITICIANS
- Subject: US POLITICS and ITS POLITICIANS
- From: OKKAR66127@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:30:00
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.
**********