Hidden Unities

PACOM Admiral Keating said on NPR’s Morning Edition today there was no chance of an invasion to aid Burma’s starving, emaciated survivors of last week’s cyclone.  President Bush and other leaders are currently begging Burma’s military junta

The chattering classes beg to differ:

Anne Applebaum:

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating the tsunami relief effort in late 2004 has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

 
Robert Kaplan:

The magic of this is that an enormous amount of assistance can be provided while maintaining a small footprint on shore, greatly reducing the chances of a clash with the Burmese armed forces while nevertheless dealing a hard political blow to the junta. Concomitantly, drops can be made from directly overhead by the Air Force without the need to militarily occupy any Burmese airports.

In other words, this is militarily doable. The challenge is the politics, both internationally and inside Myanmar. Because one can never assume an operation will go smoothly, it is vital that the United States carry out such a mission only as part of a coalition including France, Australia and other Western powers. Of course, the approval of the United Nations Security Council would be best, but China — the junta’s best friend — would likely veto it.

And yet China — along with India, Thailand and, to a lesser extent, Singapore — has been put in a very uncomfortable diplomatic situation. China and India are invested in port enlargement and energy deals with Myanmar. Thailand’s democratic government has moved closer to the junta for the sake of logging and other business ventures. Singapore, a city-state that must get along with everybody in the region, is suspected of acting as a banker for the Burmese generals. All these countries quietly resent the ineffectual moral absolutes with which the United States, a half a world away, approaches Myanmar. Nonetheless, the disaster represents an opportunity for Washington. By just threatening intervention, the United States puts pressure on Beijing, New Delhi and Bangkok to, in turn, pressure the Burmese generals to open their country to a full-fledged foreign relief effort. We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of an invasion.

The other challenge we face lies within Myanmar. Because a humanitarian invasion could ultimately lead to the regime’s collapse, we would have to accept significant responsibility for the aftermath. And just as the collapse of the Berlin Wall was not supposed to lead to ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was not supposed to lead to civil war, the fall of the junta would not be meant to lead to the collapse of the Burmese state. But it might.

The credibility of the international human rights regime and the concept of “responsibility to protect” is at an all-time low already. The public manslaughter of hundreds of thousands by xenophobic, paranoid generals clutching to illegitimate power by any means possible while the world does nothing should not surprise.

Yet both are clearly onto something important.  Not only is forceful action possible,  at least the threat of it may be effective as Kaplan shows. 

Public embarassment of China, India and Thailand (the nations with the most investment and influence in Burma) by asking them to do more to pressure the junta may also be useful. 

Above all else, a time frame must be adopted by those nations (America, France, Japan) who seem most interested in forcing the issue with the junta. 

Perhaps a deadline of 7-10 days is merited for wider, more effective permision for NGO’s to operate?

Applebaum and Kaplan both are refreshingly realistic about the problems and challenges such an effort could face.  

Yet in spite of those, its true that a coalition of the willing, backed up by a no-comment from ASEAN and preferably, cooperation from the aforementioned China, India & Thailand, would be preferable to the disgusting spectacle of misery and death sure to define Burma’s summer if matters continue at the junta’s pace.

It may even manage to rehabilitate the concept of “coalition of the willing” for years to come. 

China’s role would be a wild card. Wouldn’t a relatively unfree Burma run and operated by a Chinese-owned junta that was moderately competent and supportive of its people be preferable to the nightmare in power now?

* An alternative concept would be to head to the International Criminal Court and bring crimes against humanity charges against the junta members.  This does not save the endangered lives, but it does get the point across to the junta that their actions will entail consequences.  Pressure Singapore to give up the role of Burma’s banker and go after the personal finances of the junta members by any means necessary.  

The concept of waging personal war against dictators and tyrants is one that should be further explored by governments and interested groups.

 

Even by the junta’s perverse standards, the arrival of just a few UN relief planes after nearly a week of catastrophic death and lingering suffering in the face of mounting disease and starvation seems almost extreme in its depravity.

The lack of outrage evinced by the world in the face of the regime sentencing hundreds of thousands of its own people to death by famine and pestilence should act as a bitter pill for those who foolishly believe a “responsibility to protect” is a viable doctrine now or in the near future.

The junta’s bankroller, China, sees no need as of now to get involved.  There is no coming out for Chinese power in the region, not even a half-hearted attempt at choreographing Chinese soldiers rushing into action to assist their beleaguered ally in its time of trouble with relief aid.  

Those wishing to do something about this nightmare would be advised of one viable option to yet save the lives of nearly a million Burmese.  

A worldwide fundraising effort to handsomely monetarily reward the mid-grade and junior Burmese officers who rise up and slaughter their senior leaders (in as slow and painful as possible a manner) to assume control of the country and admit international relief agencies (or at least the Chinese & Thai equivalents).

Barring this dream scenario, is it possible for the United States, Japan, India and others to get together, speak with China, and organize a coup d’ teat this week?  

Even more seriously, in all honesty, can the US at least make a fuss at the Security Council over this?  How is this behavior not richly belonging in the highest coda of “crimes against humanity”?  

This regime just marched past North Korea’s in the odious line, blew a kiss to the rotting stack of thousands of tortured, murdered Buddhist monks from last year and dived straight into the greatest pool of blood from mass murder since Rwanda.  The screams for help won’t be heard this time though, the victims will be too weak from dysentery, cholera and malnutrition to offer up too much of a struggle. 

Psychology, Communications, Expository Writing and American Government constituted a good mix of classes to get me back into the rhythm of school work after being UA for 6 years. 
I am pleased to announce at the completion of this semester no major slip-ups, just top marks.  Just one small step forward but nevertheless an important one!
4 more classes begin in 2 weeks and the grand plan to do 4 years of school in 3 is still on track.
To my blogfriends, thank you again for the support and encouragement you have offered over the past few years that have helped bring me to this point.

*By the way, an excellent Navy blog I just discovered is The Destroyermen, currently out on deployment just like my bretheren on the Abe Lincoln and Kitty Hawk. Sailors do belong out to sea right?

We have deeply flawed candidates running this year. If only..

(image obviously from IGN.com)

Well he was Secretary Of Defense just recently…..

“Iron Man” is a fantastic summer blockbuster that honors the comic character while introducing him successfully to a broader audience without sacrificing story or detail to a negative extent. The genius of the director to place the heart of the “Armor Wars” storyline as the defining story of the film makes this less of a comic book film with a fantasy storyline and more of a nearly believable
tale about a great but flawed man.

He’s horrified by what’s been done in his name and with his technology, deciding to make things right as best he can to restore his honor and defend his country from threats foreign and domestic.

In April, Zenpundit dropped some serious knowledge on this blog regarding Chinese nationalists that you can read here.

I found his comment illuminating for understanding what those in the government and the elite class think.

Yet what do the people think though? And by that, not just in China but around the world?

The thuggish behavior of Chinese bodyguards (ostensibly in response to thuggish behavior by certain protesters) as mentioned in more detail by TDAXP in a variety of posts is one thing, but the pathetic (for lack of a better word to describe the mix of rage, indignity and delusion shown by far too many of them) behavior of some Chinese abroad during the past few weeks is another.

The New York Times relates the story of some vocal Chinese students engaging in misguided propaganda operations on American soil that would be comical if not for the seriousness of certain members of those involved, as well as the developing pattern of academic censorship (trying to force certain subjects off the table of discussion) and even criminal behavior (taking photos and ID’ing of a Chinese student at Duke University who tried to make peace between feuding protesters (amongst other high crimes she committed in the students’ eyes) that has led to her family going in hiding and her fearing for her safety @ Duke).

As an insightful friend with Peruvian immigrant parents who attends grad school at Duke noted, “We love Chinese goods (low prices!) and respect the Chinese people, but we like our political and social system thank you very much, its preferable to what goes on there much as that may be hard to appreciate sometimes and certainly do not like to be told by the largely elite children of a dictatorship how to conduct it.”

He and others report the tactics of these Chinese students has backfired even in liberal PC land (aka Duke). More students than ever before are expressing interest in what are conceived by these Chinese students as “China-bashing”; supporting peace in Dar Fur, protesting the marginalization of the Tibetans to Chinese immigrants and power in Tibet, freedom in Zimbabwe & Burma. Attitudes are hardening and China’s image is suffering greatly more from the actions of students defending it than actual Chinese policies at this point. Even more, not just at Duke but elsewhere where these types of shenanigans are ongoing, there is a growing resentment among American students toward these rude guests.

Around the world, John Pomfret theorizes that Chinese soft power is ebbing, perhaps even collapsing of its own contradictions and excesses, a questionable but nevertheless fascinating possibility in the wake of other such behaviors by Chinese citizens and of course the Chinese government. He elaborates:

Move over ugly American, make room for the ugly Chinese.

“In Seoul on Sunday, groups of Chinese students accosted protesters demonstrating against China’s treatment of North Korean refugees and Beijing’s policies in Tibet. The attacks by the Chinese occurred as the Olympic torch wended its way on its seemingly never-ending journey around the world. The South Korean government was justifiably angry. China, after initially denying the events occurred, has now taken steps to still the waters. But the damage has been done. China’s angry youth - called “fen qing” in Chinese - are ruining their country’s reputation around the world and spelling the end of a decade-long honeymoon that the world has had with China.

The flare-up was the latest deeply troubling and profoundly weird event to mar the globe-trotting journey of the torch, which the Beijing government has dubbed “the sacred flame.” (Remember, these dudes are officially atheists.) Before Seoul, we had Chinese cops in blue and white tracksuits manhandling demonstrators in Paris and London; we had a Chinese woman in the United States who participated in a pro-Tibet protest being identified on a listserv run by Chinese students; now her parents are on the run in China and her high school in Qingdao has revoked her diploma; and we’ve witnessed the incessant hounding of Tibetan and other speakers on US campuses by Chinese students. In cities around the world, the Chinese embassy has fanned the passions of the “angry youth” by encouraging them to demonstrate, handing out T-shirts and flags.

While I have no problem with displays of patriotic feeling, the only thing these “angry youth” are accomplishing is turning the world away from China. And they are not alone in this ill-fated effort to get China’s point across. China’s propaganda machine is also seriously in need of repairs.”

I called this “ruthless incompetence” and I’ll repeat that description again. However profitable the Chinese patronage system may have become in the past few years (gathering needed resources from Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc.), it is backfiring and likely to further worsen for China (as one can only imagine the attitude of the Chinese government and tens of millions of Chinese towards the rest of the world’s opinion once the Olympics have finished).

The Chinese gov’t likes to say “its all business” but they are wrecking much of their vaunted product line; from faith in effective Chinese global leadership to the image presented by China’s public diplomats (not to mention literal Chinese designed and/or manufactured products themselves!).

These are certainly growing pains as described by Dan @ TDAXP and Thomas PM Barnett on numerous occasions.  Yet what if they’re something more? What if the Chinese can’t figure this out on their own any time soon and only make things worse for themselves? What if they miss their chance to grab the mantle (or at least part of it) of global leadership for the next 5-7 years or even longer? What if rather than recalibrating their “soft power” at a time when its failing they instead hunker down?

(One could only imagine the possibilities if America actually had effective leadership instead of people talking about obliterating Iran and alienating Russia, China and other non-democracies.

*A final note, I find it amusing almost that the students also epitomize the angst of a rising superpower who does not yet understand what its like to be at or near the apex of global power (i.e. respect and appreciation is nil from others).

No matter what China does, these students say, it cannot win in the arena of world opinion. “When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet./ When we tried limiting our numbers, you said it is human rights abuse,” reads a poem posted on the Internet by “a silent, silent Chinese” and cited by some students as an accurate expression of their feelings. “When we were poor, you thought we were dogs./ When we loan you cash, you blame us for your debts./ When we build our industries, you called us polluters./ When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.”

Rather than blend in to the prevailing campus ethos of free debate, the more strident Chinese students seem to replicate the authoritarian framework of their homeland, photographing demonstration participants and sometimes drowning out dissent.
Would they like wine with that cheese? Welcome to the lonely world of a modern superpower.