United States diplomacy overlooks Burma
- posted: 23 Oct. 2007
- scrollopinion@byui.edu
There is no such thing as U.S. neutrality.
Since becoming a world power after World War II, the United States has been involved in the Korean War, the Lebanon crisis of 1958, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Dominican Intervention, the Tehran hostage rescue, Grenada, Beirut, the Vietnam War, Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the Philippines and Liberia, to name a few instances.
But where is Burma?
Geographically, it’s located in Southeast Asia between Bangladesh and Thailand and also goes by the name Myanmar. Politically, it’s absent from active U.S. involvement and unknown to most Americans.
Since the 1960s, Burma’s military government has ruled with complete control, punishing those who resist with beatings, torture, imprisonment and death. Despite this, Burmese people have repeatedly attempted to establish a democratic government. In 1990, the government actually sponsored elections, but when the results were not to its liking, it considered them void.
In the last three months, Burmese monks and other citizens have been making yet another stand against their government through mass marches and other demonstrations, only to again meet with violence.
Many countries have ineffectively spoken out against the blatant disregard for basic rights. However, not all members of the United Nations agree that outside influence can do any good. “A solution for the Myanmar situation has to be found by the Myanmars themselves,” said Wang Guangya, China’s U.N. ambassador.
Considering the United States’ actions and Guangya’s opinion, can democracy be imposed on a country from the outside?
The answer to this question solidifies or destroys the United States’ efforts around the world.
If the answer is yes, perhaps continual political direction of Iraq can be justified. But then why isn’t the United States doing more to help people who have already started the process in Burma? Granted, the reasons for going into Iraq are different, but why are U.S. diplomats putting so much effort into building a democratic Iraq rather than Burma? Who decides the hierarchy of help toward oppressed countries?
If the answer is no, then the United States has surely wasted a lot of time, money and, worst of all, lives.
The fact remains that the United States will never remain neutral, but how much is it responsible for the workings of other countries? If it helps one country, does it have to practice equality and provide for all like parents for their many children? What is too little? What is too much?
Certainly questions like these involve many complex operations. The answers elude world leaders but are nonetheless important to consider.
Again, situations like Burma’s fight for democratic freedoms make many question, “What is the United States’ responsibility to the world community?” But perhaps in searching for this answer, many more should also question, “What is my responsibility to the world community?” 
