Almost everyone knows of the band U2. With the saying of this band's name, which has conquered music since the late 70s, comes other names like Bono and The Edge. In recent years, U2 has been known for creating great music, but almost just as much for its' positions on worldly issues. Lately, U2 has focused its efforts on illustrating the situation in Burma to its' audiences. For the past 20 years, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma, has spent almost all of her time under house arrest. Her struggle began in 1990 after her party won an election overwhelmingly over the militaristic regime in Burma. Obviously, the militaristic regime did not like this event and in turn went against the results of the election and took control by putting many leaders of the democratic in jail or under house arrest. Since this event, the country has been under a strict and harsh government which has not allowed the citizens of Burma, which is also known as Myanmar, to have any freedoms. The economy has suffered, living conditions have suffered, freedom has suffered, and altogether in almost every way thinkable the country of Burma has suffered.
These terrible conditions in Burma cause one to think about how the United States should approach the situation. Freedom has been taken away from the citizens to the point where people are being sent into forced labor, and Nobel Peace Prize winners like Aung San Suu Kyi are being imprisoned for nothing other than standing up for democracy and freedom. How can a super power like the U.S. peacefully cause this government to change its policies when it will not because it will lose all of its power through this choice? Secondly, what aggressive strategy can be used to free leaders who have become leaders because of their values of peace? The situation in Burma represents that even though the United States has power, it can not do everything by itself. For this type of situation, the only hope would come from the entire world standing up against the government of Burma. This situation presents evidence that the role of the United States as the superpower of the world should be to bring countries together in order promote freedom. The only hope is that this can be done quickly, or another answer can be found, so that leaders of peaceful movements like Aung San Suu Kyi are able to promote freedom and peace in their countries.
http://www.u2.com/news/title/aung-san-suu-kyi-ambassador-of-conscience
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/burma.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Despite the oppressive regime in Burma, at this time the United States cannot afford to commit military action against the country. We are already involved in two nation-building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. military leader in Afghanistan has just asked the Obama administration for 40,000 more troops there to reinforce security until the government under President Karzai can build a stable regime without influence or threat from the Taliban or warlords. Because of these commitments, it would be very difficult and unwise for the U.S. to commit to a third war and likely subsequent nation-building effort. That said, diplomatic and economic sanctions against the regime have done next to nothing. Therefore, the U.S. should use its more favorable viewing by the rest of the world after the election of President Obama to encourage U.N. or coalition military action against the regime in Burma. If that happened, it would not need that much of a manpower and resource commitment from the U.S. as other countries would hopefully pick up the slack. However, it is unlikely that the war-averse countries in Europe would ever commit to a plan like this, despite President Obama's best efforts at persuasion. Without this support, it would be unfortunately impossible to commit to a third war and likely subsequent nation-building project in Burma, and the best we can do is continue with ineffective sanctions.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your opinion on the situation in Burma. I agree that the U.S. seems to be stuck in limbo in Burma because of our prior commitments that we have gotten ourselves into. I think that the point you make about the less than likely possibility that President Obama would be able to persuaded the countries in Europe hits on a reality that people forget to think about. The action of making anything a global effort takes a lot of personal effort, and even more time. Countries will do all that they can in order to avoid getting into a commitment that may not be directly beneficial for them. I think that people need to realize that not everything works as fast as the Internet, and results should not be expected instantaneously, Especially for things such as joint military efforts. Also, I do not know if war is the correct path to take in helping Burma in that more lives may be lost in a war than have been killed by the militaristic government. At the same time I completely agree that the government is treating there people terribly and something needs to be done, but I wish that there was some other option which could help the region more successfully. It comes down to one's personal belief of if life is worth sacrificing in order to pursue democracy.
ReplyDelete