Burma

So, Ryan thinks Burma is a point of strategic interest to the US and her National Security... I'll bite, let's discuss it.

There are two ways in which one can view the crisis in Burma: from a humanitarian point of view, and from a national strategic point of view.

In both areas, the importance of Burma to US interests is undeniable. As the leading nation of the modern Western world, some feel (myself among them) that we have a responsibility to assist in the development of all nations in democratic and economic matters. Since 1968 (or '72, depending on your source), Burma has gone from the richest and most prosperous southeast Asian nation to the poorest. When only 50 years ago, Burma was leading the region in rice, teak, oil and rubber production and export, they now can boast that the single greatest export from the country is opium, followed closely by amphetamines (accounting for 10% of all global production, making them #2 on the world list, after Afghanistan and just ahead of Pakistan).

Burma is seen by many as the means of force and economic projection by China into the Indian Ocean, and as Burma's military regimes biggest supporter, they can feel safe in having intimidated both India and Thailand into diplomatic complacency due to the strength of their army (nearly half a million men). Access by international and US markets to the wealth of resources found in Burma would benefit the world as much as it would the Burmese people.

Diplomatic sanctions are hampered by China's close association with the military junta now ruling Burma, as they can veto any sanctions that the rest of the Security Council may pass (as they have usually been known to do with North Korea and Vietnam). The junta has recently purchased a nuclear reactor from Russia (and another is on the way from China) that is 100% capable of refining weapon's grade uranium in less than two years of operation... meaning they could be the next Iran in the race to propagate nuclear material on a global market.

Now, how do we discuss possible actions that the US can take to support reforms in Burma? Would anyone advocate direct intervention in the current crisis? Surely that would mean another "unilateral" effort by the US, as Russia, China, India and the vast majority of the rest of the civilized world would refuse to support or participate in such action. Our track record in Asian conflicts is 1-1-1... not something to brag about around the water-cooler in the UN office blocks, but something to consider in long term planning and any discussions we may have here.

As stated, UN sanctions will undoubtedly be useless, as China will simply veto or ignore any sanctions and continue the status quo.

The US currently has very little economic or diplomatic interests entrenched in Burma (too costly and far too risky currently), so embargoes and sanctions on our part won't amount to very much.

So, what is to be done? US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is still ongoing and is certainly up for debate as to how effective that intervention has been, and obviously no amount of "pressure" on our part has done anything in the long term about such regimes as Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Argentina, West Africa, and most of Southeast Asia as far as ending or curbing abuse and tyranny... so what can we hope for if that is all we have to give now?