|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should the United Nations Security Council deal with Burma?
A lot of coutries, especially the West, is trying to push Burma on the agenda of the UN Security Council. China and Russia, two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power, did not want to discuss Burma on the agenda claiming that it's an internal issue which Burma should deal on its own. Burma has been under millitary rule for decades and has one of the worst human rights records.
Burma is no priority for anything, see:
They just don't matter. No interesting amounts of gold, diamonds, oil, or gas, except some small illegally obtained caches.
If thay had anything to "borrow", there would already be a massive 'preemptive' war against the Evil Empire of Burma, and UN resolutions backing that up (that part is what makes this post not be just a rant).
If countries don't move a finger when there's no profit, why would a worldwide coalition, formed by those countries, do something? Think about it. Even Haiti had more to offer.
| CIA Factbook wrote: |
| Exports:
$3.111 billion f.o.b. note: official export figures are grossly underestimated due to the value of timber, gems, narcotics, rice, and other products smuggled to Thailand, China, and Bangladesh (2004) |
They just don't matter. No interesting amounts of gold, diamonds, oil, or gas, except some small illegally obtained caches.
If thay had anything to "borrow", there would already be a massive 'preemptive' war against the Evil Empire of Burma, and UN resolutions backing that up (that part is what makes this post not be just a rant).
If countries don't move a finger when there's no profit, why would a worldwide coalition, formed by those countries, do something? Think about it. Even Haiti had more to offer.
Now that Burma is on the UN Security Council's formal agenda, they should come up with a resolution soon.
If a resolution is passed and the country in question does not comply with the resolution, what can the UN Security Council do?
If a resolution is passed and the country in question does not comply with the resolution, what can the UN Security Council do?
China and Russia doesn't want Burma brought up on the UN Security Council for a simple reason. Action against Burma means UN troops in Burma. If the UN troops are American-led, they fear that the United States may pressure them in Asia, tipping the balance of the political status quo that has been, so far, tipping in their direction. If the UN troops are Chinese- or Russian-led, it means much of their military power has to been drawn to hostile borders, and it ruins their image of being a "peace-seeking nation", especially for China.
As for the United States, I do believe that America cannot afford to deal with Burma. The Middle East has already taken a sizable chunk of their military, and the U.S. has also turned their attention to Iran. I won't even start to mention North Korea. Burma is hardly down the priority list if the U.S. is going to go off looking for threats.
As for the United States, I do believe that America cannot afford to deal with Burma. The Middle East has already taken a sizable chunk of their military, and the U.S. has also turned their attention to Iran. I won't even start to mention North Korea. Burma is hardly down the priority list if the U.S. is going to go off looking for threats.
I would like to add that China and Russia (including India) have agreements with the Burmese authorities to explore oil and natural gas from Burma. They also have increased economic ties. China and Russia, being permanent members of the UN Security Council, should propose their own resolution on Burma instead of just using their veto powers and ignoring the human rights abuses happening in Burma.
Action against Burma will only happen if Burma fails to comply with the resolution. Sending in UN troops won't be necessary.
Action against Burma will only happen if Burma fails to comply with the resolution. Sending in UN troops won't be necessary.
China and Russia have their own interests to protect. "Resolution" be damned, it isn't happening on their borders. The lack of human rights in Burma doesn't affect their profits, but UN troops in Burma most certainly does. Besides, China and Russia have been insistently neutral in the past; no reason to expect them to step up on the pace now.
The United Nations Security Council becomes a joke if its permanent members are just worried about their profits and personal wealth in the expense of the sufferings of human beings.
I wonder how many people here really think the UN is a powerful organisation? Yes it may act positively to issues that have none or little interests of world powers. When it comes to issues that do interest those powers, the UN is a market for power exchanging. And does anyone really think the U.S. did care Burmese? There are heaps of African countries having problems that are much worse, why did it do something about it..oh I see, because the Burmese government has a real good relationship with China and it's actually trading its resources with China for China's back. No nations have humanity...they are just huge machines built to get as much interests as possible for they are operatives..the rich and powerful ones.
Related topics
 |