« America’s Race to the Middle
In The Sights of Russia »



Symbolism Is Overrated

May 10th, 2008
By JEB KOOGLER


Kick Burma out of the United Nations? That’s what The Wall Street Journal is suggesting is an appropriate punishment for the country’s miserable response to Cyclone Nargis:

The United Nations this week said the refusal of Burma’s government to allow workers into the country’s devastated agricultural region was unprecedented in the history of humanitarian relief. The human catastrophe produced by Burma’s refusal to permit aid in the wake of Cyclone Nargis has stunned the senses of a world that has watched this spectacle for a week.

…It’s time to kick Burma out of the United Nations. If the U.N. does not put in motion a process to suspend Burma from its U.N. membership, then, clearly, nothing is forbidden….Booting Burma out of the U.N. would be symbolic.

“Symbolic” indeed. Since it’s not a serious punishment, the only thing that such an action is likely to accomplish is the elimination of a much-needed avenue for dialogue and conflict-resolution. Perhaps it’s better for the United States to focus on leveling some real punishments, as part of a comprehensive carrots-and-sticks approach, than just resorting to feel-good gestures.



This entry was posted on Saturday, May 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am and is filed under Burma. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The WSJ is such a whiner.... like kicking Myanmar out of the UN will actually make Myanmar treat it's citizens better and give the world more leverage. I've heard 4th graders make more sense.

    The real kicker is the last sentence in the WSJ article, "If the U.N. can do nothing about Burma, it should at least do something about its own self-respect."

    That's really what this piece is about. The WSJ's idea of what UN self-respect should look like, which apparently means that if a member country doesn't toe the UN line then they should be kicked out. I thought the UN was about discussion and was a way of influencing member nations to follow certain principles.

    If the UN were to kick out countries it had serious disagreements with, I would imagine the US would be at the top of the list. Remember the US even went so far as to withhold its substantial membership dues... and let's not forget that the Bush administration treats various treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, as nothing more than broad guidelines to disregard when they become inconvenient for the US's own political purposes.

    The WSJ has it all wrong (and is the same attitude of the Bush administration). Obviously if a closed country like Myanmar is in the UN then they are deriving some benefit from that membership. IF the UN wants to influence Myanmar then there are other actions that the UN can take.

    I'm not sure that would be best though. I think a better course of action is for individual countries to put pressure on Myanmar, though there are already lots of sanctions against Myanmar so there's probably not a whole lot that can be done, without hurting the very people who need relief. I doubt that China or Russia will do anything with their relationship which will help improve the humanitarian condition in Myanmar.

    But kicking Myanmar out of the UN won't accomplish anything.
    • ^
    • v
    It's interesting what you say, StockBoy; I tend to think the WSJ's editorials on domestic political issues are almost always worth reading, but when it comes to foreign affairs they often seem to miss the mark.
    • ^
    • v
    Lib'r'ls looooooooooooooove symbolism, and being easily high-minded from afar toward Burma and China vs. Tibet is so easy. Why the reluctance to go along this time?

    Note to Jeb: The Wall Street Journal produces many excellent, sensible editorials (which is one reason why so many lefties loathe that publication, even though at least with the Journal the editorials are not also in the "news" pages as with, for example, the New York Times). However, its record is not 100%. They're very much a Northeastern establishmentarian organization ("a right-wing Brookings in newsprint") and somewhat elitist as well as reluctant to respect views outside their region. (They have nothing but contempt for a multi-party system with proportional representation; they had nothing but contempt for Perot, etc.)
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think people "loathe" the WSJ because it produces "excellent, sensible editorials." Many just find the views that are espoused both morally questionable and factually dubious.
    • ^
    • v
    Lib'r'ls looooooooooooooove symbolism

    And so called "conservatives" don't? I seem to remember a swaggering president in a a flight suit giving a victory speech on an aircraft carrier...
    • ^
    • v
    Don't forget flag pins as patriotism, so liebrul...
    • ^
    • v
    The Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma will no more be kicked out of the UN than "Peoples' Republics" anywhere will be kicked out. N. Korea had two million die of starvation in the late '90s and their punishment was a visit by waddlin' Madeleine & Jimmy Carter---the second against the wishes of President Bubba.

    Jimmy should be thrown out of the USA & made a citizen of the UN---both complete incompetents would make a great combination.
    • ^
    • v
    Let's just get over condemning the WSJ long enough to think about Burma.

    If nothing else, the article, does provide a starting place for considering what could be done. about Burma.

    Kicking Burma out of the UN. does appear to be ineffectual. It's not going to induce a change in Burma's behavior. Especially not, because members of the UN, like China, would continue trading and generally acting as if nothing had happened.

    Since the Burmese regime seems to want to stay in power at any cost, I dont' see how even carrots and sticks negoitations could help. If they refuse the giant carrot of humanitarian aid, what carrots are there to lure them out of their rat hole? (Tanks and guns are out of the question, as far as i'm concerned.)

    Ideally, member nations that habitually avoid acting responsibly in re safeguaridng human rights could be pressured to join UN efforts. China,, vis-a-vis its experience with Tibet, is less likely than ever to join UN efforts.re Burma, because of the parallels. .

    Having considered the alterantives and found them wanting, too,, the symbolic act of kicking Burma out of the UN begins to look less ridiculous. Maybe the jolt of such an action would jerk some other countires out of their somnulence.

    There is risk invoved, and I hope madly that some other effective plan can be devised. As of now, I just can't envision what that might be.


    .

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« America’s Race to the Middle
In The Sights of Russia »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.