Neil St. Clair, a senior at goold ol' Boston University and writing an op/ed piece for the Freep, trys to sum up how China effectively blocked US options on Burma (he throws in Sudan/Darfur as well, but I don't know nearly as much about that situation).
I look for reasons to argue with pointy-headed college students on these matters. However, I have to give St. Clair an overall thumbs up (validation I'm quite sure he craves - NOT) on his general approach. Despite an awkward and sorta uncomfortable opening allegory, once he settles into facts, he does OK. It's just that I disagree pretty strongly with his overall thesis.
China has the only bit of international clout in Burma. That's well-established fact. China has also managed to get through the past weeks' events without saying anything harsher than "Gesundheit" - also well established. However, I'm not so sure they have "blocked" any US actions.
What action was the US going to take, China or no China? Lots of harsh rhetoric? Did that. Additional sanctions? Did that too. Make all kinds of noise at the UN? Check. Send troops? No how, no way, China or no China, Iraq or no Iraq, never. Even if the army had used Agent Orange, botulism bacteria, Ebola virus, nerve gas, and tickle torture on the populace. There was NEVER any chance of a military intervention.
For my part, I don't see how China changed US policy on Burma one bit. I would have liked to have seen China do more, much more, on their own, but I don't think they affected US or Western policy one bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment