ST. CLAIR: China blocks America’s chances with Burma and Sudan

Engage with me if you will in a little anthropomorphism: Imagine that Myanmar and Sudan are the smartest and best-looking girls in school, and that the United States of America is the dashing quarterback of the football team heading to Princeton next year on a scholarship. Now imagine that it’s prom night for these lucky kids, and the All-American (excuse the pun) star is taking these lovely ladies to his place on the Cape for a little post-prom boozin’. Everything is going fine until the trio gets to America’s house only to find that China is already there throwing a party with his friends, Argentina, Burkina Faso and, oh, what the hell, Canada. There’s no way that America and his two gal pals can be alone — the evening is ruined. China has effectively blocked America’s good time. Better luck next time, America!

While the above story isn’t quite the international equivalent to a health class abstinence video, it does demonstrate China’s complete enervating capabilities on potential American-led intervention.

As The Economist points out this week, China has once again taken a pass on “interference in the internal affairs of another country,” despite the mass Buddhist-monk-led, pro-democracy protests occurring throughout Burma (America refuses to call Burma by its imposed moniker of Myanmar). The Chinese have often used this line as their get-out-of-responsibility card, and it has also served as a helpful tool for keeping prying eyes off their own human rights abuses. Sadly, China is the one international player that could end the abominable human rights issues and political tortures in Burma and Sudan. However, it hardly has a better record in the same categories.

But why is China even interested in these Third World nobodies?

The short answer is that the Chinese have billions invested in Sudanese oil fields and billions more in Burmese hydrocarbons, making odd bedfellows of the three. Burma and the Sudan also offer friendly military ports of call and regional power that China hopes to use to rival the United States. America, in turn, cannot afford to upset China as one of its larger trading allies (fourth in exports and second in imports, as of 2005) and political partners, lest it resign the sphere of influence it holds through the connection.

Despite the risks, America still could have foregone the smiling-through-gritted-teeth diplomacy it utilizes with the “sleeping dragon” and instead taken the ethical high road toward intervention in Burma or the Sudan these past few years. Alas, the complications of interdependency, globalization and defensive posturing have turned potential humanitarianism into inaction and turned what could be a cause celebre of freedom’s ideals into a show of reprehensible cowardice. But should we truly argue, as so many have, for outright American-led intervention in these situations?

We’re all aware that America, though it endeavors to act as a beacon on the hill, is still governed by the realities of what it can and cannot do. It can invade Iraq — coincidentally, President Bush spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday about Burma almost exactly five years to the week since he denounced Iraq from the same podium — and it can intervene in Aceh and Somalia, but it cannot touch Burma or the Sudan. These two gems of the intervention market are simply not for sale when placed in even the simplest cost-benefit analysis.

For America, the dilemma is simple: Help the denizens of Third World nations who present little strategic advantage, out of heartfelt benevolence, and risk major difficulties with the rising Chinese powerhouse. Nearly every time this dichotomy has been presented to an American president in the modern era, irrespective of the players, the choice has been to remain neutral — or at best proffer harsh rhetoric and do-nothing sanctions.

From Wilson’s inaction during the Armenian massacre in Turkey to Clinton’s hesitation in the Balkans, our current president, for all his shortcomings, is simply keeping up an historical paradigm: America’s long-term interests remain paramount, despite the condemnation of millions to perpetual degradation and abuse. Is this an acceptable trade-off? That question requires a thesis to answer properly, but in the cases of the Sudan and Myanmar, perhaps caution is the best-played hand until a multinational effort can be mustered to override Chinese objections and backlash.

I am certain some of my more dovish readers believe that Iraq is the “true” reason why America won’t intervene. However, it is highly naive to argue that the war is the pivotal factor keeping us from taking action. Iraq has certainly stretched our financial and military resources, but were the will present, the creation of an American-led coalition to uproot the ruling juntas or dictators of the world would not be an impossible or even radical thought. No, the rationale behind America’s intervention reluctance is the cold, hard calculus of the realist system. I make no excuses for any president, but the mantle of responsibility they hold is to protect America and its citizens despite the harsh polemics and diatribes that might be flung at them by some idealists.

Certainly Burma’s democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest for more than a decade now, would find much to disagree with regarding America’s hands-off approach. I find much of it detestable myself, but I have to reconcile my desire for international peace and freedom with the hard-swallowed pill of American safety, security and future success. It is not an easy reality, but I believe it is the one in which we must exist until we can free ourselves from the fetters of such a complicated and interdependent world order.

Neil St. Clair, a senior in the College of Communication and College of Arts and Sciences, is a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. He is also the host of butv10’s On That Point. He can be reached at nstclair@bu.edu or on.that.point@gmail.com.

Readers are invited to write short rebuttals to the column to be sent to on.that.point@gmail.com. Chosen authors will be invited to debate St. Clair and other panelists live on On That Point during a special segment.