Condemnation, but no action
Burma
Today, Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney issued a press release, in which he condemned "in the strongest terms the the Burmese government's decision to order the closure of the field offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Burma and to halt most of its activities."
This is typical of the British government of today, all talk and no action. We've seen it all over the world: whenever someone breaches human rights, the most they have to fear from the West is an official condemnation in the strongest terms.
Burma (I will not call it Myanmar, I take the FCO's line that the unelected military junta hasn't got the right to change its name) is ruled by dictators, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the democratic opposition, has been placed under house arrest since 2000 (after a short release), the people of Burma are oppressed and now the Red Cross, universally deemed a good thing, has been effectively shut down.
And yet, what does Britain do? Nothing. What does the USA do? Nothing. The west sits around while the people of Burma, and a myriad other nations of the world suffer. The UK/US alliance has made much of human rights and democracy, and yet when it comes to direct action, they are inert.
I'm sure that none of them got into politics wanting to equivocate and do nothing. If an official condemnation is the most that they can do, they have become like the League of Nations in the 20s and 30s, a toothless organisation, ignored by the people of the world, fit only for making a show of doing something. Words will never be a satisfactory substitute for actions.
Today, Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney issued a press release, in which he condemned "in the strongest terms the the Burmese government's decision to order the closure of the field offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Burma and to halt most of its activities."
This is typical of the British government of today, all talk and no action. We've seen it all over the world: whenever someone breaches human rights, the most they have to fear from the West is an official condemnation in the strongest terms.
Burma (I will not call it Myanmar, I take the FCO's line that the unelected military junta hasn't got the right to change its name) is ruled by dictators, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the democratic opposition, has been placed under house arrest since 2000 (after a short release), the people of Burma are oppressed and now the Red Cross, universally deemed a good thing, has been effectively shut down.
And yet, what does Britain do? Nothing. What does the USA do? Nothing. The west sits around while the people of Burma, and a myriad other nations of the world suffer. The UK/US alliance has made much of human rights and democracy, and yet when it comes to direct action, they are inert.
I'm sure that none of them got into politics wanting to equivocate and do nothing. If an official condemnation is the most that they can do, they have become like the League of Nations in the 20s and 30s, a toothless organisation, ignored by the people of the world, fit only for making a show of doing something. Words will never be a satisfactory substitute for actions.
posted by CJM | 6:38 PM
1 Comments:
What action would you suggest?
I hope that this does not apply to you, but often the people who talk about the West not taking action against oppressive regimes are the people that condemn in the strongest terms any attempt to take action. There are no fix-its. Any action (military force and economic sanctions are the only real options of which I am aware) come at the cost of civilian lives. This is the third option usually identified: diplomatic pressure. As you note, it is essentially useless.
Post a Comment
<< Home