The [him] moderator's favourite line in this op ed: "Aid can be delivered through international and local non-governmental organizations and through cross-border approaches."
A segment from the USA Engage website is below the op ed.
And then another voice - a Burmese one!
********************************
Aid and sanctions in Burma
Chris Beyrer and Eric Stover
Boston Globe Op Ed
June 16, 2007
LAST MONTH the White House confirmed President Bush's support for continued US sanctions against the Burmese military junta. The United States supports humanitarian assistance coupled with limits on US investment, trade, and defense sales to the generals who rule Burma. In calling for continuation of the sanctions, first imposed by President Clinton, Bush noted that the Burmese military authorities were responsible for increasing attacks against ethnic minorities, beatings and harassment of non violent demonstrators, and the arrest of students at prayer vigils calling for the release of Burma's pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been who has been incarcerated for most of the past 17 years by the generals who control the country.
The statement also noted ongoing human rights violations of the junta, including the use of rape as a weapon of war and the conscription of child soldiers. Given such atrocities, the case for continued economic and political sanctions seems clear.
Yet there have been calls for lifting these sanctions from various groups, including USA Engage, primarily on the grounds that limits on US investment have not succeeded in pressuring the junta and have added to the suffering of the Burmese people.
The humanitarian impact of sanctions is by far the most difficult issue in this debate. There is little disagreement about the needs of Burma's people: Close to a third of children under age 5 are malnourished; the country accounts for more than half of all malaria deaths across Asia; TB and HIV/AIDS are widespread.
In January, we convened an international conference on infectious diseases in Burma to discuss these issues and improve responses. What we found was clear and consistent: While the health situation deteriorates, the junta continues to limit the ability of international humanitarian organization to reach those most in need.
These restrictions have prompted the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Medecins sans Frontieres in France to withdraw their programs and the International Committee of the Red Cross to shutter some of their field offices. All have cited restrictions on travel to project sites, and some have cited the insistence by the junta that its puppet organization, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, or USDA, be a partner in their programs.
It was the USDA, founded by junta leader Than Shwe and charged with a role similar to Nazi Germany's notorious Brown Shirts, that is responsible for the May 30, 2003, attack on Aung San Suu Kyi where at least 80 democracy supporters were massacred. The Red Cross suspended its highly valued program for visiting political prisoners in 2005 when the junta insisted that USDA members accompany all Red Cross visits.
Burma's generals continue to grossly under fund healthcare: National funding for health is 3 percent, while the military, now at more than 400,000 troops, consumes 40 percent.
HIV/AIDS gets a pitiful $137,000 per year for 52 million people. UNICEF reports that government spending on healthcare in Burma amounts to 40 cents per citizen per year, compared to $61 in Thailand.
While junta supporters argue that Burma is too poor to provide more, the generals found the funds to build a new capitol in the jungles of central Burma, Naypyidaw, with annual running costs estimated by the International Monetary Fund at $122 million to $244 million, and signed contracts worth more than $3 billion for state-of-the-art military arms from China, Ukraine, Russia, and others. Moreover, the regime recently signed an agreement with Russia for a nuclear reactor. The generals are spending the resources of Burma lavishly, but not on its people.
What can those who care about the suffering of Burma's people do? Increases in humanitarian assistance are clearly necessary -- but so are increases in political pressure.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appointed Ibrahim Gambari, a Nigerian diplomat, as his special envoy to Burma, and Gambari will need to make progress on both political and humanitarian fronts.
Aid can be delivered through international and local non-governmental organizations and through cross-border approaches. But now is not the time to reward the generals for their brutality, mismanagement, and extended detention of Suu Kyi, who retains the support of the people of Burma, who handed her party an overwhelming electoral victory the only time (1990) they had an opportunity to vote.
Bush is right to continue sanctions against the generals, and Congress should support this position. Increased aid can help the Burmese people, but it must not be allowed to slip into the coffers of junta-backed organizations. Those risking their lives for democratic change in Burma deserve our support, not the generals who continue to tyrannize their citizens.
Dr. Chris Beyrer is a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Eric Stover is faculty director of the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
? Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/06/16/aid_and_sanctions_in_burma?mode=PF
********************************
About Us
United States economic strength is integral to our nation's security and worldwide leadership. In an integrated, globalized economy, positive US economic engagement -- including the ability of American farmers, workers and businesses to compete in emerging markets -- is central to our own economic prosperity and to the worldwide growth of democracy, freedom, and human rights.
America has a vital interest in being a reliable supplier of cutting-edge technology, infrastructure, manufactured products, services, agricultural commodities, and food products throughout the world. America's economic, diplomatic and strategic interests are compromised by the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions for foreign policy reasons without full consideration of:
1.
the costs to our nation's economy;
2.
the damage to our security, commercial, and human rights, objectives;
3.
the adverse impact on US ties with our closest allies, whose long-term cooperation and assistance are essential to building effective multilateral coalitions, in a crisis; and
4.
the damage to US global competitiveness and investment policy arising from secondary boycotts and extra-territorial sanctions.
Concerned organizations, companies and individuals work together through USA*Engage to assure that unilateral sanctions initiatives are examined rigorously to determine the potential for accomplishing their stated objectives and for damaging US competitiveness and jobs. The coalition promotes responsible alternatives which advance US security, diplomatic and economic goals.
USA*ENGAGE is a broad-based coalition representing Americans from all regions, sectors and segments of our society concerned about the proliferation of unilateral foreign policy sanctions at the federal, state, and local level. Despite the fact that unilateral sanctions rarely achieve our foreign policy goals, they continue to have political appeal. Unilateral sanctions give the imp
ression that the United States is "doing something," while American workers, farmers and businesses absorb the costs. Even now, well-organized activists are lobbying to further restrict US companies and farmers from doing business in major overseas markets.
Unilateral Sanctions Don't Work
Unilateral sanctions threaten our future by ceding America's fastest-growing export markets to our foreign competitors and damaging the reputation of US manufacturers and farmers as reliable suppliers. When the government takes US business and agriculture out of a market, it provides foreign suppliers a huge unearned advantage. Equally damaging are recent laws restricting overseas operations of US companies and imposing secondary boycotts on our allies. These actions can put American companies in a position where it is impossible to comply with both US and host country law.
While working Americans pay the price, America gets hardly anything in return. In fact, sanctions take away American's best tools for advancing human rights and democracy -- US political and economic engagement. At the same time, secondary boycotts have angered our closest allies, who support our security, foreign policy, and human rights goals, but object to such measures as serious infringements of their sovereignty and violations of international law. Ultimately, these sanctions discredit American diplomacy and leadership.
The Need for USA*ENGAGE
American values are best advanced by engagement of American business and agriculture in the world, not by ceding markets to foreign competition. Helping train workers, building roads, telephone systems, and power plants in poorer nations, promoting free enterprise -- these activities improve the lives of people worldwide and support American values. Unfortunately the real difference made by American companies and workers through such day-to-day activity is lost in the emotion of political debates, where there is pressure to make a symbolic gesture, even if it won't work.
USA*ENGAGE has lead a campaign to inform policy-makers, opinion-leaders, and the public about the counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions, the importance of exports and overseas investment for American competitiveness and jobs, and the role of American companies in promoting human rights and democracy world wide. USA*ENGAGE promotes responsible alternatives to sanctions that actually advance US humanitarian and foreign policy goals, such as intensified US diplomacy and multilateral cooperation.
Prior to the creation of USA*Engage in 1997, there had been no organized voice urging careful examination of sanctions proposals. Congress, the Administration, and state and local governments had adopted sanctions without thinking hard about the cost to American companies, workers, and farmers, the likelihood that sanctions won't work, or potential alternatives.
USA*ENGAGE Will Fill this Gap
Building A Broad-Based Coalition - USA*ENGAGE brings together Americans from all regions, sectors and segments of our society to speak out for a more effective foreign policy. Even though a large number of American companies, farmers, and workers are hurt by sanctions that take away US export markets and undermine our international competitiveness, Congress and the Administration cannot hear from only activists promoting a narrow sanctions agenda. A large coalition provides the voice to ensure that American policy-makers listen to all interested parties, including those who oppose sanctions.
Developing the Case - USA*ENGAGE explains the benefits of economic engagement for American leadership and values, the ineffectiveness of past sanctions initiatives and the high cost of sanctions for American exports, investment, and jobs. We propose responsible alternatives that advance American values and foreign policy goals and provide our nation's leaders with effective tools.
Education - USA*ENGAGE has effectively recast the political debate on sanctions. We recruit respected foreign policy and economic experts to speak out against sanctions, actively engage the media, and provide outreach to key target states and Congressional districts.
Contacting Government Officials - USA*ENGAGE directly contacts Congressional, Administration, state and local officials. We reach out to Members of Congress by making them aware of the cost of unilateral sanctions for constituents in their districts, the ineffectiveness of sanctions in achieving American goals, and the role of alternative diplomatic tools.
http://www.usaengage.org/MBR0088-USAEngage/default.asp?id=110
********************************
http://viss.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/let-the-sanctions-expire/
