[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Lea



Reply-To: "Maung Maung Than" <@one.net.au>
Subject: Re: Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Leadership Role 

Dear global leadership watchers,

Self Appointed World- police should pull out its companies doing business in
Burma. The presence of  300 millions plus US business supporting SPDC-
brutal regime  is just a shame.
No one can deny that American firms like oil giant Unocal, are a
collaborators playing their part to suppress the people of Burma.

Obviously, US only imposed the ban on future investment not on import from
Burma . They still buy the products made from sweat shops , forced labor
camps ( correct me if I am wrong) .

Besides , US Congress never recognize CRPP despite their claim of being the
champion of freedom for Burma and despite their support for 90 elections
result . (pls. , check  the latest list of parliaments in the IPU Berlin
resolution Oct 99)  Am I wrong to say it is a double standard ? What about
security Council ( forget it Burma is too small and awfully backward) .

Perhaps, it is CNN's fault.

Again , I will say US policy on Burma is a double standard and it is a shame
!


Thanks to all,

mmt in Sydney



-----Original Message-----
To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 3:21 PM
Subject: Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Leadership Role


>25 October 1999
>Byliner: Samuel R. Berger on U.S. Global Leadership Role
>(Op-Ed by President Clinton's National Security Adviser) (1050)
>
>(Following is an Op-Ed article written by Samuel R. Berger, President
>Clinton's National Security Adviser. It is adapted from his address to
>the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City on October 21. There
>are no republication restrictions.)
>
>Internationalism versus Isolationism in U.S. Foreign Policy
>By Samuel R. Berger
>
>(The author is President Clinton's National Security Adviser.)
>
>We are at a defining and paradoxical point in the debate about
>America's role in the world.
>
>America's strength and prosperity are unrivaled. Our leadership has
>never been more needed or in demand. And most Americans understand we
>must provide it; their pride in our achievements makes them not
>triumphant but confident in our ability to shape, with others, a world
>that is more democratic, prosperous and at peace.
>
>Yet our internationalist tradition increasingly is being challenged by
>a new isolationism that would bury America's head in the sand at the
>height of our power and prosperity. There are leaders in both parties
>who reject this view -- including many who had legitimate concerns
>about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but who wanted more time to
>have them addressed. But with the Senate's hurried defeat of the
>Treaty and the meat axe Congress has taken to our foreign affairs
>budget, we must fact the reality that it no longer is a fringe view.
>
>It's tempting to say that the new isolationism is driven only by
>partisanship. But that underestimates it. There is a coherence to its
>view of the world and of our role. Here is what I believe its elements
>are, and why I believe they are wrong.
>
>First: Any treaty others embrace, we won't join. Proponents of this
>view are convinced treaties are a threat to our sovereignty and
>continued superiority. That's what they say about the nuclear Test Ban
>-- though we have already stopped testing, though the Treaty helps
>freeze the global development of nuclear weapons when we enjoy an
>enormous strategic advantage.
>
>We agree it would be foolish to rely on arms control treaties alone to
>protect our security. But it would be equally foolish to throw away
>the tools sound treaties offer: the restraint and deterrence that
>comes from global rules with global backing.
>
>Second: Burden sharing is a one way street. Proponents of the new
>isolationism rightly insist that Europeans fund the lion's share of
>reconstructing the Balkans. But then they balk at doing our part. They
>oppose American involvement in Africa's wars, but will not help
>others, like Nigeria, when they take responsibility to act. And they
>will not pay America's part of the cost of UN peacekeeping missions,
>even to uphold peace agreements we helped forge. This year, Congress
>has cut our request for peacekeeping by more than half.
>
>That is dangerous. If we don't support the institutions and
>arrangements through which other countries share the responsibilities
>of leadership, we will bear them alone.
>
>Third: If it's over there, its not our fight. Foreign wars like those
>in Bosnia and Kosovo may hurt our conscience, but not our interests,
>and we should let them take their course.
>
>We agree America cannot do everything or be everywhere. But we also
>cannot afford to do nothing, and be nowhere. The new isolationism of
>1999 fails to understand what the old isolationism of 60 years ago
>failed to understand -- that local conflicts can have global
>consequences.
>
>Fourth: We can't be a great country without a great adversary. Since
>the Cold War ended, the proponents of this vision have been nostalgic
>for the good old days when friends were friends and enemies were
>enemies. For the role of new enemy number one, they nominate China.
>
>We should not look at China through rose colored glasses; neither
>should we see it through a glass darkly, distorting its strength and
>ignoring its complexities. We must pursue our national interests
>vigorously with China, but treating it like an enemy could become a
>self-fulfilling prophesy.
>
>Fifth: Billions for defense but hardly a penny for prevention. This
>year's spending bill for most of our foreign programs, which the
>President has vetoed, fails to fund a vitally needed expansion in our
>effort to keep nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union from
>falling into the wrong hands. It does not fund our pledge to help
>relieve the debts of impoverished countries that are finally embracing
>freedom and reform. Astonishingly, it does not fund our commitments to
>the Middle East peace process growing out of the Wye Accords.
>Meanwhile, the Congress is trying to add $5 billion to the defense
>budget this year that our military says it doesn't need.
>
>The President has requested the first sustained increase in military
>spending in a decade. But he has also argued that if we underfund our
>diplomacy, we will end up overusing our military -- precisely the
>outcome critics say they want to avoid. Those who fear that our
>military may become overextended should make it their first order of
>business to restore decent levels of funding to the programs that keep
>our soldiers out of war.
>
>America faces many challenges in the world in the coming year: seizing
>opportunities for peace from the Middle East, to the Balkans, to
>Africa; weaving Russia and China more closely into the international
>system; combating terror and the spread of weapons of mass
>destruction, from the former Soviet Union to Korea to the Gulf,
>launching a new global trade round, promoting debt relief, supporting
>hopeful democratic transitions from Nigeria to Indonesia, and others.
>
>There is room for debate about our approach to all these issues. But
>we should agree that in an era of growing interdependence, we cannot
>afford a survivalist foreign policy -- which relies on military might
>alone to protect our security, while neglecting all else.
>
>America must maintain its military and economic power. But we must
>also maintain our authority, built on the attractiveness of our
>values, the force of our example, the credibility of our commitments
>and our willingness to work with and stand by our friends. The
>President wants to work with Congress to preserve a foreign policy
>that does just that.
>
>(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
>Department of State)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>