Campaign politics and the junta

Friday, October 5th, 2007

The uprising and subsequent military crackdown in Burma is one of the few issues on which Republicans and Democrats can agree wholeheartedly, and yet they also seem to concur that voters would rather hear about something else.

Perhaps something a little more controversial.

Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain have all come out in full support of extending U.S. sanctions against the ruling Burmese junta.

gambar1.jpg
Gambari and Suu Kyi: Eloquent body language.


Jeremy Woodrum of U.S. Campaign for Burma says Clinton has supported every measure and initiative trying to end the crackdown in Burma (renamed Myanmar by the junta). “She’s done everything in a heartbeat without hesitation,” he told me.

McCain has brought up Burma while on the campaign trail, calling the generals who run Burma “military thugs.”

McCain spokesperson Brook Buchanan said: “He talks about it at every stop—this is a very important issue to him.”

It’s pretty difficult not to support monks and protesters who are peacefully taking to the streets to demand an end to a repressive regime.

The Burmese people have been under military rule since 1962. It’s hard not to sympathize, especially as we get glimpses of photographs and video clips that have been flying around the Web of soldiers beating up protesters with their batons. One series of photos showed a dead monk floating in a creek, his maroon robe bunched up around his neck and his body covered in mud and seaweed.

Burma has 70,000 child soldiers, more than any other country. Its health care system is the second worst in the world, ranking just above Sierra Leone. The junta commits forced labor, burns down thousands of villages in Eastern Burma and uses rape as a systematic weapon of war and oppression against its ethnic minorities.

And now, depending on the source, it has killed about 150 people and detained between 3,000 and 6,000 for peacefully protesting. Soldiers have been searching homes at night, arresting anyone they suspect was involved in—or even watched—the demonstrations.

Yet, if this is such a black-and-white issue, one has to wonder why more of the presidential candidates aren’t denouncing the junta and its atrocious record of human rights at every turn. With the exception of McCain, it is difficult finding any articles quoting them on the issue.

I see no mention of the current crisis in Burma on any of the campaign websites. I searched the sites of McCain, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.

George and Laura Bush have done significantly more, and they aren’t running for office. (Turns out, just because Bush supports something, doesn’t mean it’s bad.)

The candidates should be using their influence to educate and incite Americans to take action.

Maybe Burma isn’t getting its fair share of shout-outs precisely because it is a black-and-white issue. Candidates and voters seem to relish controversy. Nothing like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia to get Americans raising hell.

Issues like universal health care and gay marriage get play while something we all agree on—the utter depravity of beating, torturing and killing monks and demonstrators peacefully protesting a totalitarian regime—gets put on the back burner.

It’s starting to not get any burner. Burma is already disappearing from the pages of newspapers. I knew that would happen, but it is crushing to see it happening so fast.

Woodrum says he thinks the candidates have done a good job on Burma. “Our battle is not in the U.S.,” he said. “We are the only country in the world who has done anything concrete.”

He thinks we should direct our wrath at China and U.N. special envoy Ibrahim Gambari.

Woodrum has a fair point. China of course enjoys vetoing U.N. Security Council resolutions against dictatorships, and Gambari has proved practically useless. While he was in Burma posing at photo ops with the junta’s top generals, soldiers were rounding up and arresting more monks and civilians.

But the candidates should not get off so easily. If they don’t rouse Americans to action, to express their outrage at the junta like we did at the South African government during apartheid, who will? We should not be leaving foreign policy campaigns to celebrities. We should demand of our candidates not just platitudes about peace and democracy, but concrete answers. And so I ask you, presidential candidates:

What will you do about Burma?

——
Hanna Ingber Win is a columnist and editor at Pop and Politics. This piece was cross-posted at the Huffington Post’s OffTheBus campaign coverage project.

Making the world safer

Friday, October 5th, 2007

women.jpg

NPR’s All Things Considered, not known in youth circles for its edge, has been killing it lately with a series on the treatment of women in the US military, doing personal interviews of post-traumatized veterans.

Roadside bombs? Senseless blood and death and killing? No. the worst thing about serving in the military is being sexually harassed and raped and gang raped by their fellow soldiers and then having to report the abuse to the same people who perpetrated it.

The 2000 VA study reports that 55 percent of women experienced sexual harassment in the military. And a 2005 study estimates that more than half of women in the reserves and National Guard suffered sexual assault or harassment during their service, according to news reports.

sexual trauma, combined with combat trauma, makes women far more vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Sandra, a vet going through rehabilitation in California, put it pretty baldly: “I wanted to go to sleep and not wake up.”

Has US military culture degenerated to its lowest levels ever under the torture presidency or has it always been this bad?

Bleary-eyed and bumbling into office

Friday, October 5th, 2007

obama_hmedhmedium.jpg

Every week we learn more about the folly of allowing presidential hopefuls to campaign for nearly as many years as the term of office they’re running to win. We get gazillion-dollar campaigns, a field of billionaire candidates, a shuffling primary schedule, a thousand indistinguishable debates and jet-lagged, brain-muddled bumbling on campaign stops.

Pundits, fans, undecided voters, debate watchers are all wondering what’s happening to Obama, for example. Where’s the fire? Why won’t he take Hillary on? Is he angling for a cabinet appointment?

To me he just seems tired. He has a personal style that’s understated, intelligent, even subtle. He thinks about things. In Iowa this week, distracted, he took pains to explain why he doesn’t wear the vapid USA flag-pin on his lapel. He said something brief. Then a staffer tried to clarify. Then finally Obama had to dedicate a stump speech specifically to the absent flag-pin, as if a man running for president needs a flag-pin to signal his commitment to his country.

It’s the first week of October, more than a year out, and even always-on motormouth Rudy Giuliani is appearing sluggish. Racing in and out of local joints on the New Hampshire-Massachusetts border, he sounded off to a clutch of New Hampshirites about how the Democrats would “raise taxes on people here in Massachusetts anywhere between three- and four-thousand dollars a person.” The Granite Staters were understandably unimpressed.

How about poor Bill Richardson, who looked three cocktails too comfortable in his attempts to unravel Melissa Etheridge’s rudimentary gay rights question at the Logo Forum this summer. “In your opinion do people choose to be gay or are they born that way?” It’s a starting-point kind of question and well-meaning Bill fumbled hopelessly for full minutes with it, no doubt regretting his on-flight beverage choices. The look on Etheridge’s face is priceless.

It’s the digital age. Should we perhaps give up the traditional mass-illusion that presidential candidates are able to truly care about all the state and local issues that span the continent and that they are going to address them all personally once in office? Should we declare every other month travel-free campaign time and let the candidates do YouTubes in their pajamas from their bedrooms?

——
This story was reported by Torey van Oot.