Revelation hits me occasionally. Often I fail to write them down, and my memory is so poor, those epiphanies float away to oblivion as far as they depend on me. Not too long ago (compared to my 37 years and 15 of marriage) Tamara decided to begin writing hers down in a single book. One of those things that hit her and changed the way she did stuff. (By the way, I respect her immensely for this and do not read it unless asked to. Really.) But every once in a while, she’ll mention something to the effect “Person X and I/us would be great friends if we knew each other”. And while I consider it, I either think/say “yep” or “I have no idea”. Its never been “no” (that I can remember). But Tamara simply expresses it. I on the other hand don’t roll that way. My response to such promptings about people is to “do something” instead of saying/thinking it. For example, in one of my goofier moments I handed Jordan Shipley and Colt McCoy a pokemon card (I think it was Squirtel or Bulbasaur) with our contact information on it. You see, being the college group leaders at our church, I’d been looking for ways to be creative in extending our group’s merits by first establishing communication and letting them know personally the ways they can participate with other students who regularly attend Westover, but without being pushy or overbearing. Or the time I tried to write an email to the writer of “Walk On – Life from the End of the Bench” simply because we both grew up in Memphis. Or when I sent a “Facebook message” to Juliann Faucette simply because we love UT volleyball *and* had worshiped with her at Austin Stone.  Or… I could go on. So, I’ve decided to just mark these behavioral differences up to having opposite personality characteristics. But I think Tamara’s is less embarrassing. And honestly, she takes these insights to the Father much more often than I. So, her “doings” are more often effective. There’s so much for me to learn.

Was too much to ask a response to come from the White House or even elsewhere in the Senate?
—–
There’s More to Senator Webb’s Burma Fizzle Than Meets the Eye

In today’s New York Times, Senator Webb makes his case for a new American policy on Burma. For someone so closely identified with opposition to sanctions, one would expect his alternative to be much bolder. After so much build up, is this it?

Senator Webb’s policy suggestions boil down to talking with the junta government, increasing humanitarian aid, and cooperation on the recovery of American World War II remains. Perhaps, he is only being realistic. In the current environment, when Congress has just unanimously approved and the President has signed extensions of sweeping sanctions, he has carefully identified areas where he has some prospect of success. No doubt, he may also be previewing – by design or intuition – the results of the Administration’s Burma policy review.

The problem with the Senator’s case is not the specific policy prescriptions he offers, but its faulty assumptions.

Assumption #1: Sanctions have failed; engagement will work.

It is demonstrably true that American sanctions have not brought about change in Burma. But the answer lies in building the necessary international consensus to pressure it, not abandoning the effort. Besides, engagement by Burma’s neighbors has been no more effective. In taking his lead from Burma’s neighbors on engagement, Senator Webb should understand that ASEAN’s engagement has failed for good reason; it was never intended to bring about democratic change Burma. That goal has always been its rationalization for doing business with an odious regime.

As for the Chinese, there is at least integrity in their position; it has never argued for engagement on the basis of bringing democratic change to Burma. But for that reason, Senator Webb is barking up the wrong Chinese tree – as, in fact, he acknowledges may be the case. The truth is the Chinese will never bring meaningful pressure to bear on the junta. They proved that with a veto in the Security Council in 2007. And they have proven it by watering down every statement the Security Council makes when called to act.

Assumption #2: Normalization with Vietnam and China are models for Burma policy.

Senator Webb is fond of citing normalization of economic and diplomatic relations with Vietnam as a precedent for engaging Burma. But there is a fundamental difference. Vietnam made a strategic decision in 1986 to reform its economy and open up to the world. Without this decision, the subsequent normalization could not have happened. It is the same regarding U.S. normalization with China. The Burmese junta has not made such a strategic decision. They reach out piece meal for means of securing their grip on power. That’s why they joined ASEAN in 1997. There was a time in the 1990s when the Burmese were open to foreign visitors with critical perspectives.

They are much more discerning nowadays. Senator Webb was granted his historic meeting with Than Shwe because the Senator is an opponent of current American policy and his presence could be used – as it was – to send a signal of regime stability to the long suffering people of Burma.

Assumption #3: The new Burmese constitution is a basis for engagement.

Senator Webb rightly rests much of his case on Burma’s 2010 elections. But by focusing on “what is possible” instead of “free and fair elections”, he leaves little doubt that what he intends is to accept the junta’s terms. That intention is not just a matter of speculation. He made it clear in Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell’s confirmation hearing when the Senator pressed for an endorsement of the Burmese sham constitution. And in his New York Times piece today, when he recites the flaws in the constitution, he fails to list the biggest problem – the bar on Aung San Suu Kyi’s participation.

He advises her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), to participate in the elections despite this and despite the fact that the constitution is designed to ensure elections do not bring about a change in government. That is an extraordinarily tough call for them to make. Abandon the icon of the democracy movement, a Nobel Laureate, the inspiration of the Burmese people, to take part in a process that will validate an illegal government and relegate their 1990 victory to the dustbin of history. Who will they turn to then?

Assumption #4: American sanctions have given Chinese investment and interests a leg up.

Senator Webb, at his most admirable, is extremely worried about Chinese strategic interest in Southeast Asia. It is true that the Chinese are heavily involved in the Burmese economy and that they are using Burma for their own strategic purposes. But would permitting American investment change that? Not likely. Could the Burmese take American investment and still use Chinese investment to build mines, ports and pipelines to secure the flow of resources to China? Yes. In fact, they might find American investors to help. The only thing that will change China’s calculus is a change in the nature of the Burmese regime.

Throughout his Op-Ed, Senator Webb refers to Burma by its junta-designated name, “Myanmar.” That is certainly pleasing to the ears of the generals. In a microcosm it represents the problem with engagement. The NLD does not recognize the name “Myanmar”. The State Department through successive Administrations has refused to call it “Myanmar.” And Congress certainly doesn’t call it “Myanmar.”

But simply for the price of gaining a Burmese general’s ear, and nothing more, Senator Webb is willing to abide by the Burmese junta’s sensitivities. It is difficult to argue against increased humanitarian assistance – appropriately channeled through international NGOs and closely monitored for abuse – or cooperation to find remains of missing American airmen. It’s even difficult to argue against meeting with Burmese authorities under the right circumstances.

President Bush’s Administration did, and we do have diplomatic relations with Burma after all. (Senator Webb’s meetings in Burma in the wake of Suu Kyi’s conviction were decidedly not the right time.) But like changing the name we call it, these things are not going to elicit a response on the things Americans care about. It is certainly not the beginning of a road map to a normal US-Burma relationship.

More likely, if carried by Senator Webb’s assumptions, engagement will so invest America in the process of engagement itself that it will offer new slices off its current policy of “maximum pressure” just to keep it going, but with no real progress.

The North Koreans have mastered this game, and the Burmese are learning. What they have lacked is a playing partner. They have found one in Senator Webb. Let’s hope they do not find partners in President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

1) Tabitha was baptized ot Camp Wyldewood on Wednesday, July 1st! One of Westover’s college students held “final” discussions with her and dunked her. God is so edgy like that! (The camera batteries died so I got *no* shots. Very disappointing.) This Sunday, she somewhat sadly told me that today was her first communion, and she observed it during Kids 2 Praise, Westover’s childrens worship. I can’t help but wonder if she was in fact closer to the Body of Christ there.

2) God is always training us to trust Him. Often, I’m uneasy with it at first, but then His love overwhelms me.

3) Anyone with some knowledge of Austin knows we “keep it wierd”. But the “Keep Houston Ugly” logo is downright funny.

4) I just finished reading “Teresa of Calcutta”. It was a book Tabitha read during homeschool. I intend to talk with her about it tonight. Like Teresa herself, the book’s focus remained on their work with the poorest of the poor and the blessings Christ brings.

5) Yesterday, our family hiked a couple of hours along the Barton Creek Greenbelt to Twin Falls and Sculpture Falls. The creek bed as completely dry, but the sun was moderate (for Texas), the breeze gentle, and our 2 dogs very encouraging. Then we dropped the dogs off and drove straight to a pool for swimming.

The first camp of the summer has come and is about to go. I’ve been incredibly pleased with Westover’s VIP camp. Grades 2 – 5 go off with the Children’s Ministers, Youth Leaders, and whole batches of High School counselors and some parents. Though our children came in knowing very few of their Sunday classmates, they come home raving about new friends and grand festivities lovingly crafted by their fearless (and they are fearless) leaders.

And now a full family vacation is on the cusp. And the Florida Gluf is on the menu. I hope some fresh fish too. Grandma LOVES the beach. But not necessarily the water. It’s a bit of an oxymoron, but one we all live with. You see, Betty doesn’t swim. But she sure can read, build sandcastles, and track down little dudes with ease. And Pop? Well, sand nor sea is his cup of tea. I think this is why we went camping on the “off years”. Though they’ve both managed to make brilliant concessions. Either it’s been plush seafood feasts or the purchase, transport, and assembly of luxury camping items. It’s something that I should truly take note of.

Meanwhile, Tamara, Tabitha, and Moses romp around Austin. And then the next few days line up as prep for the big trip.

This last Saturday, I showed up for a meeting about Austin Refugees. Growing up, I had a friend whose family had fled Vietnam. Their transition into American culture wasn’t exactly smooth. I still love Tony, but we’ve not talked since high school… if really even then. I’d never really thought through nor come to grips with his family’s struggles. It’s very much to my shame.

I showed up just to determine how Westover might be able to work with Austin Stone (a huge college church plant) in this. I thought this was a planning meeting. Instead, I got an emotional rollercoaster. Sitting beside a few of the refugees, occasionally a man my age would lean over during the videos and say something like “yes, that happened many times”. My heart is still reeling from the experience. Every few hours I find myself praying anew.

A couple from Westover, Jonathan and Jessica, teach ESL classes for a small group of Karen Hilltribers; driven out of Burma, encamped in forced seclusion just inside Thailand, and finally transported to the U.S. The meeting presented numerous possibilities to help, but discovering which is what I’m wondering about now.

http://theBurmaConnection.com