As some of my foreign correspondent buddies head off to Myanmar/Burma to report on the crackdown on protesters demonstrating against high petrol prices, I'm wondering why this is the moment to resume coverage of Burma.... OK, maybe that's putting it wrong. It makes sense to bring attention to this protest and its suppression regardless of its likelihood of toppling the junta. But why so little attention to the impotence of American/Western action against the regime? (A boycott that means nothing, and a lot of empty lip-service). Why so little attention to India's -- once basically the only regional power that actively criticized the junta -- final abandonment of Aung Sun Kyi to her fate? I hate to say it, but these protests seem like a non-event to me. Just another blip on the graph of what promises to be a long, grim reign of the military dictators... I mean: NOW Bush plans to bring up Burma at the Asian summit? The junta wasn't doing anything wrong over the last decade?
A statement from Laura Bush's office said, according to the IHT, "Mrs. Bush noted that by staying quiet, the United Nations — and all nations — condone these abuses."
And this kind of "harsh condemnation" does what, exactly?