A consultative discussion refers to Council meetings held to exchange opinions with the sole aim of finding new elements in the members' positions. It serves as a preparation for meetings where binding resolutions are discussed.
In January this year, Russia and China, two permanent members of the Security Council, imposed a double veto on a resolution stipulating sanctions against Myanmar.
They did this on the grounds that imposing sanctions for undemocratic actions is not the task of the Security Council, which was established to settle problems that "constitute a threat to international peace and security." The military regime in Myanmar is not threatening anyone other than its own people.
The current consultative meeting has been convened to see if Moscow and Beijing have changed their minds since Myanmar's security forces cracked down on opposition in Yangon following large-scale demonstrations led by Buddhist monks nine days earlier.
It appears that Moscow and Beijing have not changed their minds, yet the meeting was not totally useless.
U.S. President George W. Bush announced new sanctions against the military dictatorship in Myanmar, accusing it of imposing "a 19-year reign of fear" that denies basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship. (MSNBC)
But this is nothing more than a symbolic move inspired by outdated ideology. According to this school of thought, anti-government protests are always a good thing, and sanctions should be imposed or threatened against the regime so as to bind it hand and foot and provoke its early demise.
The Americans do this in the hope that the next regime will be more pro-American and will merit the status of a model democracy.
Mikheil Saakashvili, president of Georgia, has called on UN member countries to take the side of the protesters in Myanmar, allegedly because the situation there reminded him of the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, the first bloodless change of power in the Caucasus.
Saakashvili and several other leaders mentioned Myanmar only to please Bush, for whom the situation in that Southeast Asian country is graphic proof of the failure of the ideologically burdened American policy of supporting "color revolutions" and imposing sanctions against the regimes that reject them. That failure has a name - China.
The United States imposed sanctions against Myanmar long ago, and prohibited American companies from dealing with that country. As a result, Washington has lost the ability to influence the situation there.
Meanwhile, other countries moved in to fill the economic and political vacuum left by Washington's withdrawal. One of them was China, which has a huge national turnover and is involved in many gas, road-building and pipeline-laying projects there. Other countries gaining influence in Myanmar include its close neighbors - Thailand and India.
The United States' failure in Myanmar is akin to its policy regarding Uzbekistan after the regime there used military force to stop an armed rebellion in Andizhan. Although Washington imposed sanctions against Uzbekistan, the Central Asian country is experiencing an investment boom. Russian and Chinese capital is flocking there, while the United States has lost its influence.
During the Security Council's consultative meeting, Washington silently admitted to its failure in Myanmar and agreed to turn over "the Myanmar file" to China on behalf of the UN.
According to AP, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters: "We have called on them [China] to use their influence [in Myanmar], and we hope that they will."
The admission was the crux of the meeting because it highlighted the weakening of the United States' obsolete and ideologically laden foreign policy, and was a boon for China, which is taking up increasingly serious roles in the world.
However, it is one thing to watch Washington flounder and to use its mistakes to your benefit. It is quite another to avoid making the same mistakes yourself. It is easy to criticize a policy of sanctions aimed at "spreading democracy" around the world. But it is much more difficult to find something better than the standard American scheme.
The generals who have ruled Myanmar for 18 years are simple-minded but not very pliant people. The methods they are using to govern their country have not benefitted it. Their only global success was restoring the rightful name, Myanmar, to their country, which the British called Burma.
The generals' policy gave rise to a powerful opposition, which, however, does not promise a soft and wise transition to a more effective rule. In fact, the demonstrations, which began in Myanmar in August, demand not so much - or not only - freedom and democracy, as lower gasoline prices and the solution of other economic problems.
No government can solve these problems overnight.
Who can convince Myanmar's generals to agree to a soft transition to more civilized rule? And with which opposition group should they share their powers - with the one in Thailand, or the one in Paris? And will the opposition, if it comes to power, be better than the generals?
Beijing, if it solves these problems, will rapidly acquire huge influence in the world.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
