Myanmar Country Analysis

What’s Myanmar Worth? Tom Cotton, republican senator from Arkansas, wrote an article for CNN’s website entitled, “Why U.S. should back change in Myanmar”. It is obvious that his audience is American Citizens, especially those of voting age, who are interested in U.S. politics and possibly foreign relations as well. Who he would like to sway with his argument is less clear, though it appears to be voters who do not agree with becoming involved in the political issues of other nations. In his argument Cotton uses reasons and examples from both the past and present condition of Myanmar’s (Burma’s) government. The Southeast Asian country has had a turbulent political and sociological …show more content…
While the military adopted a constitution, they still made sure they had influence in the government, but, this is again made to appear a non-problem when it is said that the military has slowly been releasing its tight grasp on the government (Cotton). Cotton then credits this to sanctions that were imposed by the United States, bolstering his claim that U.S. involvement will have, and is maybe already having, a positive outcome (Cotton). More negatively charged emotions are stirred when America’s “frenemy”, China, is brought up. Cotton uses ethos to try and make China look bad for, “exploiting its [Myanmar’s] natural resources for economic gain” (Cotton); and pathos when giving the reader the impression that the smaller country was being taken advantage of. However, this is where Cotton falters a bit. One of his …show more content…
support Myanmar is because of their natural resources making them a beneficial trading partner. This could be seen as being the U.S. moving in on Myanmar for economic gain, just like China. There is also a mention of Vietnam’s progress with the U.S., which may have been a misstep since Cotton admits later in the article that there is still a lot that needs to be done before the government has completed its transition, meaning there is still a chance things could go bad and end up how they formerly were with Vietnam. Cotton once again touches on more possible benefits that would come with an alliance with Myanmar, before bringing the argument to a conclusion. He reminds the audience that “[m]uch work remains to be done” (Cotton); then addresses the different areas of the new democratic government that needs work as well as the work that needs to be done regarding social issues. Cotton also warns against not the U.S. trying to help but not putting in enough effort when asserting that, “the United States must not fall prey to a short attention span” (Cotton). This section helps the ethos he established at the beginning of the article, of being reliable and trustworthy, because he shows that this is something he has thought out, not something he just suddenly