Burma.. Lads, its getting very serious right now.

Akrasia

There are a number of reports of the Burmese military massacring the Buddhist monks following their pro democracy demonstrations.

Thousands of people are reported to have been tortured and killed and their bodies dumped in the jungle as the Dictatorship cracks down hard on the peaceful demonstrators

A SENIOR Burmese intelligence official claims thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle.

After defecting from the military junta and fleeing to the Thai border, Hla Win told a reporter from London's Daily Mail: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

The horrific details emerged as Burma's top general continued to snub the UN's peace envoy, who is in Rangoon on a mission to convey the world's outrage to the junta.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515138-661,00.html

The BBC are reporting that thousands of monks are being rounded up and sent away to prison camps in disused race courses and universities.

About 4,000 monks have been rounded up in the past week as the military government has tried to stamp out pro-democracy protests.

They are being held at a disused race course and a technical college.

Sources from a government-sponsored militia said they would soon be moved away from Rangoon.

The monks have been disrobed and shackled, the sources told BBC radio's Burmese service. There are reports that the monks are refusing to eat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7022437.stm

Manic Moran

Well, looks like I was wrong. They were willing to shoot monks after all.

"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword has never looked down the barrel of an AK47"

NTM

Dave!

Jesus... the censorship they're imposing on the country is very effective.

Akrasia

DaveMcG wrote:

Jesus... the censorship they're imposing on the country is very effective.

It is time to threaten the Chinese olympics.

Hundreds or thousands dead. How on earth can we go there next year and 'celebrate' human achievement when the host nation is propping up a murderous dictatorship. (never mind for now their own human rights record)

flogen

Akrasia wrote:

It is time to threaten the Chinese olympics.

Hundreds or thousands dead. How on earth can we go there next year and 'celebrate' human achievement when the host nation is propping up a murderous dictatorship. (never mind for now their own human rights record)

Or the West could stop propping up the murderous dictatorship that's propping up the murderous dictatorship...? Just a thought... one that's only going to be suggested on the fringes but that would be far more effective than the boycotting of a sporting event, anyway.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

It is time to threaten the Chinese olympics.

Because one country refused to get involved in another country, regardless of how disliked that other country was?

I see interesting parallels here.

NTM

karen3212

Akrasia wrote:

It is time to threaten the Chinese olympics.

Hundreds or thousands dead. How on earth can we go there next year and 'celebrate' human achievement when the host nation is propping up a murderous dictatorship. (never mind for now their own human rights record)

I don't know about doing that, would you not prefer to have the chance to speak to Chinese people about it. It might be good for Chinese people to feel more connected to overseas people, I mean a lot of them may not have a clue about what their government is up to. Also seeing outsiders more might help the people in general to speak out more about their governments abuses.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Because one country refused to get involved in another country, regardless of how disliked that other country was?

I see interesting parallels here.

NTM

They're not refusing to get involved, they're actively supporting the dictatorship. China could sort this out in the morning if they wanted to

Akrasia

flogen wrote:

Or the West could stop propping up the murderous dictatorship that's propping up the murderous dictatorship...? Just a thought... one that's only going to be suggested on the fringes but that would be far more effective than the boycotting of a sporting event, anyway.

I think you underestimate how powerful a boycott of the Olympics would be.

It is a huge source of national pride, a chance to show that they are a modern vibrant country. If the world shunned their spectacle, it would send a very very powerful message.

Its also a practical measurable goal that is far more achievable than the abstract suggestion that you made.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

practical? good luck getting however many thousands of people who have tickets to not use them

Akrasia

karen3212 wrote:

I don't know about doing that, would you not prefer to have the chance to speak to Chinese people about it. It might be good for Chinese people to feel more connected to overseas people, I mean a lot of them may not have a clue about what their government is up to. Also seeing outsiders more might help the people in general to speak out more about their governments abuses.

A boycott of the olympics is talking to them. The chinese government would have to do a lot of propaganda to explain how come this wonderful event that they have been promising for 10 years suddenly isn't going to take place or isn't going to include many countries athletes

If we want to grab the attention of the billion ordinary chinese, this is the way to do it.

Akrasia

Mordeth wrote:

practical? good luck getting however many thousands of people who have tickets to not use them

It would have to be a government level decision not to send teams to the games.

It would suck for the athletes on a personal level, but if they think their own careers and glory is more important than the murder of thousands of innocent people. then **** them.

Ireland would have nothing to lose because we never bloody win anything anyway

Unpossible

karen3212 wrote:

I don't know about doing that, would you not prefer to have the chance to speak to Chinese people about it. It might be good for Chinese people to feel more connected to overseas people, I mean a lot of them may not have a clue about what their government is up to. Also seeing outsiders more might help the people in general to speak out more about their governments abuses.

They don't have a clue, trust me I've been there, my wife is from china, their way of thinking in relation to politics is completely different to ours and you will get nowhere with trying to convert each one (you will just make him/her feel bad or angry).

Akrasia wrote:

A boycott of the Olympics is talking to them. The Chinese government would have to do a lot of propaganda to explain how come this wonderful event that they have been promising for 10 years suddenly isn't going to take place or isn't going to include many countries athletes

I agree, the government is worried about china embarrassing itself during the Olympics a boycott would be a PR disaster. Of course their news media will end up making us look bad (you should see how they "reported" the Taiwan Olympic torch situation).
But a boycott would definitely make an effect.

Dave!

Why were China given the Olympics anyway? I gather I'm not the only one to see the parallels with Berlin 1936... Maybe the Olympic authorities don't take human rights into account and it's just a random selection... I don't know the selection process. Just curious, because it seems bizarre.

Unpossible

Why were China given the Olympics anyway? I gather I'm not the only one to see the parallels with Berlin 1936... Maybe the Olympic authorities don't take human rights into account and it's just a random selection.

Isn't it a vote made by various Olympic committees from different countries? And as far as I know Hitler was admired for bringing Germany out of its depression (before he start on the whole expansion gig), so he was viewed differently than he was 10 years later.

Akrasia

Unpossible wrote:

Isn't it a vote made by various Olympic committees from different countries? And as far as I know Hitler was admired for bringing Germany out of its depression (before he start on the whole expansion gig), so he was viewed differently than he was 10 years later.

The IOC is widely recognised as one of the most corrupt institutions on earth.You can be sure the delegates were all very well treated by the chinese before they made their decision.

The_Minister

I knew that this would happen. There was no way that all the monks suddenly vanished at once.

flogen

Akrasia wrote:

I think you underestimate how powerful a boycott of the Olympics would be.

It is a huge source of national pride, a chance to show that they are a modern vibrant country. If the world shunned their spectacle, it would send a very very powerful message.

Its also a practical measurable goal that is far more achievable than the abstract suggestion that you made.

An Olympic boycott, done in the hope of shaming or embarrassing the Chinese into bringing democracy to Burma is far more abstract than an economic boycott, which if done by enough countries (or even the EU and USA) would bring their rise as a superpower to a near-standstill.

Sure, respect and international standing is important to China, far more important than it is for the USA or most/all EU countries. But if people actually want China to stop supporting the Burmese military they'll need to do more than make them feel a little uncomfortable about it - they'll need to show that it's completely unacceptable and they want nothing to do with them until things change.

This won't happen, of course, if anything does it'll be a toothless Olympic ban. That way Ireland can pretend like it cares but make sure it still gets all the actual benefits of a relationship with China.

(If you think an Olympic boycott is effective then look at 1980 - made zero difference)

DadaKopf

flogen wrote:

An Olympic boycott, done in the hope of shaming or embarrassing the Chinese into bringing democracy to Burma is far more abstract than an economic boycott, which if done by enough countries (or even the EU and USA) would bring their rise as a superpower to a near-standstill.

Sure, respect and international standing is important to China, far more important than it is for the USA or most/all EU countries. But if people actually want China to stop supporting the Burmese military they'll need to do more than make them feel a little uncomfortable about it - they'll need to show that it's completely unacceptable and they want nothing to do with them until things change.

This won't happen, of course, if anything does it'll be a toothless Olympic ban. That way Ireland can pretend like it cares but make sure it still gets all the actual benefits of a relationship with China.

(If you think an Olympic boycott is effective then look at 1980 - made zero difference)

The fortunes of the EU and US are bound up in China's fortune. Boycotting Chinese goods would effectively mean boycotting our own goods.

The reason, presumably, the Olympics is being talked about as a possible lever is because it's the one thing that can be done that's of little consequence. It's purely symbolic. But symbolism can count for something in international relations

The reason the boycott of South African food and drink worked, for example, worked because hurting the apartheid regime didn't mean hurting ourselves. China is a different animal.

Watching this debate unfold, though, I can't help but think that in some quarters, the concern is not so much about anti-junta protests in Burma than a thought experiment in how to influence, or contain China. Perhaps motivated by an underlying fear of the 'Yellow Peril'.

MoominPapa

flogen wrote:

(If you think an Olympic boycott is effective then look at 1980 - made zero difference)

There is a big difference between Brezhnev era Soviet Union and PR China today. China wants to be seen as a responsible and active member of the world community with an expanding economy, Brezhnev was a belligerent b*llox in a stagnant economy that he wasn't concerned about. China's economic power and foreign currency reserves means economic tactics will take time to impact and they can react themselves to such threats, whereas threatening an olympic boycott could have an immediate impact as they won't want anything tarnishing the run up to the games, never mind the games themselves

mike65

Glad someone had the wit to mention 1980. While China might appear more exposed than USSR, its a simple fact of economics that China is too big to boycott. The whole base of low-to-middle manufacturing is now focused on that country and if we wanted to indulge in a boycott of same we could'nt. No-one is set up to replace Chinas' vast capacity and business would keep buying from that country.

Mike.

flogen

DadaKopf wrote:

The fortunes of the EU and US are bound up in China's fortune. Boycotting Chinese goods would effectively mean boycotting our own goods.

That's kind of my point; we can act all pissy and pretend that China's the bad guy in all of this when really we're reliant on them as much as Burma is.

The reason, presumably, the Olympics is being talked about as a possible lever is because it's the one thing that can be done that's of little consequence. It's purely symbolic. But symbolism can count for something in international relations

Very little, I think. Symbolism is by definition a very shallow thing and while a boycott of the Olympics is not something China would relish, it's not something that will upset them all that much either.

The reason the boycott of South African food and drink worked, for example, worked because hurting the apartheid regime didn't mean hurting ourselves. China is a different animal.

That's the problem I have with any call for a boycott; no country or person is really willing to stand the consequences of what a real boycott would bring so they fly these silly ideas about boycotting something for symbolic reasons... all to pretend like we want something done when in reality we do but just not at our expense.

I'm not being idealistic and saying we should be willing to do so, I'm just pointing out the hypocracy of those who say they support Burma but aren't willing to do so in ways that could actually make a difference.

There is a big difference between Brezhnev era Soviet Union and PR China today. China wants to be seen as a responsible and active member of the world community with an expanding economy,

I think that's a bit of a myth, frankly. China want to be a respected player on the world stage and they know that economic power brings that respect. There's little about the Chinese regime that suggests they want to be responsible.

What they realise at the moment, and this incident is crystalising it, is that the world may disagree with it on many issues but it's too important and powerful to be taken to task on such. They see plenty of respect coming from nations in the economic sphere and as long as this stays the same won't get too hung up if they, quite literally, won't play ball in their park.

China's economic power and foreign currency reserves means economic tactics will take time to impact and they can react themselves to such threats, whereas threatening an olympic boycott could have an immediate impact as they won't want anything tarnishing the run up to the games, never mind the games themselves

If they didn't want their image tarnished in the run up to the games they'd have made their opinions known to the Burmese army already as they know they'll be made guilty by association. They at the very least would have told the military not to start another massacre.

But they don't seem to have done that because they either don't care about the olympics enough to risk their control over Burma, or because they know the wider world won't care enough about Burma to risk their relationship with China.

gbh

The leaders in the West have taken too soft a line for too long on Burma but more importantly on China. China gives material support and political backing at the UNSC table to a number of regimes such as Burma, Sudan, and others who are often responsible for gross human rights infrigements and they will continue to do this for as long as the West turns a blind eye. I guess its the old way of spheres of influence whose time has really passed. The Western leaders must use the threat of a boycott of the Olympics as soon as possible until there is regime change in Burma. In my opinion the timing couldn't be better for this tactic and it must be used. In fact while China supports and gives arms to the generals in Burma, then the West should have nothing to do with the Bejing Olympics.

Manic Moran

The reason the boycott of South African food and drink worked

You really think it worked as in it was a factor in the end of Apartheid, or do you mean it worked as in it was an act which was sustainable by us Western Denizens which made us think that we were having an effect?

NTM

gbh

MoominPapa wrote:

There is a big difference between Brezhnev era Soviet Union and PR China today. China wants to be seen as a responsible and active member of the world community with an expanding economy, Brezhnev was a belligerent b*llox in a stagnant economy that he wasn't concerned about. China's economic power and foreign currency reserves means economic tactics will take time to impact and they can react themselves to such threats, whereas threatening an olympic boycott could have an immediate impact as they won't want anything tarnishing the run up to the games, never mind the games themselves

Yes good point. The only people with real influence over the Burmese generals is the Chinese. You threathen them with some form of punitive action then they will soon threathen the Burnese generals with punitive action. As has been seen you get nowhere with peaceful protests against the Burmese generals so then you have to get tough. 20 years of peaceful action has lead to nothing except two fingers to the West so its time to up the ante against them. Without invading and overthrowing them, you have to tell the Chinese to impose sanctions and isolate the regime and stop giving them arms. That's not wishy washy thinking, its real world pragmatism. Boycotting the Olympics is an action as opposed to the mere talking that usually goes on among all classes in the West.

edanto

Well, what can we do? We could try to apply direct pressure to the Burmese government and see if that gets results. The guys over at avazz will have pull page ads in the Asian papers tomorrow and their way of getting attention is to try and get a million signatures as a symbol of public dissatisfaction, and they're halfway there.

From here, we could each write letter or call our representatives, in Europe and locally - get stronger statements from the government that have been forthcoming along the lines of freezing assets of the Burmese generals. Families of the generals have been already moved out of the country - no-one knows where, but there must be a way to apply financial pressure on the generals.

This could be the impetus the UN needs to push through legislation supporting the NGO-created International Criminal Court. There is clear evidence of criminal behaviour.

The Chinese public seem to be quite protected from the opinion of the rest of us, so perhaps Dada is right above to suggest that some people are interested to know if there is a way to influence Chinese movements. So far, we've seen that it can be difficult to contain the imperial acts of the current superpower, but it will be worthwhile trying to get the Chinese to apply some pressure on the generals.

They don't need the gas and if they see that they can get a karma return on intervening to support human rights in Burma, the regime there might learn a lesson. The kind of karma return could be something economic or something symbolic - don't know really.

Are there any avenues into the Chinese web? I'm guessing there isn't a boards.cn - and the whole web in china is heavily censored if reports are to be believed. Any big Chinese newspapers that aren't published by the government or cronies? If there are, we could write a letter between us to gets something snappy and then all put our names to it and send it to that paper.

Maybe those aren't the best ideas about what we could do about it. Anything else come to mind?

Manic Moran

I'm still trying to see why China should be held responsible, just because they -could- do something but failed to interfere in another country's activities. The 1980 boycott against the Soviets was against Soviet, not client action. It sets a precedent that I'm not sure many people here would be happy to see followed to its logical conclusion.

NTM

edanto

I don't know if China are at fault. Do you think China have done anything to create the situation? Are they in a position to apply diplomatic pressure, or flex economic muscle to alleviate human rights abuses?

I would suggest that they have a moral responsibility to act. As we all do.

jonny72

I think as long as the Chinese people are kept in the dark about events such as Burma then the Chinese gov can and will continue to support the Burmese Junta. The Olympics seems to be one of the few ways to perhaps get through to the Chinese people, through boycott, protests, demonstrations and otherwise.

Many Chinese I've talked to seem to have little correct knowledge of their own history and have very skewed (and wrong) views about such things as Tibet and Tiannamen Square.

eoin5

jonny72 wrote:

Many Chinese I've talked to seem to have little correct knowledge of their own history and have very skewed (and wrong) views about such things as Tibet and Tiannamen Square.

Yea they do have some outrageous views. Its a bit like the Turks and the Armenian Holocaust.

Either way news in China travels slowely, people die quickly. We need direct action against the junta and waiting around while China shrugs its shoulders isnt going to help.

edanto

jonny72 wrote:

Many Chinese I've talked to seem to have little correct knowledge of their own history and have very skewed (and wrong) views about such things as Tibet and Tiannamen Square.

OT, but backs up your point about young Chinese only knowing a certain version of events. In this film, some young people are shown the image that we all remember from 1989, but it means nothing to them othen than just a picture of a man in front of a tank http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/view/
(I've just discovered that this film won't stream here in Ireland/UK, I was out of the country when I watched it last.)

On topic, has anyone here done anything political about Burma yet?

seamus

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm still trying to see why China should be held responsible, just because they -could- do something but failed to interfere in another country's activities. The 1980 boycott against the Soviets was against Soviet, not client action. It sets a precedent that I'm not sure many people here would be happy to see followed to its logical conclusion.

I think that most people aren't necessarily holding China responsible, but they are acting like the bouncer blocking the door while a guy gets a beating behind him. They have effectively made the UN impotent on the issue and their stance coupled with their interest in Burma gives the world the impression that any attempts to go over the UN's head will be met with resistance from China.
I don't think any country is willing to risk waking up the Chinese military.

irish eyes

lastest news from burma oct 3
it has been heard that 17 trucks full loaded with people left InnSein GTI campus last night in Yangon. it is not known exactly whether those people on the trucks are monks who are forced to change to civilian clothes or the people who are arrested during the protests. This evening, at Bahan Road No. (3), every male between the ages of 15 - 40 were detained. Only old men, who are around 70 - 80 yrs old, and women were left behind
Received news that SPDC Prime Minister Soe Win has died from blood cancer on the evening of 2nd Oct
it has been confirmed by KNU that Colonel Htay Win from Battalion 99 has defected to thai boarder with his son. http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?idthis video shows the police (lone htane) beating up the protestors brutally after arresting them. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/02/riv
there have been yhousand of monks killes. some dumped in rivers other in jungles. others stripped of their robes, shackled. still on hunger strike. a report from yesterday, monks in monstery heads beaten on wall, stripped of robes and thrown into vans for disposal. a few elder monks hide. this info i got from http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

o.0

blood cancer?

blood can get cancer?

irish eyes

Mordeth wrote:

o.0

blood cancer?

blood can get cancer?

called lukemia...can't sp...but i'm sure u know what i mean:rolleyes:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oooh, that's what leukimia is

riight

oh, back on topic.. apologies for the spam

edanto

Speaking of spam, here's a notice of an event that's on tomorrow. I don't know anything about it other than it's on.

Details copied from http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=6510226862

6th of October
At O'Connell Bridge 12 noon
We shall be casting flowers into the Liffey as a symbol of grief and solidarity with the monks and people of Burma.

Also on Saturday, Burma Action Ireland will be raising money for Burmese refugees at a bag-pack in Tesco, Dun Laoghaire, and I would be very grateful for any volunteers to help with this.
Get in touch in ring on 01 286 0497

EDIT - There's also a list of things that you can do at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24957770200

Sand

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government. Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in an oppressive dictatorship? All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.

6th of October
At O'Connell Bridge 12 noon
We shall be casting flowers into the Liffey as a symbol of grief and solidarity with the monks and people of Burma.

Thats nice.

lostexpectation

irish eyes wrote:

lastest news from burma oct 3
it has been heard that 17 trucks full loaded with people left InnSein GTI campus last night in Yangon. it is not known exactly whether those people on the trucks are monks who are forced to change to civilian clothes or the people who are arrested during the protests. This evening, at Bahan Road No. (3), every male between the ages of 15 - 40 were detained. Only old men, who are around 70 - 80 yrs old, and women were left behind
Received news that SPDC Prime Minister Soe Win has died from blood cancer on the evening of 2nd Oct
it has been confirmed by KNU that Colonel Htay Win from Battalion 99 has defected to thai boarder with his son. http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?idthis video shows the police (lone htane) beating up the protestors brutally after arresting them. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/02/riv
there have been yhousand of monks killes. some dumped in rivers other in jungles. others stripped of their robes, shackled. still on hunger strike. a report from yesterday, monks in monstery heads beaten on wall, stripped of robes and thrown into vans for disposal. a few elder monks hide. this info i got from http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/.

thanks for the update

does this guy dieing change anything?

who is this guy that defected?

seems that they are good few army people refusing to repress the people if not cross over, Is a military coup the best bet for democracy?

http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2007/October/4/Burmese-soldiers-were-17939.asp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2577680.ece
If I shot monks I'd go to Hell, says major who fled



I am sure officers must have refused their orders to shoot monks. They will themselves be shot — it will happen in a prison and we will never hear about it. If I went back to Burma,

Of the officers who were loyal to the junta, he said: “There are two reasons for loyalty; they become rich from business, and they are afraid of being killed for disobedience. But in their hearts many of them loathe Than Shwe’s cruelty and they are with the people. I haven’t heard of soldiers mutinying, but it could happen.

“Than Shwe will try to hang on to power, but I believe this time next year he will be gone. There are other soldiers who want his power.”



who are the leaders of burma most afraid of, I mean why didn't allow the government to form after going as far as holding elections?



surprised to hear they agreed to a meeting ang sun?

jonny72

Sand wrote:

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government. Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in a liberal democracy? All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.

This post is sarcasm right?

If not, it seems to fail to identify that people are no longer living in 18th Century France. If you were Burmese, you would obviously want to be rid of that military junta so what would you do? join in the rising and protests in the hope that it would work, or stay at home in the knowledge that it wasn't going to work. What would your family have let you do? would your mother and relatives protest in the knowledge that at least 3000 had been slaughtered years before? Dictators and juntas have adapted.

Dictators like Saddam and Kim Il Yong have or had systems that are almost impossible to break simply because they give the weak and fearful power against the strong ones who could possibly challenge the dictatorship, just look at how the Ba'ath party operated.

Do you think the black people dragged over in chains to the States deserved that? that the people of North Korea deserve their situation? That the Jews in the concentration camps deserved their situation? because they didn't go and "bloody well" rise up..

Sand

This post is sarcasm right?

No, I dont think so. That was basically the gist of the argument against intervention as I recall it. People seemed to be quite serious when presenting it.

Do you think the black people dragged over in chains to the States deserved that? that the people of North Korea deserve their situation? That the Jews in the concentration camps deserved their situation? because they didn't go and "bloody well" rise up..

Again, Burma is a sovereign state with its own government. Who are we to judge their system of government? Is our so called "democracy" any better? Some guy got beaten up in Garda custody not so long ago. Ive also heard some Gardai were rude and nasty to some young people exercising their right to assemble freely by the canal and drink cans of dutch gold as part of their struggle for democracy and freedom. Clearly were in no position to lecture the fine men and women of the Burmese secret police.

Like I said, the neo con/neo imperialists need to learn to respect the UN and the right to self determination of the Burmese people.

Mick86

Sand wrote:

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. .

I thought that's what they were trying to do.

Sand wrote:

Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government.

I doubt it.

Sand wrote:

Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in an oppressive dictatorship? .

This is also true. Regime change is a bad idea to be planting in the minds of people like the Chinese, Russians, Iranians and other nice people. It also has a habit of turning around and biting the hand that changes the regime. Like in Iraq. Not that deposing mass murdering madmen is a bad thing it just needs to be done subtly.

Sand wrote:

All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.

Tut Tut.

Mick86

Sand wrote:

No, I dont think so. That was basically the gist of the argument against intervention as I recall it. People seemed to be quite serious when presenting it.

It always makes me laugh when people who start foaming at the mouth when you mention the US intervention in Iraq start waffling on about invading Zimbabwe and Burma.

edanto

Sand wrote:

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government. Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in an oppressive dictatorship? All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.



Thats nice.

The postneocon satire you're trying to pull falls apart when I point out that no-one has called for the US to invade and take over the gasfields.

You read the bit about the flowers, right? A spectacle, to attract attention. Maybe you have a better idea for what should be done? Some sort of armed conflict to resolve this the old-fashioned way?

Well, look if you think there's another way for it to be fixed I'd like to read it.

Edit: Only just now saw the posts where you explained a bit more, I had been looking at an old copy of the thread. About the guards here that break the law, that's not quite on the same scale as Burma. They're not exactly filling busses and lorries with trainee Capuchins and imprisoning them under armed guard in Croker. And killing the leaders.

You mentioned respecting the UN. Do you think there is any advantage in giving the UN more authority somehow, for situations like this. Or perhaps more of a rotation of countries on the Security Council instead of the winners of WWII?

MoominPapa

Sand wrote:

Burma is a sovereign state with its own government.

The current government in Burma is illegitimate having disregarded the results democratic elections in 1990 in which the National League for Democracy won 392 out of 492 seats. After refusing to honor the results the junta repressed the NLD and arrested may of its members forcing many others into exile, it has also held its leader , Nobel Peace Prize holder Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for most of that time since. Burma is a country without a consistution, the last one being suspended in 1988 when the current junta took power. This means the junta rule by dictate. Dispite vast natural resources and a population of 55 million the annual GDP is only $1691 ranked 150th in the world. Coupled with chronic infrastructural deficits and , according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the 15th highest military spending in the world and endemic corruption and the use of forced labour, the International Labour Organisation is bringing a case to the International Court of Justice to prosecute members of the junta for crimes against humanity, the current regime is incapable and unwilling to ensure the health, wellbeing and prosperity of its own people.
Of course if you are not a democrat then maybe you can find a way to regard it as legimate

Is our so called "democracy" any better?

Yes it is unless you are mad.

Some guy got beaten up in Garda custody not so long ago. Ive also heard some Gardai were rude and nasty to some young people exercising their right to assemble freely by the canal and drink cans of dutch gold as part of their struggle for democracy and freedom.

The Garda Ombudsman will be on the case in no time I'm sure

Clearly were in no position to lecture the fine men and women of the Burmese secret police.

Yes, yes we are.

Like I said, the neo con/neo imperialists need to learn to respect the UN and the right to self determination of the Burmese people.

They are by calling on the junta to recognise the democratic choice of the Burmese people in 1990

Sand

The postneocon satire you're trying to pull falls apart when I point out that no-one has called for the US to invade and take over the gasfields.

Im pretty sure its not satire - its the gist of the arguments against intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Why would you confuse them with satire?

As it is people are calling for states to deliberately attempt to destabilise the sovereign government of the Burmese people, and to intefere in their internal affairs. This is shockingly arrogant - who are we in our hubris to assume that our way of government is any better than theirs? How would we react if Burma attempted to denounce, destabilise and intefere in the affairs of our country?

You read the bit about the flowers, right? A spectacle, to attract attention. Maybe you have a better idea for what should be done? Some sort of armed conflict to resolve this the old-fashioned way?

Nah, I reckon the flowers are the way to go. Demonstrations of international solidarity with the people of Darfur have already gone a long way to resolving the situation there. Clearly, it can work in Burma too.

You mentioned respecting the UN. Do you think there is any advantage in giving the UN more authority somehow, for situations like this. Or perhaps more of a rotation of countries on the Security Council instead of the winners of WWII?

Yes, definitly. The UN's highest principle is to protect sovereign governments. Given the clear threat to the Burmese government from the warmongers and demagogues, the UN requires absolute authority to prevent any effort to destabilise Burma's government.

The security council needs to be reformed too. The US, France and the UK are clearly unacceptable as they have each gone against the guiding principles of the UN in modern times - who can forget the disgraceful NATO aggression against the Balkans? In clear violation of the UN security council.

We need new points of view, new fresh voices that arent afraid to speak up for the rights of sovereign governments to deal with their own internal affairs however they wish - we need to see Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma on the security council straight away. Russia and China arent perfect, but they do hold to UN principles to some degree and would be acceptable in the short term.

Mick86

Sand wrote:

we need to see Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma on the security council straight away. Russia and China arent perfect, but they do hold to UN principles to some degree and would be acceptable in the short term.

Now I know you're taking the p!ss.

Chechnya, Tibet, the Falun Gong, Tianeman Square. Ringing any bells here? The Russians have killed at least 60,000 civilians in Chechnya and China runs what are in effect death camps for dissidents. And that's just the stuff we hear about.

edanto

Sand wrote:

No, I dont think so. That was basically the gist of the argument against intervention as I recall it. People seemed to be quite serious when presenting it.

You seem to be referring to a specific intervnetion. Are you referring to the US-Iraq conflict?

Sand

You seem to be referring to a specific intervnetion. Are you referring to the US-Iraq conflict?

No, I've always understood that the case for respecting the right to self determination of another country is principled - i.e. not case specific.

edanto

Sand wrote:

As it is people are calling for states to deliberately attempt to destabilise the sovereign government of the Burmese people, and to intefere in their internal affairs. This is shockingly arrogant - who are we in our hubris to assume that our way of government is any better than theirs? How would we react if Burma attempted to denounce, destabilise and intefere in the affairs of our country?

So, your definition of 'sovereign government' is 'the people that are in charge at the moment'.

And they shouldn't be criticised because of the fear that we might be wrong? Is that really all you've come in to the thread to say?

It's hard to see the point you're making with all the sarcasm. Could you be more specific. Are you suggesting
(1) We should just say nothing and let things progress as they will
(2) Something else

And if it's (2), could you be explicit.

karen3212

But the Burmese government is not the legitimate government of Burma, so the UN soverignty thing doesn't apply, or does it? Anyway bombing the place from the air could kill far more people than the Junta kills in the same time.

I am watching the Non-violence lectures on youtube at the moment, from UCBerkeley, perhaps I'll learn something about solving conflicts without violence.