Burma protest
 

The massive protests and resulting crackdown has been top-of-the-hour news for the entire last week here in Oslo, Norway... I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about this yet. (And no, I'm not going to call it Myanmar.)

To see thousands of crimson-robed Buddhist monks marching in the streets so boldly is incredible... one has to understand the status of monks in Southeast Asian society. These monks have balls of steel, if you ask me, but I just wonder what good any of it is really going to do. They are doing so much to get the world's attention, and they have our attention... but for what?

I'm not going to sum up the details here, since I assume you all have access to various online news sources, but I did want to post this piece from a recent editorial about the events, from the Seattle Times.
I hate the fact that because the US (and most of the West) has no real interest in Burma, that they are just going to sit there and say, "Uh, please use UTMOST RESTRAINT, and stuff. Thank you." What the fuck is that going to do? Here, yet again, is a grass-roots movement for democracy, exactly what the US is supposed to care so much about (and supposedly our justification for intervening in Iraq, among other places)... but we all know that nobody really gives a shit.

Sure, we'll sit around and watch it on the news, maybe some hippies among us will sport a red shirt this weekend in solidarity (yes, I've seen a group on Facebook for this very cause), but then what? Life will go on, as usual, in Burma. Oooh, sanctions, how scary... as if that's going to make the military junta think twice about crushing their own citizens, after how many years of treating them like shit. The whole thing pisses me off... that we have to resort to hoping that CHINA will do something to slap Burma's hand? Yeah, right.

Just wondering what you all think. Maybe this belongs in Politics. But I just want to get it on the boards somewhere, at least.

I did see a quick blurb about this on the evening news. You're right. Since the only thing we know, generally, about them comes from "One Night In Bangkok," there is so little interest. I'm on my way to work, so I'll comment more later.

But, uh, did you just say you were in Oslo?

Who are you, Carmen San Diego?

So this is not going wall-to-wall on US news stations? I'm just curious, because I've seen it on the front page of the online Seattle Times, and it's all over CNN, so I assumed everyone was seeing it as much as I was. I think this is the 11th or 12th day of protests so far, so it's not like breaking news or anything... but it's been on at 8am, 9am, etc every day that we've been here.

:) Hehe. Ktspktsp has a business training course here in Oslo for the week, so we're checking out Norway while we can (we're spending this weekend at 70 degrees latitude!). This is our banner year for European travel... but more about that in my journal, later. :D

Unfortunately for most of the world, with the exception of the Holocaust perhaps (the ending of which just happened to coincide with our interests), intervention never seems to come where it is needed most. I've been watching this develop with a dreadful sense of familiarity.

I don't watch television news so I couldn't tell you what the coverage is like, but it has been pretty prominently featured on the MSN and NYT websites.

My question then is what would you have the western world do? What does the west have to force the Junta's hand? I've thought about this for a bit, and maybe it's because I'm too unimaginative, but I don't see many options out there. Political isolation? They've done a fine job cutting themselves off. Military invasion? Too extreme. Peacekeeping force? Has that ever worked?

To be honest, if the west can't even be bothered with Darfur, what makes you think they'll care about Burma?

Okay, I guess I don't watch TV news much either (in Iceland we only have two channels anyway, neither of which are international news ones), but since we're in a hotel in Oslo with cable, I've had it on more than usual... and I'm just astounded by the images. This is one time when I've been glad to be watching TV news, because it's phenomenal what coverage they've been able to "smuggle" out of the country via the internet. Although today, apparently the gov't has cut the internet lines, so there won't be much more coming out (and just as the violent crackdown has gotten underway, too). Uggh.

You know, just once, I'd like to see a Western country DO something about decent people suffering (especially for "democracy," if that's what we're supposed to care so much about) in a country that lacks our economic interest. Instead, they just get seen/portrayed as "brown people killing themselves in fucked up countries," at least from my extremely cynical viewpoint on the matter. I'd like to think that something like the killing fields (Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, 1970s) would never happen again in this day and age, but nope. No one gives a fuck. Darfur, anyone?

Here it is again, from Hotel Rwanda... it was my signature at one point, last year when Israel was bombing the shit out of Lebanon and once again, all that the powers could be said was: "Uhh, use extreme restraint. That's all."

Paul Rusesabagina: I am glad that you have shot this footage and that the world will see it. It is the only way we have a chance that people might intervene.

Jack: Yeah and if no one intervenes, is it still a good thing to show?

Paul Rusesabagina: How can they not intervene when they witness such atrocities?

Jack: I think if people see this footage they'll say, "oh my God that's horrible," and then go on eating their dinners.

JJ, Bangkok is in Thailand...


The west isn't going to be able to do much there. The real work needs to be done by the ASEAN nations. Interestingly they managed to get the Myanmar government to sign onto an agreement to human rights clause in the last ASEAN summit.

It was a move in the right direction but it wasn't enough.

Now that the military has killed a German and a Japanese journalist, perhaps Japan (at least) might make some stronger rumblings.

In the end, I am afraid that no one will do anything, just like they did nothing when 3000 were killed for protesting in the late 90s.

i guess we *could* get involved. but then we are already spread pretty damn thin with iraqistan. we don't have enough people to send to do anything but watch what happens, and troop deployment costs money that people don't want to spend. also, i would expect everyone to see this as a "bush invades another country" type of story and spin it as such...

what about the pathetically mismanaged and impotent U.N.? isn't this a job for them? they were useless in somalia, perhaps they can go be useless helping out the burmese? (i don't want to threadjack, i hate the u.n., but isn't this thier baliwick?)

I would say it's one of the largest issues in the news right now. During the last week or so, every time I turn to news reports I hear about this ...I mean "news" not show biz. This morning I heard a good report on NPR, I think it was BBC based, including interviews with a Myanmar news media person, a peaceful demonstration/political process expert from NYC, they played the official Myanmar government English language radio broadcast version of the events; it left me with what I think is some insight into what might be going on in the background/underground as far as reorganizing and continuing the peaceful revolution until the change the people want happens.

Sorry, you posted while I was typing, but man... I dunno. I guess it's just so hypocritical, you know, that we can have all the motivation in the world to storm into Iraq and spend trillions of dollars on a war there over several years, all to "free the people" and give them democracy, when there's TONS of people needing to be freed in other countries, and working HARD on their own effort to be freed, and we just say, "Oh, please use restraint..." because they don't have anything we want.

I think I'm really reacting to that line more than anything, probably because every world leader who has been on TV news (addressing the UN, mostly) has used this line... and what the hell does it mean? USE RESTRAINT? They're a military junta! Christ. We are the ones who have to restrain them, with force, if you ask me. Or something more than words and sanctions... I don't know.

Late 80s, but yeah... the difference is that back then, people might have gotten away with saying, "Oh, I didn't know about this," since there were only phone lines and maybe some news pieces leaking out of the situation. But with the internet, I've just been floored by how much coverage I'm seeing about this... and yet, so little reaction. I'm not just talking about the US, but certainly the hypocrisy bullshit stinks highest from there... but yes, where is the UN? Western Europe? Maybe ASEAN, but can they really do anything? Do they have any force?

And that's the key. There are no interests in Myanmar/Burma. Sending US troops, even if they're tied in with a UN peacekeeping force (which the federal govenment will never agree to in the first place unless they're running the show) will sooner or later conjure up images of East Timor, Haiti, and most importantly, Somalia. Plus, with American troops so close to China, the Chinese government is bound to see this as a threat, and who knows what kind of diplomatic problems that'll set off.

The way I see it, anything worse than sanctions will affect the citizens worse than it'll affect the Junta, and the use of force will be an outright disaster.

There's nothing wrong with seeing the hypocrisy and being angry about it, abaya. It's quite possible you will never come to terms with the fact that the world just isn't an altruistic place. No matter how hard governments and the media try to convince you of it. I haven't.

If the US intervenes, the world calls us nasty names.
If we do nothing, the world complains we do nothing.

The rest of the free world reminds me of a petulant teens relationship to a parent.

World: I hate you, you don't let me do anything, you have no business going into my room, they are MY friends, you have no right to tell me who I can hang out with!

followed by

World: Daddy, you've got to help me, I don't know what to do! I was at a party and I crashed the car and someone got hurt and now they have me at the station, please Daddy I'm so scared!

Are the people of Burma worse off than the people of Iraq were?

Our plate is full, let one of the Western socialist powerhouses deal with it, I'm sure they have the funds and will.:rolleyes:

The people of Burma are risking everything to fight against oppression. Yes, I think that makes a big difference.

Ustwo, let me get this straight. Are you suggesting we went into Iraq primarily to free people from oppression, rather than to nurture and protect our interests in the region?

I'm not saying that the US has any right to be the world police. What I am saying is that if we are going to spew forth all kinds of bullshit rhetoric about "spreading democracy" and "freedom" and using that as a justification for starting quite clearly one of the most useless wars in history, then dammit, why don't we follow through and BE CONSISTENT about it. Which means acting on behalf of anyone fighting for democracy, anywhere, regardless of where our interests lie. This just goes to show you how much we really care about democracy, if you ask me.

Once again, case in point regarding Israel in Lebanon last summer... after all that hoo-ha about how great the Lebanese people were (after Hariri's assassination in Feb. 2005), marching and demanding democracy, kicking Syria out... Go Lebanon! But come summer 2006... oooh wait, sorry, if it's Israel bombing you, we don't care if you're risking your lives to demand democracy, we're just gonna let 1,000+ of your people die. Yeah, sorry 'bout that... umm, use restraint and stuff, okay?

You get that from what I posted where?

well, this...
I realize we're all just talking fast here, but I would think this is only relevant if you were comparing apples and apples.

You're comparing a drunken, irresponsible frat boy to a situation where thousands of monks (you have got to understand their place in that society to even grasp what this means to them) have been risking their lives every day, and thousands more citizens are joining them, also risking their lives, just for a chance at living without a military junta's knives at their throats?

C'mon, Ustwo... I know you have your opinions, but don't tell me you've adopted the attitude of, "oh yay, more brown people getting themselves killed in a fucked-up third-world country, change the channel please..."

Duh... typo. Yes, the 80s.

ASEAN has more diplomatic ties with Burma than does the West. The only other nation with enough influence to force this issue is China but they have a very firm stance on non-interference into other nation's internal affairs.

Well, hey. At least they're consistent. :skeptical:

You know, I love it when threads move this fast. Especially threads with subjects like this. We need more of them.

There's not really much the US or Europe can do at this point that they're not already doing. Invasion is a non-starter for more reasons that I can count. The Junta will never allow a peacekeeping force inside the borders, so the only alternative seems to me to be an uninvited force. So that's off the table.

Really, if the Chinese and Indians stop selling arms to the Burmese, things would eventually fall apart. If the Army has a diminished ability to keep itself in place, then the ability of the people to seize power increases. That pattern has repeated itself over and over in the last 100 years. It's not an immediate fix, but it's the one I know might work.

Going back to what can be done now, I think that the West's response actually has more effect than folks realize. NPR interviewed a Burmese leader from the 80's who's now living in the US, and he thinks that sactions keep the movement motivated to keep going. It's an interesting theory, anyway.

And how is this going to be done without making things worse? Spreading democracy and freedom is backfiring in Iraq. It backfired when we pushed Israel to allow the Palestinans to hold elections, who then voted Hamas into power. There's a name for what you want the US to do, it's called Nation Building, and in most cases, it doesn't work as intended.

The differences between Iraq and Burma are huge.

Iraq is Yugoslavia. A nation made up of waring groups that was held together by Saddam's iron fist. The US was not prepared to be that iron fist when they removed Saddam's.

Burma is like Germany in WWII. There is a general populace that is ready to embrace modernity, democracy and new levels of freedom. All that is needed is to remove the boot of the Junta from their collective necks.

I would advocate for removal of the Junta.

Heck, they even have an elected leader just waiting to step into the power vacuum, Aung San Suu Kyi. She's under house arrest in Rangoon.

Let Burma fight amongst itself. It should be allowed to work out it's own problems without other countries meddling it it's affairs. History shows that getting involved in another region's/country's business only serves to escalate the fighting.

Is that what they said when France assisted the US in the revolution?

Sigh, why do people see only what they believe they should see.

My example was not of the Burmese people, but of the people in other Western nations who now want us to come help the Burmese (while doing almost nothing to help themselves) and bitch if we don't, or call us hypocrites for not freeing everyone.

If this is big news in Norway like you say, shouldn't the EU be sending troops? Why turn to the US for leadership when all the rest of the free world does is bitch about US leadership?

*Doesn't understand your question*

France involved itself in the war that saw the Colonists go up against British rule... History suggests other than what you are suggesting.

Mmmmmm you know did France have some self interest in helping the revolutionaries out?

Since it seems if you gain anything from helping someone out it makes you somehow 'wrong' in these things.

I fully well realize that the French involved themselves in the American Revolution, but they did so only because it served their self-interests (Which, mind you, had absolutely nothing to do with 'goodwill' or 'peacekeeping').

I didn't suggest that there wasn't self interest. Just that one nation poked their nose in and the results were not all that bad...


Personally, I don't think the US should involve itself in Burma's business. It should be China and ASEAN that stick their nose in and help the people of Burma.

However, given the rhetoric of Bush around being a supporter of democracy and willing to squash oppressive regimes, etc. Burma seems perfect. Sadly, Bush was just speaking spin.

As for peacekeeping... peacekeeping should only take place when there is actually peace to keep.

Cyprus or Yugoslavia come to mind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ianasquare.jpg

That will end well.

Edit: and I'll add, exactly how many millions of people do you need to free before it is no longer 'speaking spin'?

history only "says" one thing when you dont know about it.

anyway---there is a strange consequence of 24/7 tv coverage and the ability to present footage of demos and repression in realtime, which is that much that happens in the way of everyday brutality that spectators might encounter in real time (as opposed to 30 years ago, when this sort of thing would have been maybe the topic of newspaper articles written a day or two after the fact) seems to call for Responses from Someone simply because--well---you get to see the footage.

the burmese military junta is extremely brutal and has been for most of its-what 35 years?--in power. while the repression of these protests over the past 24 hours is deplorable, what is going on pales in comparison with
the systematic use of the military to maintain itself in power, a glimpse of which surfaced across the Unocal case of the laste 1980s and the symbolic problems created by keeping aung san suu kyi under house arrest for something like a decade.

so you might wonder why nothing has "been done" about the junta.
it's hard to say.
but you might look at the labels of your eddie bauer apparel for example, if you've purchased shirts from them over the past couple years, and see where they are made.
let's see: repressive military junta, no tolerance for opposition political or trade union, a decimated economy---->CHEAP LABOR----->hmm.

just a thought.

I know I started it, but let's not derail this conversation to beat a dead horse.

China is the 800 lb gorilla in this room. Any attempts to remove the Junta by outside influences will be seen as a threat by Beijing. They shot down a UN resolution that called on the Junta to improve their human rights record. It's not as easy as getting some countries in and tossing the Junta out. Again, China will see it as a threat. Options are limited. Bush can't do anything. The only one that can put pressure on them is China, and they're not going to.

o come on---its not like the junta only just showed up in burma: it has been in power for 35 years---YEARS--and it got to power and stays in power by way of these same methods--but often exercised with greater brutality because away from 24/7 tv factoid transmission.

this isnt happening in a vacuum and the obstacles to its removal go well beyond china.

It's hard to keep up with your posts sometimes so... Huh?

I think he means that the deeper you delve into events of the past, the more fractured and unique they become and are thereby less useful as a means to illuminate the present....or something to that effect

what mm said is basically what i meant, il

Well said, RB.

I may, at some point, jump into this discussion. For now, I would like to simply post a picture/link. This is a picture of a Japanese man taking photographs of the protesters and the riot police in Burma/Myanmar as he lies dying from a gunshot wound inflicted by the police.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...09_468x338.jpg
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ops/article.do

This was the photo on the front page of the NYT this morning...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-media/1-2.jpg

It's a very powerful image...for what it's worth.

Thanks for the link, Paint.

But reading the text and looking at the images, I can only be further dismayed to realize that, if we are relying on China to 'do something' about this, how horribly incongruous that is when you take into account their abduction of Tibet.

here is a .pdf of a report from the burma human rights watch group in the uk about forced labor and rape of women workers in burma:

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/kwo.pdf

seriously, folks, this state is so much more fucked up than you think from a few shocking images...

here's a link to the group's main page for reports on conditions in burma:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/reports.php

on the burmese clothing industry (uk specific--when i have more time, i'll search up something on us-based firms doing business with this state)
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/repo...mingclean.html

a good summary page on unocal's activities in burma, the lawsuit etc.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Unocal/unocal.html

"Intervention" used to be easy. You saw a kingdom you liked, you conquered it, you probably installed a puppet government and made sure the people paid their taxes. No, I'm not pining for the "good old days", but this isn't the way things work anymore. More and more, as a global society we are starting to respect international sovereignty and the right for a nation to fix its own form of government. So you can't just swoop in, put install a government, and run things under martial law until you break the spine of the resistance.

1. Intervention is expensive. Look at Iraq. Intervention in Iraq is costing the involved players (including Iraq) unbelievable amounts of money. Then there's the cost of human lives, it's bad enough to lose your child who's out fighting your country's wars, to some it's probably worse to be out fighting some other country's war.

2. Picking a side is difficult.
You really don't have to look any further than Iran to see this effect. Boy, we really picked a great side there! And funding the Mujahideen turned around and bit us on the butt. So who do we prop up in Burma? Who gets the first serving of power? Who will last long enough to restore civil order?

3. You bring matters to a head
Nothing would bring about a civil war quicker than threatening the government in power. Governments are like living organisms, with a survival instinct and fear of death. Yeah it's bad now, but what happens when the government goes out with a poison pill tactic, taking everything else out in the process?

...is it too terribly jaded of me to, at this point, to observe that the most unique thing about Burma is that its people, right now, are possessed by a transcendent yet conspicuously dubious hope...

I should learn to take these things in small doses.

Let's redeploy our soldiers in Iraq to Burma, then we would at least be able to spot the "terrorists".....

Due to my Carmen Sandiego-ness, had to check out for a while... I'll keep checking on the thread as it develops, but I may be out of commission/connection until Monday. I like the discussion so far, however... let's keep talking.
Which Western nations are calling for the US in particular to do something? Maybe I missed this in the news, but I don't think anyone is handing the entire responsibility over to the US. As I've said before, I am not saying that the US should be the world police, nor should anyone be asking us to do so. If anything, we've taken that duty upon ourselves, not because people asked us to, but because it was in our interests to do so.

But what pisses me off (and thought I had made clear in several posts, but apparently not) is that the US *preaches about democracy and uses it as an excuse to go to war* but does shit-all to ACTUALLY intervene when democracy is the exact matter at hand. If we just went about intervening only when it mattered to us, without all the crap rhetoric about freedom and whatnot, then fine... I'd be a little less pissy about this issue. Once again, at least we'd be consistent.
Yes, I think the EU should be sending troops as well. I think EVERYone should be sending troops, or something... whatever it takes to stop this junta, as it ought to have been done anytime in the last 35 years.

We could have all pleaded innocent before the advent of instantaneous news, as I said earlier... but now, there is just no excuse. We all know what's going on there. Inaction is a form of complacency. The only people who can be said to be effectively ACTING and resisting these assholes are those very monks and civilians on the street in Yangon... and it appears that they are utterly alone, and are going to be shot or beaten and imprisoned, alone. Yay, one more point chalked up for oppression.

I believe the UN is sending a special envoy to Burma, arriving on Saturday (what good that does, don't ask me, but at least they are sending someone/thing). No one is pointing fingers at the US, except for me... and that's only because this is one stinking shithole of hypocrisy, if I've ever seen one. I thought it was bad enough with the Lebanese/Israeli summer war... but this is just unbelievable. We either need to stand down on our pro-democratic bullshit, or stand up and do something about it. There are just no two ways about it, if you ask me. We either mean what we say, or we don't.

Charlatan gets my point here:

Most of the countries currently in political turmoil have only had their independence from European imperialism for around fifty/sixty years. Concerning how relatively new most of the worlds governments are, it's no surprise that they're currently going through the same conflicts that most European and Asian countries did hundreds of years ago (See: English Civil War and the French Revolution). It's in an inevitability within any country and the worst thing which could be done would be foreign intervention. There's no better way to exaserbate (sp?) a situation than that.

That's a very good read on the growing pains of democracy IL.

DumberThanPaint: It was never as easy as you paint it. Resistance always occured, the only difference is that weapons are more readily available and communications are easier for resistance. Also, I think you meant Afghanistan in point 2.

We should have stepped in years ago when Aung San Suu Kyi was put under house arrest by the military junta.

We can't expect China to step in, as much as we would wish them to, simply because their human rights record, especially in relation to Tibet, is less than spotless. They have no loyalty to democracy, and they're just beginning to see the benefits of a free market economy. There is no reason to expect them to be as horrified with the happenings in Burma as we are. Just look at Tianamen Square.

Japan is too embroiled in corruption scandals and the resignation of their PM to go far with this. They have problems at home that need taking care of. On the other hand, Japan has powerful allies who aren't going to be pleased with the death of one of their citizens, especially in the West.

This honestly couldn't have happened at a worse time, in terms of global political climate. The United States is stretched thin in Iraqistan, and we're not going anywhere else soon, as much as we would like to help others. The most we can hope to achieve is to pressure the UN to step in and do something, and to follow through with economic sanctions, while also urging UN members in the region to do their best to pressure Burma diplomatically and economically to clean up their act.

I am discouraged by the most recent news from the region, especially in regards to further restrictions on Internet access and further blocking of websites that show the political unrest in Burma. I already fear we are too late to put an end to this turmoil, and we are too late to really help the Burmese people.

Crap.

In my defense, I didn't have a map as a little kid.



Also, further evidence of our own apathy about the world. I didn't even realize this was Myanmar.

I'm ashamed.

You are right, those were two separate thoughts under the same umbrella: Iran and Afghanistan, two interventions where American policy failed.

Oh was it easy? Of course not, but I think it's measurably easier when you don't have to go through the motions of attempting to establish a legitimate, local government. It's one less difficulty you encounter in the process.

Just to be clear, there is a good argument to be made for intervention in Burma (there has been for years). That said if it happens, it should be done by a wide reaching coalition. No one nation should be left to bear the cost and the political brunt of the freeing a nation.

As for China, I don't think it would be a good idea for China to invade. Rather, I am suggesting that China use it's diplomatic strength to work on the Junta. Before you dismiss this, China's power is both economic (they are one of the few nations still trading with Burma) and political. If China's wind shifts against the junta in combination from pressure from ASEAN, the EU and US, it could rip any economic survivability out from under the Junta.

This sort of dictatorship cannot survive without money. Those who continue to trade with Burma (and Roachboy is correct, check the labels on your gap clothes) are supporting this regime.

its too bad the people are left totally defenseless and that the police and military are the only ones with firearms. (yes, I know, this isn't about gun control....but it sure does raise an interesting point.)

dksuddeth... you do get that the protests are peaceful protests right?

I think he makes a fair point.

The JUnta has been in power for 35 years. What options other then "peaceful" resistance do you have when you can't take back your independence or freedom?

There has been plenty of coverage on this, beginning with the very odd Bush condemnation of the turmoil in Burma in his speach to the UN. You just won't find the coverage in the corporitized media in the US. Abaya is correct that this is huge news elsewhere, so why not here?

If it isn't obvious to the least decerning among us, let me spell it out.

- Bush wouldn't give a flip unless there were US economic interests at stake.
- Unocol was bought out by Chevron the instant their lawsuits in the area were settled.
- Chevron is now in participation with the junta for all oil and gas operations.
- The US sanctions applied to Burma conveniently excuse Chevron.

Always follow the money, people, and find a news source outside the US.

----------------
An aside, in support of open communication:

Jazz, we would have a much better explanation of the Burma event had you not chosen to minimize host's posts. He has explained several times why he posts articles in full in the Politics forum, but y'all just don't want to hear it.

This topic belongs in Politics, but I can understand why abaya would avoid that forum. The recent emphasis of tfp also having a political focus is a cruel joke, if you silence host.

The Politics forum is moribund. If Hal is sincere in emphasizing politics once again, and not just pretending to be something more than a T&A board, he couldn't find anyone other that host to revive this forum and kick up some interest once again.

Politics isn't pretty, and monks are being murdered. How does one separate the two?

You're kidding, right... we're talking about Buddhist monks here. BUDDHIST MONKS. And you think they ought to be *armed*? :orly:

I'm back in Iceland now, and while the Burma news is no longer making the front page here, I'm still hearing stories about it hourly on BBC radio (one of my most important sources of news here). We don't have CNN here, so I don't know how it's being covered there, but I hope it hasn't faded this quickly. BBC has been doing opinion pieces on whether or not the protests have failed, and whether or not the decreased news coverage will submerge this issue to irrelevance for another 20 years...

And yeah, Elphaba, I briefly considered putting this in Politics, but I didn't want just the usual suspects responding to this. The only way to get a wide variety of responses to a political topic is to post it in Discussion, unfortunately. Or at least, that's my perception.

when people are being rounded up and arrested in the middle of the night or being killed by the hundreds in the street, thats not peaceful.

as monks, they choose not to be armed. that is their choice. what of the others though?

You mean the other Buddhists? The monks are not operating within a vacuum. They are leading other Buddhists.

Although Buddhists using violence isn't unprecedented. Even in the modern age. If you remember the violent struggles in South Korea in the late '90s between different factions of Buddhist monks there.

But I don't think it is a precendent that most Buddhists look on as particularly Buddha-like.

Meh.

America got the shit kicked out of it for 8 years (arguably only 6) before we gained our independance. Nowadays people want revolutions that fit nicely into 2 minute clips on the evening news.

Instant gratification, hooray for freedom.


I wish the Burmese the best of luck.

I can't help letting this though creep into the back of my mind again like it did when the Darfur situation made prime time news. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion, but then again, many of mine aren't.

What if instead of demanding that our government intervene, we cut out the middleman? Take donations internationally, pool the money, and commission a private security firm (like the ones we use as mercenaries in Iraq) to overthrow the oppressive government. State the goal as having the oppressive government out of power by a certain time, at which there will be democratic elections guaranteed and guarded by those security forces and monitored by the UN or whatever international organization is capable of overseeing elections and detecting or preventing fraud. When the election is done and a new government is ready to take power, the UN can send in peacekeepers to ensure that the government that the people want remains stable. Mandate that the peacekeeper presence will be reduced to a minimum after the next election and that the military of the country will take over at that time.

Yeah, cause employing someone like Blackwater to clean up the junta will take care of the situation. I don't think this is the best course of action, period. We have had enough problems with contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to know this isn't wise.

Like China's going to stand by and let that happen.

why hire mercenaries then? If we're that interested in helping the burmese throw off the mantle of oppression, lets go over their ourselves?