In short, the FES thinks that “reconciliation” and “constructive dialogue” between the military junta and the oppositional forces will make the generals withdraw from politics and open the way for democracy. The foundation is also of the opinion that the adoption of their iconographic former chairperson’s, Willy Brandt, approach to overcoming the West-East division of Europe–“change through rapproachment”–is the way for Burma to go (as if that was what made the Eastern bloc tumble). Oh, yes, and “dialogue forums” to “peacefully solve conflicts” completes the FES’ strategy to push the generals out.
It is good to know that the German taxpayers pay people such as FES a great deal of money for their heroic efforts to save the world (here Burma).
Betr: J├╝ngstes Engagement der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Burma/Myanmar
vom 29. September bis 6. Oktober 2007
1) Als politische Stiftung sind wir als Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung sehr daran interessiert, einen Beitrag zur nationalen Aussöhnung zwischen den demokratischen Kr├дften, den ethnischen Nationalit├дten und der herrschenden Milit├дrregierung zu leisten. Wir bevorzugen in diesem Kontext einen konstruktiven Dialog und Wandel durch Ann├дherung in Anlehnung an die Ostpolitik Willy Brandts statt Isolations- und Sanktionspolitik, die zu Lasten der unter der Armutsgrenze lebenden Bevölkerung geht. In diesem Rahmen sehen wir es auch als unsere Aufgabe, ├╝ber die Schaffung von Dialogforen zu einer friedlichen Lösung und Bearbeitung von Konflikten beizutragen. Zu diesem Zweck sollen die sich aus unserer Rolle als politische Stiftung ergebenden Möglichkeiten auch genutzt werden, eben jenseits diplomatischer Kan├дle auf informeller Ebenen einen kritischen Dialog und Austausch zu suchen.
2) Bereits Anfang der 1990er Jahre war die FES eine der ersten international t├дtigen politischen Organisationen, die mit der burmesischen Demokratiebewegung zusammenarbeitete und massive Unterst├╝tzung bei der Etablierung der Institutionen der Exilkr├дfte leistete. Mit der Verabschiedung des neuen Gemeinsamen Standpunkts der EU vom 25. Oktober 2004 beschloss die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, ihr Burma/Myanmar Engagement auszuweiten und im Land selbst t├дtig zu werden. Diese Bewertung erfolgte vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Isolationspolitik und die verh├дngten Sanktionen keinen sichtbaren Beitrag zu Schw├дchung des Milit├дrregimes leisteten, die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Rahmenbedingungen f├╝r die Bevölkerung sich zunehmend verschlechterten und der Dialog zwischen der Milit├дrregierung und den demokratischen Kr├дften gescheitert war. Dieser Schritt wurde sowohl mit dem AA, dem BMZ, der burmesischen Exilregierung, den demokratischen Kr├дften und den ethnischen Nationalit├дten abgestimmt. Diese Zusammenarbeit mit Organisationen der Exilregierung, ethnischer Minderheiten, Exil- und Burma-Solidarit├дtsgruppen, die sich konstruktiv an einem nationalen Versöhnungsprozess beteiligen, findet bis heute ihre Fortsetzung.
3) Im Jahr 2006 begannen FES und das Myanmar Institute for Strategic and International Studies (MISIS) mit den Vorbereitungen f├╝r den ersten und zweiten FES-MISIS Workshop zum Thema тАЮHerausforderungen und Perspektiven f├╝r die Beziehungen zwischen der EU und ASEAN“. Es handelt sich bei dem j├╝ngsten und nunmehr dritten Workshop damit um die Fortsetzung einer Workshopreihe und nicht um eine “Vermittlungsinitiative” der FES in der aktuell angespannten Situation. Die Workshopreihe verfolgt das Ziel, einer Gruppe von europ├дischen Wissenschaftlern die Möglichkeit zu einem intensiven Meinungsaustausch mit regierungsnahen KollegInnen ├╝ber die politischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklungen im Land zu bieten und Vorschl├дge f├╝r eine Verbesserung der Beziehungen zwischen der EU und Myanmar in den entsprechenden EU-ASEAN und ASEM Gremien zu entwickeln.
4) Im Vorfeld der Entscheidung wurden unterschiedliche Positionen gehört und Ratschl├дge von verschiedenen Seiten eingeholt und gegeneinander abgewogen. Die Entscheidung zur Durchf├╝hrung des Workshops wurde einstimmig gef├дllt. Die Delegation wurde darin best├дrkt, nachdem Charles Petrie (UN-Landesvertreter) die FES Delegation explizit aufgefordert hatte, die wichtigsten Gespr├дchspunkte des UN Sonderbeauftragten Ibrahim Gambari aufzunehmen und vehement in die Gespr├дche in Nay Pyi Taw einzubringen. Im ├╝brigen wurde seitens der EU Botschafter selbst betont, dass die FES als unabh├дngige Organisation eine eigenst├дndige Entscheidung treffen könne.
5) Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen sollte an diesem Workshop festgehalten werden, um insbesondere in einer kritischen Phase die verf├╝gbaren und vorsichtig etablierten Wege f├╝r einen kritischen Austausch mit den beteiligten Akteuren zu nutzen in der Hoffnung einen Beitrag zu leisten, dass sich die derzeitige Situation in friedlicher Weise mit Mitteln des Dialogs lösen l├дsst. Nicht nur in dem Workshop selbst, sondern auch in anderen Gespr├дchen mit offizieller Seite sollte die Kritik der europ├дischen Regierungen und der europ├дischen ├Цffentlichkeit an der Gewalt gegen die Demonstranten zum Ausdruck gebracht werden. Weiterhin wurde explizit betont, dass die Regierung von Myanmar mit dem Sondergesandten des UN-Generalsekret├дrs, dessen Besuch unmittelbar bevorstand, kooperieren solle. Diese und andere Punkte wurden in einer Erkl├дrung der Delegation vom 30. September der myanmarischen Seite mitgeteilt (s. Anhang). Die Argumente der Botschafter, ein einheitliches europ├дisches Meinungsbild abzugeben und der Regierung keine falschen Signale zu senden, wurde damit aufgegriffen.
6) Es fanden, wie anl├дsslich der vorangegangenen Delegationsaufenthalten auch, Treffen mit RegimekritikerInnen und VertreterInnen der Opposition statt. Bedauerlich war, dass VertreterInnen der EU-Botschaften an diesem Treffen nicht teilgenommen haben, w├дhrend z.B. UN-VertreterInnen und VertreterInnen der US-amerikanischen Botschaft diese Möglichkeit zu Gespr├дchen genutzt haben.
Bonn, 10. Okt. 2007
Dr. Beate Bartoldus
Leiterin, Referat Asien und Pazifik
Sounds like a principled guy who decides where he stands according to whether the others conform to his views. Why should he support Surayudh for the reason that he has to do a favor to Prem when the PM violates his principles? Also, he was in favor of the coup, but he does not need to defend the following actions of those involved if they do not conform to what he has in mind. Besides, I dislike this guy, because he plays his political games within the dominant oligarchy without letting the public in on his information and intentions. That is, he does not has a democratic mind (just as Thaksin, who he attacked, did not have one).
Surayud’s land steal is an issue but since it is so common in Thailand — “everybody does it” would not be far off — I am more interested in what Prasong is up to. Here’s a guy that due to his former high spook status has the goods on everyone and he doles it out when he feels like it, not with any pattern or design or principle. He’s been alternately on the side of the king, the democrats, the military coup-ists, the military anti-coupists, the pro-parliamentarian and the antis, the capitalist and the antis, end so on. Once close to Prem but battering Prem’s guy now; backed the coup but now won’t defend it. He seems to be a nihilist just tossing grenades when he wants. Does anyone have another view of what his purpose is? Does anyone like him? Is he just an establishment version of Pansak Vinyaratn?
[…] Der Spiegel has a good┬ article (unfortunately only in German – but┬ very roughly translated here) about the recent visit to Burma by a delegation from the┬ Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation closely associated with Germany’s Social Democratic Party.┬ I first┬ wrote about this visit┬ earlier this week. […]
We usually have several varieties of nam phrik around the house. My wife is a master with the chili paste, and I find it a great bachelor condiment that can easily be added to just about anything I make that is then eaten over the sink. But having spent far too much time in agricultural areas of Thailand, I highly doubt claims of this or any other food item in Thailand being “chemcial” free or organic. Thai farmers are addicted to cheap biocides to protect their crops from pests and disease.
serf, because I don’t agree with the concept of ‘rights’ does not mean that I disagree with you about the disgraceful treatment of Par Par Lay or any of the other countless unnamed under detention. You would ask him under the duress of his present condition what he thinks of ‘rights’? You would get any answer you like as long as you made him feel safe… Also, I don’t think you should hold back with that brick…
Perhaps we should ask Par Par Lay whether he thinks “that ‘rights’ might be ontological determinations from the West”. I seem to remember he is one of those comedians who had all his teeth pulled out in a previous trumped-up jail visit. He almost certainly will not be returning home in one piece, if at all. Perhaps it is also that “ontological determination from the West” that stops me lobbing a brick through the windscreen of the Burmese Ambassadors limo.
“SE will have to do the job of a national narrative mitigating aggressive capitalism for the time being.” >> However, as you mention, conviction and actions are problems. Thus, they do what they have done with so many other things (democracy, planning, participation, cooperation, accountability, transparency, knowledge society, efficiency, effectiveness, monitoring, evaluation, strategy, vision, to mention just a few), that is use them as discoursive cliches that must be reproduced at the appropriate places of a “narrative” without, however, having relevance to the level of action. In this process, as you also mention, they dilute the meaning of such concepts, and might even use them as weapons against those who really adhere to such concepts in their everyday life/work.
Dear Ann, I wonder whether you will realise that ‘rights’ might be ontological determinations from the West. For many, rights are not necessary, create more problems simply through their articulation within cultures who have not organically claimed this notion to be for their politic. Why do you think you have rights? Where did they come from? When will women at protests acknowledge their idolatrous anti-pragmatic hearts of sweetened decay?
Also, Richard, I wonder how far away it is one has to be before ‘true humanism’ can be observed. Surely sitting in an chair typing at a computer isn’t human enough. My dog is on a farm right now, doing it’s rituals. It’s such a dog! Not that I don’t agree with you. But it all depends on what you want to view as ‘news’. To assume that everyone is brain dead and that this should be their news is equally disturbing as those masquerading as liberals in international media promoting what is described in the article given by serf (thanks by the way). Do you love Palestinian martyrs too?
Srithanonchai (#17) Oct 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm – you really will go to ridiculous lengths to place Thaksin Shinawatra on top of a pedestal!
But maybe you are into April fool jokes late October . . . A Swiss politiciain BUYING Swiss votes a-la-Thaksin?
Commentary: The one-sided view of Myanmar
TOKYO, Oct. 11
YOICHI YAMAGUCHI
Guest Commentary
Most international media tend to report about the current situation in Myanmar and the monks’ demonstrations as a popular uprising for democracy against the oppressive military regime. But this is too simplistic, if not one-sided.
Having been engaged with Myanmar for over a decade, first as Japan’s ambassador to the country for three years starting in 1995, then as a concerned regular visitor, I can testify that Myanmar’s military regime is quite different from those of Cambodia under Pol Pot or the Philippines under the dictatorial Ferdinand Marcos.
But international media seldom report anything positive about the current Myanmar government. For instance, most Japanese newspapers reported that 100,000 people took part in the latest anti-government demonstrations. Yet judging from TV images, this figure is grossly inflated.
This sort of bloated reporting regarding anti-government activities in Myanmar is nothing new. During my ambassadorial assignment, Japanese media used to report that 3,000-4,000 people gathered in front of Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence every week. But my staff verified that the figures were more like 500-600 people.
Indeed, media reports have always sided with Suu Kyi, as they are doing now. Japanese media would not report claims made in Myanmar’s national TV broadcasts, stating that Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy gave money to the demonstrators, and that security forces were obliged to shoot at the demonstrators who were throwing stones and attempting to snatch their weapons.
It is undeniable that many demonstrators were mobilized by the NLD for remuneration. Incidents such as monks pushing security personnel into a temple and setting their vehicles aflame were not reported by Japanese media.
Seventeen years after her election victory in 1990, the Myanmar people’s perception of Suu Kyi has largely changed. It has been widely disclosed that she received financial and political support from the United States, to the aversion of the people of Myanmar, whose memories of their colonial experience under Britain linger on. During my time as ambassador there, Suu Kyi did have frequent communications with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and received financial supports from the U.S. government and private groups.
The Myanmar government once disclosed to international reporters that it had confiscated communications equipment sent illegally from the United States. But this news hardly crossed the border. When I asked a Japanese correspondent why he did not report this, he told me that such a story was not what his head office would expect out of Myanmar.
Suu Kyi’s lack of clear political vision has also caused her popularity to dwindle. People came to realize that she has been resorting to opposition only for the sake of opposition. After the incident in 1996 when her vehicle was surrounded by rioters, she requested police protection at her residence. This is another side of her current house arrest.
As for the military regime, characterized as the epitome of evil, its biggest contribution was putting an end to the bloody, protracted civil strife involving 18 minorities and the government.
Although the military government pronounced several death sentences every year, most of them were not actually carried out. Also, the lifestyle of government officials is generally modest, with corruption cases remarkably rare as a military regime.
The regime has succeeded in maintaining economic growth of over 5percent annually, earning it widespread trust by the people. Therefore, as far as I can see, there are few who are willing to challenge the government at the risk of their lives.
The government asserts that it is currently treading the path of democratization, following a seven-stage roadmap. Its National Assembly completed deliberations on the basic principles of a new Constitution in August. The majority of the Myanmar people, I believe, understand the government’s cautious, step-by-step approach toward a democratic society.
Nation-building should be done carefully, carried out by the nation’s people in accordance with their peculiar history, culture and national character. Thus, the international community should not interfere politically but should support the country’s endeavors through aid, trade, investment and technology transfers. The reality, however, is the opposite, with the international community intervening politically and attaching screws to aid and trade.
The first step, therefore, is to halt the wrong reporting and creation of stereotypes like a samurai drama in which Suu Kyi plays the good guy and the military regime plays the bad guy.
—
(Ambassador Yoichi Yamaguchi is a career diplomat who served as Japan’s ambassador to Myanmar from 1995-97. He has written several books about the countries to which he was assigned, including “Real Images of Myanmar.” This article is translated from the Japanese and edited by UPI Asia Online. The original was published in the Japanese weekly “Shukan Shincho.” ┬йCopyright Yoichi Yamaguchi.) UNQUOTE
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Dumme Ausl├дnder?: More on the FES delegation to Burma
In short, the FES thinks that “reconciliation” and “constructive dialogue” between the military junta and the oppositional forces will make the generals withdraw from politics and open the way for democracy. The foundation is also of the opinion that the adoption of their iconographic former chairperson’s, Willy Brandt, approach to overcoming the West-East division of Europe–“change through rapproachment”–is the way for Burma to go (as if that was what made the Eastern bloc tumble). Oh, yes, and “dialogue forums” to “peacefully solve conflicts” completes the FES’ strategy to push the generals out.
It is good to know that the German taxpayers pay people such as FES a great deal of money for their heroic efforts to save the world (here Burma).
Dumme Ausl├дnder?: More on the FES delegation to Burma
From my friend here is the statement:
Betr: J├╝ngstes Engagement der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Burma/Myanmar
vom 29. September bis 6. Oktober 2007
1) Als politische Stiftung sind wir als Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung sehr daran interessiert, einen Beitrag zur nationalen Aussöhnung zwischen den demokratischen Kr├дften, den ethnischen Nationalit├дten und der herrschenden Milit├дrregierung zu leisten. Wir bevorzugen in diesem Kontext einen konstruktiven Dialog und Wandel durch Ann├дherung in Anlehnung an die Ostpolitik Willy Brandts statt Isolations- und Sanktionspolitik, die zu Lasten der unter der Armutsgrenze lebenden Bevölkerung geht. In diesem Rahmen sehen wir es auch als unsere Aufgabe, ├╝ber die Schaffung von Dialogforen zu einer friedlichen Lösung und Bearbeitung von Konflikten beizutragen. Zu diesem Zweck sollen die sich aus unserer Rolle als politische Stiftung ergebenden Möglichkeiten auch genutzt werden, eben jenseits diplomatischer Kan├дle auf informeller Ebenen einen kritischen Dialog und Austausch zu suchen.
2) Bereits Anfang der 1990er Jahre war die FES eine der ersten international t├дtigen politischen Organisationen, die mit der burmesischen Demokratiebewegung zusammenarbeitete und massive Unterst├╝tzung bei der Etablierung der Institutionen der Exilkr├дfte leistete. Mit der Verabschiedung des neuen Gemeinsamen Standpunkts der EU vom 25. Oktober 2004 beschloss die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, ihr Burma/Myanmar Engagement auszuweiten und im Land selbst t├дtig zu werden. Diese Bewertung erfolgte vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Isolationspolitik und die verh├дngten Sanktionen keinen sichtbaren Beitrag zu Schw├дchung des Milit├дrregimes leisteten, die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Rahmenbedingungen f├╝r die Bevölkerung sich zunehmend verschlechterten und der Dialog zwischen der Milit├дrregierung und den demokratischen Kr├дften gescheitert war. Dieser Schritt wurde sowohl mit dem AA, dem BMZ, der burmesischen Exilregierung, den demokratischen Kr├дften und den ethnischen Nationalit├дten abgestimmt. Diese Zusammenarbeit mit Organisationen der Exilregierung, ethnischer Minderheiten, Exil- und Burma-Solidarit├дtsgruppen, die sich konstruktiv an einem nationalen Versöhnungsprozess beteiligen, findet bis heute ihre Fortsetzung.
3) Im Jahr 2006 begannen FES und das Myanmar Institute for Strategic and International Studies (MISIS) mit den Vorbereitungen f├╝r den ersten und zweiten FES-MISIS Workshop zum Thema тАЮHerausforderungen und Perspektiven f├╝r die Beziehungen zwischen der EU und ASEAN“. Es handelt sich bei dem j├╝ngsten und nunmehr dritten Workshop damit um die Fortsetzung einer Workshopreihe und nicht um eine “Vermittlungsinitiative” der FES in der aktuell angespannten Situation. Die Workshopreihe verfolgt das Ziel, einer Gruppe von europ├дischen Wissenschaftlern die Möglichkeit zu einem intensiven Meinungsaustausch mit regierungsnahen KollegInnen ├╝ber die politischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklungen im Land zu bieten und Vorschl├дge f├╝r eine Verbesserung der Beziehungen zwischen der EU und Myanmar in den entsprechenden EU-ASEAN und ASEM Gremien zu entwickeln.
4) Im Vorfeld der Entscheidung wurden unterschiedliche Positionen gehört und Ratschl├дge von verschiedenen Seiten eingeholt und gegeneinander abgewogen. Die Entscheidung zur Durchf├╝hrung des Workshops wurde einstimmig gef├дllt. Die Delegation wurde darin best├дrkt, nachdem Charles Petrie (UN-Landesvertreter) die FES Delegation explizit aufgefordert hatte, die wichtigsten Gespr├дchspunkte des UN Sonderbeauftragten Ibrahim Gambari aufzunehmen und vehement in die Gespr├дche in Nay Pyi Taw einzubringen. Im ├╝brigen wurde seitens der EU Botschafter selbst betont, dass die FES als unabh├дngige Organisation eine eigenst├дndige Entscheidung treffen könne.
5) Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen sollte an diesem Workshop festgehalten werden, um insbesondere in einer kritischen Phase die verf├╝gbaren und vorsichtig etablierten Wege f├╝r einen kritischen Austausch mit den beteiligten Akteuren zu nutzen in der Hoffnung einen Beitrag zu leisten, dass sich die derzeitige Situation in friedlicher Weise mit Mitteln des Dialogs lösen l├дsst. Nicht nur in dem Workshop selbst, sondern auch in anderen Gespr├дchen mit offizieller Seite sollte die Kritik der europ├дischen Regierungen und der europ├дischen ├Цffentlichkeit an der Gewalt gegen die Demonstranten zum Ausdruck gebracht werden. Weiterhin wurde explizit betont, dass die Regierung von Myanmar mit dem Sondergesandten des UN-Generalsekret├дrs, dessen Besuch unmittelbar bevorstand, kooperieren solle. Diese und andere Punkte wurden in einer Erkl├дrung der Delegation vom 30. September der myanmarischen Seite mitgeteilt (s. Anhang). Die Argumente der Botschafter, ein einheitliches europ├дisches Meinungsbild abzugeben und der Regierung keine falschen Signale zu senden, wurde damit aufgegriffen.
6) Es fanden, wie anl├дsslich der vorangegangenen Delegationsaufenthalten auch, Treffen mit RegimekritikerInnen und VertreterInnen der Opposition statt. Bedauerlich war, dass VertreterInnen der EU-Botschaften an diesem Treffen nicht teilgenommen haben, w├дhrend z.B. UN-VertreterInnen und VertreterInnen der US-amerikanischen Botschaft diese Möglichkeit zu Gespr├дchen genutzt haben.
Bonn, 10. Okt. 2007
Dr. Beate Bartoldus
Leiterin, Referat Asien und Pazifik
Thailand’s (second?) highest profile forest encroacher?
Sounds like a principled guy who decides where he stands according to whether the others conform to his views. Why should he support Surayudh for the reason that he has to do a favor to Prem when the PM violates his principles? Also, he was in favor of the coup, but he does not need to defend the following actions of those involved if they do not conform to what he has in mind. Besides, I dislike this guy, because he plays his political games within the dominant oligarchy without letting the public in on his information and intentions. That is, he does not has a democratic mind (just as Thaksin, who he attacked, did not have one).
Burma protest in Canberra on Saturday
For updates on Free Burma rallys mushrooming across Australia visit:
http://www.burmagateway.org
Nam Prik: Super food?
If that’s the case, Beth, I believe you haven’t chosen good enough ingredients.
Dumme Ausl├дnder?: More on the FES delegation to Burma
I wish I could take credit for finding the article, but a German friend kindly sent it to me.
Apparently the FES in Bangkok issued a statement (in German) about their Burma jaunt.
Thailand’s (second?) highest profile forest encroacher?
Surayud’s land steal is an issue but since it is so common in Thailand — “everybody does it” would not be far off — I am more interested in what Prasong is up to. Here’s a guy that due to his former high spook status has the goods on everyone and he doles it out when he feels like it, not with any pattern or design or principle. He’s been alternately on the side of the king, the democrats, the military coup-ists, the military anti-coupists, the pro-parliamentarian and the antis, the capitalist and the antis, end so on. Once close to Prem but battering Prem’s guy now; backed the coup but now won’t defend it. He seems to be a nihilist just tossing grenades when he wants. Does anyone have another view of what his purpose is? Does anyone like him? Is he just an establishment version of Pansak Vinyaratn?
European scholars tour Burma
[…] Der Spiegel has a good┬ article (unfortunately only in German – but┬ very roughly translated here) about the recent visit to Burma by a delegation from the┬ Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a foundation closely associated with Germany’s Social Democratic Party.┬ I first┬ wrote about this visit┬ earlier this week. […]
Nam Prik: Super food?
It also tastes much, much better with a little bit of Ajinomoto…
Nam Prik: Super food?
We usually have several varieties of nam phrik around the house. My wife is a master with the chili paste, and I find it a great bachelor condiment that can easily be added to just about anything I make that is then eaten over the sink. But having spent far too much time in agricultural areas of Thailand, I highly doubt claims of this or any other food item in Thailand being “chemcial” free or organic. Thai farmers are addicted to cheap biocides to protect their crops from pests and disease.
Locked up in Burma
serf, because I don’t agree with the concept of ‘rights’ does not mean that I disagree with you about the disgraceful treatment of Par Par Lay or any of the other countless unnamed under detention. You would ask him under the duress of his present condition what he thinks of ‘rights’? You would get any answer you like as long as you made him feel safe… Also, I don’t think you should hold back with that brick…
Locked up in Burma
Perhaps we should ask Par Par Lay whether he thinks “that ‘rights’ might be ontological determinations from the West”. I seem to remember he is one of those comedians who had all his teeth pulled out in a previous trumped-up jail visit. He almost certainly will not be returning home in one piece, if at all. Perhaps it is also that “ontological determination from the West” that stops me lobbing a brick through the windscreen of the Burmese Ambassadors limo.
The vote of the poor
I stand chastised . . . and ignorance of Swiss politics I certainly admit am I.
The vote of the poor
Col. Jeru: As nganadeeleg remarkededin a different context: “Dumb & dumber.” Maybe, you will soon get moved to an inactive position…
Examples of “sufficiency economy”
“SE will have to do the job of a national narrative mitigating aggressive capitalism for the time being.” >> However, as you mention, conviction and actions are problems. Thus, they do what they have done with so many other things (democracy, planning, participation, cooperation, accountability, transparency, knowledge society, efficiency, effectiveness, monitoring, evaluation, strategy, vision, to mention just a few), that is use them as discoursive cliches that must be reproduced at the appropriate places of a “narrative” without, however, having relevance to the level of action. In this process, as you also mention, they dilute the meaning of such concepts, and might even use them as weapons against those who really adhere to such concepts in their everyday life/work.
The vote of the poor
You are being a bit hard on Thaksin and his supporters.
Voting for ultra-nationalist/racist policies is worse than selling your vote, and requires a different sort of ignorance.
Locked up in Burma
Dear Ann, I wonder whether you will realise that ‘rights’ might be ontological determinations from the West. For many, rights are not necessary, create more problems simply through their articulation within cultures who have not organically claimed this notion to be for their politic. Why do you think you have rights? Where did they come from? When will women at protests acknowledge their idolatrous anti-pragmatic hearts of sweetened decay?
Also, Richard, I wonder how far away it is one has to be before ‘true humanism’ can be observed. Surely sitting in an chair typing at a computer isn’t human enough. My dog is on a farm right now, doing it’s rituals. It’s such a dog! Not that I don’t agree with you. But it all depends on what you want to view as ‘news’. To assume that everyone is brain dead and that this should be their news is equally disturbing as those masquerading as liberals in international media promoting what is described in the article given by serf (thanks by the way). Do you love Palestinian martyrs too?
Thailand’s (second?) highest profile forest encroacher?
It seems that tricking laws at the edge is not only the former PM’s apanage, the new one would get indulge in it too… What a surprise ! ;-p
The vote of the poor
Srithanonchai (#17) Oct 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm – you really will go to ridiculous lengths to place Thaksin Shinawatra on top of a pedestal!
But maybe you are into April fool jokes late October . . . A Swiss politiciain BUYING Swiss votes a-la-Thaksin?
Locked up in Burma
Thank you Richard!
Here are the comments of a big-business proxy diplomat. I’d say the attitude of the superpowers is even more hypocritical this time around:
QUOTE
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/10/11/commentary_the_onesided_view_of_myanmar/
Commentary: The one-sided view of Myanmar
TOKYO, Oct. 11
YOICHI YAMAGUCHI
Guest Commentary
Most international media tend to report about the current situation in Myanmar and the monks’ demonstrations as a popular uprising for democracy against the oppressive military regime. But this is too simplistic, if not one-sided.
Having been engaged with Myanmar for over a decade, first as Japan’s ambassador to the country for three years starting in 1995, then as a concerned regular visitor, I can testify that Myanmar’s military regime is quite different from those of Cambodia under Pol Pot or the Philippines under the dictatorial Ferdinand Marcos.
But international media seldom report anything positive about the current Myanmar government. For instance, most Japanese newspapers reported that 100,000 people took part in the latest anti-government demonstrations. Yet judging from TV images, this figure is grossly inflated.
This sort of bloated reporting regarding anti-government activities in Myanmar is nothing new. During my ambassadorial assignment, Japanese media used to report that 3,000-4,000 people gathered in front of Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence every week. But my staff verified that the figures were more like 500-600 people.
Indeed, media reports have always sided with Suu Kyi, as they are doing now. Japanese media would not report claims made in Myanmar’s national TV broadcasts, stating that Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy gave money to the demonstrators, and that security forces were obliged to shoot at the demonstrators who were throwing stones and attempting to snatch their weapons.
It is undeniable that many demonstrators were mobilized by the NLD for remuneration. Incidents such as monks pushing security personnel into a temple and setting their vehicles aflame were not reported by Japanese media.
Seventeen years after her election victory in 1990, the Myanmar people’s perception of Suu Kyi has largely changed. It has been widely disclosed that she received financial and political support from the United States, to the aversion of the people of Myanmar, whose memories of their colonial experience under Britain linger on. During my time as ambassador there, Suu Kyi did have frequent communications with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and received financial supports from the U.S. government and private groups.
The Myanmar government once disclosed to international reporters that it had confiscated communications equipment sent illegally from the United States. But this news hardly crossed the border. When I asked a Japanese correspondent why he did not report this, he told me that such a story was not what his head office would expect out of Myanmar.
Suu Kyi’s lack of clear political vision has also caused her popularity to dwindle. People came to realize that she has been resorting to opposition only for the sake of opposition. After the incident in 1996 when her vehicle was surrounded by rioters, she requested police protection at her residence. This is another side of her current house arrest.
As for the military regime, characterized as the epitome of evil, its biggest contribution was putting an end to the bloody, protracted civil strife involving 18 minorities and the government.
Although the military government pronounced several death sentences every year, most of them were not actually carried out. Also, the lifestyle of government officials is generally modest, with corruption cases remarkably rare as a military regime.
The regime has succeeded in maintaining economic growth of over 5percent annually, earning it widespread trust by the people. Therefore, as far as I can see, there are few who are willing to challenge the government at the risk of their lives.
The government asserts that it is currently treading the path of democratization, following a seven-stage roadmap. Its National Assembly completed deliberations on the basic principles of a new Constitution in August. The majority of the Myanmar people, I believe, understand the government’s cautious, step-by-step approach toward a democratic society.
Nation-building should be done carefully, carried out by the nation’s people in accordance with their peculiar history, culture and national character. Thus, the international community should not interfere politically but should support the country’s endeavors through aid, trade, investment and technology transfers. The reality, however, is the opposite, with the international community intervening politically and attaching screws to aid and trade.
The first step, therefore, is to halt the wrong reporting and creation of stereotypes like a samurai drama in which Suu Kyi plays the good guy and the military regime plays the bad guy.
—
(Ambassador Yoichi Yamaguchi is a career diplomat who served as Japan’s ambassador to Myanmar from 1995-97. He has written several books about the countries to which he was assigned, including “Real Images of Myanmar.” This article is translated from the Japanese and edited by UPI Asia Online. The original was published in the Japanese weekly “Shukan Shincho.” ┬йCopyright Yoichi Yamaguchi.) UNQUOTE