If a democratic regime comes into Burma, they will take care of politicizing and growing the infrastructure of the country.
The military will continue its war against rebel factions as the Shan State Army, the Mon, etc.
There will be no India-China war on Burma. What you will see is both sides publicly courting their political leaders. The main dynamic frame that will change once Burma is ‘democratic’ is that Europe and the United States will also openly court Burma in access of its resources.
The only thing is that the Generals lose their prestige and access to big money lobbyists, and that money will be transferred instead to political leaders.
The browser keeps eating my comments! I’ll try again
Re: Grasshopper>
Ummm…what rock have you been living under? Do a Google search for “North Korea and Prison Camp 22”.
The point is recognizing the legitimacy of a nation-state that engages in genocide, is in itself moral relativism. Such a state can claim no rights or sovergnity from the international community, and to recognize it as such means that you tacitly accept it’s actions. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.
As for recent events in the Korean peninsula, I believe you are confusing the US with South Korea; and as for Iraq, the fact that a free and independant Kurdistan doesn’t exist is just another example in a long and shameful history of the US betraying its indigenous allies (c.f. the Hmong).
You’re not a coward for where you live, you’re a coward if you are not willing to call what the Burmese junta is doing genocide for reasons of “realpolitik”. [Again, do a search for “Burma+genocide” if you don’t believe me.]
As for the Tatmadaw blitzkrieg, ok…maybe 2 hours is a bit of hyperbole; however, the Burmese army is in a much higher state of mobilization than the Thai army and could inflict heavy damage before the Thais could fully muster all of their forces for a counter attack, and as you said, the US military is streached pretty thin. The Tatmadaw currently have 30 divisions of infantry at their disposal (about 300,000 men) compared to the Thai’s 7 divisions (about 70,000 men) Now, only 4 divisions make up the Thai First Army, which is tasked with the mission to protect the central region and Bangkok. You do the math. (The Thais count on maintaining air superiority, the Burmese have about 64 fighters to the Thais’ 60, so it would be an interesting match.)
John Fernquest, your fellow Gringo says that it must end. I think that’s true too.
I’m not White. And there’s a lot to be said in your assuming that I am.
However, I think it must be the people in Burma-Myanmar who end it. This way, they don’t owe you Gringos any money or status, they are free in the international system (of course, there will need to be IMF loans – but that is just economics, not principle). Does your grandmother remember before WW2? Maybe a ‘World Government’ would have been a much more achievable result if your country did not assume the role for everyone else by being able to ‘beat us all up.’ Fear – the best method for moral arbitration!
With the big integrator Thaksin gone, many ambitious people are now free to play their own games and thus return Thai politics to the kindergarten stage. Look at what wanna-be PM Prachai Leopairat just did. Pracharat had placed many one-page ads in a number of Thai newspapers, showing Sanoh, Somsak’s wife, and Prachai. And before you have finished reading the party’s 38 policy proposals printed in the ad, Prachai resigns from the party “arguing” that his ideology “contradicted” with Sanoh’s policies. And he did not know this before he joined Sanoh’s outfit, accepted the position of head of its executive board, drew up its policies, posed for the picture, and published the ads? Needless to say, Pracharat’s Matchima members will join Prachai in leaving the party, making him their boss. This all might look rather childish to people who are serious about politics. But it makes perfect sense in the context of Thai politics.
This has a chance of becoming another case of realpolitik as usual, with all the state players doing whatever they need to do to protect their interest. For example, the Indian army chief offered his opinion that this is an internal affairs. And this is from a country that is often called world’s largest democracy’. Likewise, I don’t expect the state of Thailand, China, Singapore or whatever, to do something conscientous. However, there’s the hope that in this day and age, state power is not the only power. Individuals, particular in the free world, are better equipped than before to counterbalance the interest of the state.
In this particular case, I don’t think world public opinion has much direct leverage on India and ASEAN players like Thailand or Singapore. (In the case of Singapore, I’m not sure how their Burma investment is structured. But if it’s by Temasek, then it might be possible to put a little bit of pressure on them, by for example, picketing their recruiter–Temasek is well known to be keen on recruiting at top business schools–particularly making a point about corporate social responsibility.. just my 2 cents). But China is a special case. The coming Beijing olympics make them vulnerable to the world’s outrage. I personall don’t see the US officially boycotting the olympics. But if the Chinese keep stonewalling and protecting the Junta, I think there’s a chance that some country in the EU, without too much of a business stake in China might boycott the olympics.. I don’t know..The Danes or the Norwegians might. And I think if one country does it, there might suddenly be a peer pressure for fellow EU country or at least individual athletes to show solidarity by boycotting the Olympics. I think this threat of boycott from small country might be the more practical one.
It is probably not going to be easy though. Even if the boycott threat looks formidable, there would still be a split in opinion in the chinese leadership. The officers would likely insist on keeping the junta at all cost. Burma is too important to let it slip from their grip. I think it’s not just the natural resources, but the fact that Burma is the overland access to the Chinese southwest heartland. In the chinese’s war plan, in case of war with superior power, their plan would call for a retreat to the interior, e.g. Szechuan like in WWII and waging a war of attrition over the vast interior. Burma is the backdoor into Szechuan, i.e. the so-called Burma road. The people’s liberation army will not allow a pro-western entity to control Burma. Nevertheless, the civilian leadership put so much at stake on the olympics.. it will be interesting.
An election is a wonderful thing isn’t it? An election in Thailand had never been about political parties articulating their people empowering or poverty-eradicating platforms. An election in Thailand is all about the chase for power.
The arithmetic had not changed . . . how much to buy “allegiance” from venal potential election winners and who will be the sugar daddy? Many big Thai businessman have been “inspired” to follow Thaksin’s megalomaniac ways and that is probably the only new element to the coming election . . . and tripling and quadrupling wealth the Shinawatra-way now appears to be Thailand’s “I did it my Way” political hit song. And generals who won’t fade away will chummy to politico-businessmen to be Thailand’s new champions of the poor.
Only Saprang and Thaksin must be sulking in the corner feeling left-out from the coming big Thai shindig both have significantly helped to create.
Grasshopper I guess your reading and reprinting Chamberlain eloquent “let-us-not-get-involved” speech (stealthily altered for awe and to impress was it?) is ethically satisfying to your 3-monkeys attitude about Burmese atrocities and Thaksin’s extra-judicial rampage. (with my belated congratulations for research efforts btw).
So ‘let’s not get involved’ speeches are a byproduct of Neville Chamberlain? This is the only argument that your coming back with. Neville Chamberlain, bit of an idiot – didn’t want to go to war. Thats it. Farenough. I’m a bit of an idiot too, so I can see where you make the comparison; but you do not present me with any argument that intervention is a morally acceptable course of action over non-intervention. It allows me to respond with another moral comparison (which could be seen on bad political talk shows) and ask: was it morally acceptable for the US invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein, bit of an idiot etc… No weapons of mass destruction in Burma, but similarly there was a tyrannical regime in Iraq that the international community was prepared to put up with till some ‘bad intelligence’. Maybe you need to invent some bad intelligence (figuratively of course) for Burma and this would give you and Barbara (George already had his turn) grounds for regime change!
Perhaps an overemphasis on the Junta’s export of illicit substances rammed infront of Westerners eyes will do?!! No need to address social problems in the Western buyers market which facilitates this process of course! But will our governments credit our drug addicts allowing them to pursue imperialistic ‘humane’ foreign policy?! Of course not! The Western drug addict would be the unsung savior of the monks! Beautiful irony.
Thaksin’s extra-judicial crimes during his anti-drugs are indeed Thailand’s internal affairs and in due course Thaksin will have to make a public accounting to the Thai people of his maestro-role in this horrific affair. (Grasshopper I did not recall suggesting international invasion of Thailand on account of Thaksin’s “The U.N. is not my father” outburst did I?)
No you did not call for an invasion, but now you do cede that Thaksin’s anti-drugs policy were Thailand’s internal affairs – where several thousand salesmen and women were put to death because Thaksin couldn’t really manage social problems. Well isn’t maiming several thousand monks similarly Myanmar’s ‘internal affairs?’ Not very nice, especially if you don’t place much importance on the autonomy of the nation state . However, Colonel you place a great importance on autonomy when it suits the Thai junta’s relationship with the international system. I do too! But I reason this value with all other states.
But the oppressed Burmese people will need some outside help and urgently too! Moral and/or material succor (weapons too I dare suggest) to those who oppose the Myanmar junta is what is needed (rather than multi-billion dollar investments by Thailand et al spearheaded by Thaksin during his regime that would only perpetuate the junta longer).
It is a tragedy, not comedy, that is going on at Burma Grasshopper!
The international system is not a moral system. Nor should it be used in this way, because as Derrida (and probably others before him) said ‘Violence begins with articulation’. Violence is an outcome of emotional reaction. In developed societies, emotional reactions should be kept to limited domestic issues (like how short the tennis court grass is.) This way, international peace and order is maintained. Comedy and tragedy are quite similar in the end.
The maxim that there’s “no true friend or foe in (Thai) politics” seem to not hold true here. PMThaksin has created sworn enemies in the course of his five year career – a very rare achievement.
Here’s another one: – Money can buy a lot of friends.
Thanks. Begins to look like the “return to democracy” promise may be being manipulated by those who claimed to be promoting democracy by the “good coup.”
I’d be interested in seeing more analysis of the current situation. Col Jeru, where are you when your opinion is needed?
Grasshopper I guess your reading and reprinting Chamberlain eloquent “let-us-not-get-involved” speech (stealthily altered for awe and to impress was it?) is ethically satisfying to your 3-monkeys attitude about Burmese atrocities and Thaksin’s extra-judicial rampage. (with my belated congratulations for research efforts btw).
Thaksin’s extra-judicial crimes during his anti-drugs are indeed Thailand’s internal affairs and in due course Thaksin will have to make a public accounting to the Thai people of his maestro-role in this horrific affair. (Grasshopper I did not recall suggesting international invasion of Thailand on account of Thaksin’s “The U.N. is not my father” outburst did I?)
But the oppressed Burmese people will need some outside help and urgently too! Moral and/or material succor (weapons too I dare suggest) to those who oppose the Myanmar junta is what is needed (rather than multi-billion dollar investments by Thailand et al spearheaded by Thaksin during his regime that would only perpetuate the junta longer).
It is a tragedy, not comedy, that is going on at Burma Grasshopper!
The question gentlemen is – When is the point reached when “state terror and killings by the Myanmar junta of its own people” is no longer just “internal affairs”? Do we judge by the hundreds of thousands of body counts . . (remember Rwanda and Darfur and Yugoslavia) or just realization that the oppressors will kill to silence the oppressed would be enough?
I believe my neighbor’s struggle to be free of his oppressor deserve my succor . . .
Thanks for the link to the Margolis article. I wouldn’t call it an academic piece though, rather a contrarian piece in the sort of way that’s asking to get smacked in the face during emotional times like these. But I agree with the points he makes, particular the final one:
“…the Western powers and Asean must understand that if they force the Burmese military from power, they had better have an almost equally strong new government to replace the unloved junta.”
I think of post-UNCTAC in Cambodia and post-East Timor elections both times when dreams of smooth sailing under democracy were deflated after a period of initial euphoria, but not as much as Iraq of course which was made even worse by American neo-con policies under Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney.
The background on Margolis is interesting. He seems to take a conservative and contrarian stance on many issues which probably explains why he even dare write such a piece at a time like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Margolis
But I don’t think they are likely to overthrow the regime because too many neighboring states (Singapore, China, Thaialnd) are more worried about their investments in and stability in Burma (exactly what Margolis discusses) than who is ruling the country. Even if one is an idealist like I am (I’d just as soon see the US boycott the China Olympics), political realism is the only way you can see how this is going to play out, and short of some freak mutiny (made less likely due to no relations between Burma’s military and the West) the prognosis would have to be more of the same “great game” with the junta playing China, India, and Thailand off of each other for its natural resources. http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/burmamyanmar/thitinan_pongsudhirak_on_the_2.php#article
…engages in genocide, which puts it in the infamous club that Sudan, and North Korea belong to. To suggest that we “engage ” with them in the same way is moral relativism and cowardice of the highest degree.
Amigo, first of all – North Korea is engaging in genocide?! How is engaging with Burma moral relativism exactly? Relative to what? (Aside from corruption of course). I think your government just achieved a fairly significant result with the DPRK actually. They ‘courageously’ invaded Iraq too didn’t they?! Also, you say Burma when it would be the Burmans committing this supposed genocide – ??
Or maybe its that my words are laced with not wanting to be blamed for my hereditary position. I suppose that is cowardice, but I am not in Burma right now for a moral suasion of molotov politics against oppression. I am in Australia and its all quite lovely and beige. I am being a coward for simply existing where it is safe? Ah. Gotcha! Too many Rambo movies for you!
Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours. Now while the Thais, with their “major non-NATO ally” status with the US could beat back the Burmese….
Only by firebombing them as seen previously in South East Asia (or Dresden to continue on with this WW2 theme…) I’ve seen the US military is quite stretched. Two hours to Bangkok?! Wow. Surely you mean that the Junta would have troops into Bangkok 300 at a time. Wouldn’t all other Myanmar aircraft would be used for transporting family of the Junta’s upper echelons to Vientiane?
My grandmother told me of a time when the nations of the world came together and founded an institution that would insure that genocide would NEVER AGAIN threaten the people of the world…..
I think my grandmother was more concerned with the washing. Different places in the world though. John Fernquest, your fellow Gringo says that it must end. I think that’s true too. However, I think it must be the people in Burma-Myanmar who end it. This way, they don’t owe you Gringos any money or status, they are free in the international system (of course, there will need to be IMF loans – but that is just economics, not principle). Does your grandmother remember before WW2? Maybe a ‘World Government’ would have been a much more achievable result if your country did not assume the role for everyone else by being able to ‘beat us all up.’ Fear – the best method for moral arbitration!
Historicus, I have read that too (on Nation and Manager) and there is probably some truth to it. PAD and its allies in the military, parliament are clearly unhappy with the turn of events (e.g. GenSaprang missing out on army chief), accusing PMSurayud of being soft on and making deals with PMThaksin. I understand it is leaks to the media from Counter Corruption Commission of ministers with shareholding of more than 5% (although this is, I understand, allowable with the 1 year interim constitution) has led to resignations. MPs are now seeking a censure debate against the PM and his cabinet.They felt that the CNS has gone so far as staging a coup and not playing hardball against Thaksin who they want finished for good. And in Samak, PMThakin’s nominee, PAD know they will have a nightmare (the true meaning of payback) if he wins the election (at least GenSaprang is guaranteed to be able to handle Mr.Samak – but not the pensive GenAnupong)… The Nation seemed to also imply that, if anything, PMSurayud does not want a mutually destructive all out war with PMThaksin’s billions. PAD probably see that he doesn’t have the guts for it – that’s why there’s rumours (Thairath? Can’t remember where I read this) to push Prasong Soonsiri as PM to finish the job!
The maxim that there’s “no true friend or foe in (Thai) politics” seem to not hold true here. PMThaksin has created sworn enemies in the course of his five year career – a very rare achievement.
I keep reading opinions like those held by Eric Margolis that the fall of the military regime will lead to segmented chaos in Burma divided along ethnic lines. But I think these opinions, and disintegration is indeed one possible outcome, needs to be tempered by the cohesion generated by the common enemy, the ruling military regime. I can only speak about the united front that is presented in my hometown in the US where we have in residence some of the leaders for the national US Campaign for Burma, and I see Burmans and various “minorities” working for a perceived common good and a common goal everyday. It is not that there would be no problems if there was a regime change, but I think there is a good chance that the problems would be less severe than many pundits such as Margolis anticipate.
Let’s be clear here, if Grasshopper were talking about Cuba, Belarus (remember them?), Venezuela, or any other authoritarian government who just happens not to follow “the other path” (as Hernando de Soto puts it, then I would agree with him/her; however, were are talking about a government that engages in genocide, which puts it in the infamous club that Sudan, and North Korea belong to. To suggest that we “engage ” with them in the same way is moral relativism and cowardice of the highest degree.
I disagree with jonfernquest that the Burmese are only a threat to their own people. Most wargames suggest that the Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours. Now while the Thais, with their “major non-NATO ally” status with the US could beat back the Burmese, they still would be left with their only urban center ravished and their infrastructure ruined. The price would be too awful to pay, and you can be sure that both the Burmese and Thai juntas are aware of this. This fact, in concert with the lucrative business done, explains the Thai government’s stance toward Burma more than anything else.
My grandmother told me of a time when the nations of the world came together and founded an institution that would insure that genocide would NEVER AGAIN threaten the people of the world. This institution was quickly taken over tinpot dictators and decadent sheiks, who have emasculated this institution into a whimpering, globalized nanny-state that only serves their interests.
As jonfernquest states, the stalemate must end. I do not relish the thought of war, but I cannot ignore the cries of the Burmese people as well. Yet, as Grasshopper said, it all comes down to “our territorial interests.”
Lleij Samuel Schwartz \’s science of Rhetorical Chronometrics is very educational (Grasshopper may disagree of course). If Chamberlain\’s 1938 speech merely annoyed Churchill and encouraged Nazi intransigence, what was the point of Grasshopper\’s 2007 reprint, plagiarism forgiven of course?
I still prefer to antagonize rotten eggs thrown at those more rotten Burmese junta generals.
Now my turn at a rhetorical question to New Mandala: Would a Burmese oppressed nationalist be justified with fighting junta terror with terror? Would you now consider any Burmese who will not merely oppose, but bomb Burmese military targets (collateral damage, et al), a hero rather than a terrorist?
Sondhi as deputy PM. Ministers ousted. And talk of getting rid of Surayud. The newspapers seem to imply that this is a kind of second coup and that the people behind these apparently related moves are looking to delay the election because the “anti-Thaksin” forces don’t look strong enough.
I’d be interested in comments and analysis of what’s happening.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Free Burma
The Magolis article is nonsense.
If a democratic regime comes into Burma, they will take care of politicizing and growing the infrastructure of the country.
The military will continue its war against rebel factions as the Shan State Army, the Mon, etc.
There will be no India-China war on Burma. What you will see is both sides publicly courting their political leaders. The main dynamic frame that will change once Burma is ‘democratic’ is that Europe and the United States will also openly court Burma in access of its resources.
The only thing is that the Generals lose their prestige and access to big money lobbyists, and that money will be transferred instead to political leaders.
Global protest petition on Burma
The browser keeps eating my comments! I’ll try again
Re: Grasshopper>
Ummm…what rock have you been living under? Do a Google search for “North Korea and Prison Camp 22”.
The point is recognizing the legitimacy of a nation-state that engages in genocide, is in itself moral relativism. Such a state can claim no rights or sovergnity from the international community, and to recognize it as such means that you tacitly accept it’s actions. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.
As for recent events in the Korean peninsula, I believe you are confusing the US with South Korea; and as for Iraq, the fact that a free and independant Kurdistan doesn’t exist is just another example in a long and shameful history of the US betraying its indigenous allies (c.f. the Hmong).
You’re not a coward for where you live, you’re a coward if you are not willing to call what the Burmese junta is doing genocide for reasons of “realpolitik”. [Again, do a search for “Burma+genocide” if you don’t believe me.]
As for the Tatmadaw blitzkrieg, ok…maybe 2 hours is a bit of hyperbole; however, the Burmese army is in a much higher state of mobilization than the Thai army and could inflict heavy damage before the Thais could fully muster all of their forces for a counter attack, and as you said, the US military is streached pretty thin. The Tatmadaw currently have 30 divisions of infantry at their disposal (about 300,000 men) compared to the Thai’s 7 divisions (about 70,000 men) Now, only 4 divisions make up the Thai First Army, which is tasked with the mission to protect the central region and Bangkok. You do the math. (The Thais count on maintaining air superiority, the Burmese have about 64 fighters to the Thais’ 60, so it would be an interesting match.)
John Fernquest, your fellow Gringo says that it must end. I think that’s true too.
I’m not White. And there’s a lot to be said in your assuming that I am.
However, I think it must be the people in Burma-Myanmar who end it. This way, they don’t owe you Gringos any money or status, they are free in the international system (of course, there will need to be IMF loans – but that is just economics, not principle). Does your grandmother remember before WW2? Maybe a ‘World Government’ would have been a much more achievable result if your country did not assume the role for everyone else by being able to ‘beat us all up.’ Fear – the best method for moral arbitration!
I agree, so there’s hope for us yet! ^_^
New Mandala’s election watch
With the big integrator Thaksin gone, many ambitious people are now free to play their own games and thus return Thai politics to the kindergarten stage. Look at what wanna-be PM Prachai Leopairat just did. Pracharat had placed many one-page ads in a number of Thai newspapers, showing Sanoh, Somsak’s wife, and Prachai. And before you have finished reading the party’s 38 policy proposals printed in the ad, Prachai resigns from the party “arguing” that his ideology “contradicted” with Sanoh’s policies. And he did not know this before he joined Sanoh’s outfit, accepted the position of head of its executive board, drew up its policies, posed for the picture, and published the ads? Needless to say, Pracharat’s Matchima members will join Prachai in leaving the party, making him their boss. This all might look rather childish to people who are serious about politics. But it makes perfect sense in the context of Thai politics.
Free Burma
This has a chance of becoming another case of realpolitik as usual, with all the state players doing whatever they need to do to protect their interest. For example, the Indian army chief offered his opinion that this is an internal affairs. And this is from a country that is often called world’s largest democracy’. Likewise, I don’t expect the state of Thailand, China, Singapore or whatever, to do something conscientous. However, there’s the hope that in this day and age, state power is not the only power. Individuals, particular in the free world, are better equipped than before to counterbalance the interest of the state.
In this particular case, I don’t think world public opinion has much direct leverage on India and ASEAN players like Thailand or Singapore. (In the case of Singapore, I’m not sure how their Burma investment is structured. But if it’s by Temasek, then it might be possible to put a little bit of pressure on them, by for example, picketing their recruiter–Temasek is well known to be keen on recruiting at top business schools–particularly making a point about corporate social responsibility.. just my 2 cents). But China is a special case. The coming Beijing olympics make them vulnerable to the world’s outrage. I personall don’t see the US officially boycotting the olympics. But if the Chinese keep stonewalling and protecting the Junta, I think there’s a chance that some country in the EU, without too much of a business stake in China might boycott the olympics.. I don’t know..The Danes or the Norwegians might. And I think if one country does it, there might suddenly be a peer pressure for fellow EU country or at least individual athletes to show solidarity by boycotting the Olympics. I think this threat of boycott from small country might be the more practical one.
It is probably not going to be easy though. Even if the boycott threat looks formidable, there would still be a split in opinion in the chinese leadership. The officers would likely insist on keeping the junta at all cost. Burma is too important to let it slip from their grip. I think it’s not just the natural resources, but the fact that Burma is the overland access to the Chinese southwest heartland. In the chinese’s war plan, in case of war with superior power, their plan would call for a retreat to the interior, e.g. Szechuan like in WWII and waging a war of attrition over the vast interior. Burma is the backdoor into Szechuan, i.e. the so-called Burma road. The people’s liberation army will not allow a pro-western entity to control Burma. Nevertheless, the civilian leadership put so much at stake on the olympics.. it will be interesting.
New Mandala’s election watch
An election is a wonderful thing isn’t it? An election in Thailand had never been about political parties articulating their people empowering or poverty-eradicating platforms. An election in Thailand is all about the chase for power.
The arithmetic had not changed . . . how much to buy “allegiance” from venal potential election winners and who will be the sugar daddy? Many big Thai businessman have been “inspired” to follow Thaksin’s megalomaniac ways and that is probably the only new element to the coming election . . . and tripling and quadrupling wealth the Shinawatra-way now appears to be Thailand’s “I did it my Way” political hit song. And generals who won’t fade away will chummy to politico-businessmen to be Thailand’s new champions of the poor.
Only Saprang and Thaksin must be sulking in the corner feeling left-out from the coming big Thai shindig both have significantly helped to create.
Global protest petition on Burma
Dearest Colonel,
Grasshopper I guess your reading and reprinting Chamberlain eloquent “let-us-not-get-involved” speech (stealthily altered for awe and to impress was it?) is ethically satisfying to your 3-monkeys attitude about Burmese atrocities and Thaksin’s extra-judicial rampage. (with my belated congratulations for research efforts btw).
So ‘let’s not get involved’ speeches are a byproduct of Neville Chamberlain? This is the only argument that your coming back with. Neville Chamberlain, bit of an idiot – didn’t want to go to war. Thats it. Farenough. I’m a bit of an idiot too, so I can see where you make the comparison; but you do not present me with any argument that intervention is a morally acceptable course of action over non-intervention. It allows me to respond with another moral comparison (which could be seen on bad political talk shows) and ask: was it morally acceptable for the US invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein, bit of an idiot etc… No weapons of mass destruction in Burma, but similarly there was a tyrannical regime in Iraq that the international community was prepared to put up with till some ‘bad intelligence’. Maybe you need to invent some bad intelligence (figuratively of course) for Burma and this would give you and Barbara (George already had his turn) grounds for regime change!
Perhaps an overemphasis on the Junta’s export of illicit substances rammed infront of Westerners eyes will do?!! No need to address social problems in the Western buyers market which facilitates this process of course! But will our governments credit our drug addicts allowing them to pursue imperialistic ‘humane’ foreign policy?! Of course not! The Western drug addict would be the unsung savior of the monks! Beautiful irony.
Thaksin’s extra-judicial crimes during his anti-drugs are indeed Thailand’s internal affairs and in due course Thaksin will have to make a public accounting to the Thai people of his maestro-role in this horrific affair. (Grasshopper I did not recall suggesting international invasion of Thailand on account of Thaksin’s “The U.N. is not my father” outburst did I?)
No you did not call for an invasion, but now you do cede that Thaksin’s anti-drugs policy were Thailand’s internal affairs – where several thousand salesmen and women were put to death because Thaksin couldn’t really manage social problems. Well isn’t maiming several thousand monks similarly Myanmar’s ‘internal affairs?’ Not very nice, especially if you don’t place much importance on the autonomy of the nation state . However, Colonel you place a great importance on autonomy when it suits the Thai junta’s relationship with the international system. I do too! But I reason this value with all other states.
But the oppressed Burmese people will need some outside help and urgently too! Moral and/or material succor (weapons too I dare suggest) to those who oppose the Myanmar junta is what is needed (rather than multi-billion dollar investments by Thailand et al spearheaded by Thaksin during his regime that would only perpetuate the junta longer).
It is a tragedy, not comedy, that is going on at Burma Grasshopper!
The international system is not a moral system. Nor should it be used in this way, because as Derrida (and probably others before him) said ‘Violence begins with articulation’. Violence is an outcome of emotional reaction. In developed societies, emotional reactions should be kept to limited domestic issues (like how short the tennis court grass is.) This way, international peace and order is maintained. Comedy and tragedy are quite similar in the end.
New Mandala’s election watch
The maxim that there’s “no true friend or foe in (Thai) politics” seem to not hold true here. PMThaksin has created sworn enemies in the course of his five year career – a very rare achievement.
Here’s another one: – Money can buy a lot of friends.
New Mandala’s election watch
Thanks. Begins to look like the “return to democracy” promise may be being manipulated by those who claimed to be promoting democracy by the “good coup.”
I’d be interested in seeing more analysis of the current situation. Col Jeru, where are you when your opinion is needed?
Global protest petition on Burma
Re: jonfernquest> I’m talking about the stuff coming out of the U.S. Army War College and Globalsecurity.org.
Global protest petition on Burma
Grasshopper I guess your reading and reprinting Chamberlain eloquent “let-us-not-get-involved” speech (stealthily altered for awe and to impress was it?) is ethically satisfying to your 3-monkeys attitude about Burmese atrocities and Thaksin’s extra-judicial rampage. (with my belated congratulations for research efforts btw).
Thaksin’s extra-judicial crimes during his anti-drugs are indeed Thailand’s internal affairs and in due course Thaksin will have to make a public accounting to the Thai people of his maestro-role in this horrific affair. (Grasshopper I did not recall suggesting international invasion of Thailand on account of Thaksin’s “The U.N. is not my father” outburst did I?)
But the oppressed Burmese people will need some outside help and urgently too! Moral and/or material succor (weapons too I dare suggest) to those who oppose the Myanmar junta is what is needed (rather than multi-billion dollar investments by Thailand et al spearheaded by Thaksin during his regime that would only perpetuate the junta longer).
It is a tragedy, not comedy, that is going on at Burma Grasshopper!
Global protest petition on Burma
Col. Jeruchai – Do you really believe your ethical position for Burma when you do not apply the same ethical code to your arguments about Thailand?
The international community should have surely invaded Thailand with Thaksin’s cut throat drug policy right?
Surely you get paid for this sort of comedy Colonel Jeruchai!
Global protest petition on Burma
The question gentlemen is – When is the point reached when “state terror and killings by the Myanmar junta of its own people” is no longer just “internal affairs”? Do we judge by the hundreds of thousands of body counts . . (remember Rwanda and Darfur and Yugoslavia) or just realization that the oppressors will kill to silence the oppressed would be enough?
I believe my neighbor’s struggle to be free of his oppressor deserve my succor . . .
Free Burma
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/04/news/edmargo.php
Thanks for the link to the Margolis article. I wouldn’t call it an academic piece though, rather a contrarian piece in the sort of way that’s asking to get smacked in the face during emotional times like these. But I agree with the points he makes, particular the final one:
“…the Western powers and Asean must understand that if they force the Burmese military from power, they had better have an almost equally strong new government to replace the unloved junta.”
I think of post-UNCTAC in Cambodia and post-East Timor elections both times when dreams of smooth sailing under democracy were deflated after a period of initial euphoria, but not as much as Iraq of course which was made even worse by American neo-con policies under Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney.
The background on Margolis is interesting. He seems to take a conservative and contrarian stance on many issues which probably explains why he even dare write such a piece at a time like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Margolis
But I don’t think they are likely to overthrow the regime because too many neighboring states (Singapore, China, Thaialnd) are more worried about their investments in and stability in Burma (exactly what Margolis discusses) than who is ruling the country. Even if one is an idealist like I am (I’d just as soon see the US boycott the China Olympics), political realism is the only way you can see how this is going to play out, and short of some freak mutiny (made less likely due to no relations between Burma’s military and the West) the prognosis would have to be more of the same “great game” with the junta playing China, India, and Thailand off of each other for its natural resources.
http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/burmamyanmar/thitinan_pongsudhirak_on_the_2.php#article
Global protest petition on Burma
…engages in genocide, which puts it in the infamous club that Sudan, and North Korea belong to. To suggest that we “engage ” with them in the same way is moral relativism and cowardice of the highest degree.
Amigo, first of all – North Korea is engaging in genocide?! How is engaging with Burma moral relativism exactly? Relative to what? (Aside from corruption of course). I think your government just achieved a fairly significant result with the DPRK actually. They ‘courageously’ invaded Iraq too didn’t they?! Also, you say Burma when it would be the Burmans committing this supposed genocide – ??
Or maybe its that my words are laced with not wanting to be blamed for my hereditary position. I suppose that is cowardice, but I am not in Burma right now for a moral suasion of molotov politics against oppression. I am in Australia and its all quite lovely and beige. I am being a coward for simply existing where it is safe? Ah. Gotcha! Too many Rambo movies for you!
Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours. Now while the Thais, with their “major non-NATO ally” status with the US could beat back the Burmese….
Only by firebombing them as seen previously in South East Asia (or Dresden to continue on with this WW2 theme…) I’ve seen the US military is quite stretched. Two hours to Bangkok?! Wow. Surely you mean that the Junta would have troops into Bangkok 300 at a time. Wouldn’t all other Myanmar aircraft would be used for transporting family of the Junta’s upper echelons to Vientiane?
My grandmother told me of a time when the nations of the world came together and founded an institution that would insure that genocide would NEVER AGAIN threaten the people of the world…..
I think my grandmother was more concerned with the washing. Different places in the world though. John Fernquest, your fellow Gringo says that it must end. I think that’s true too. However, I think it must be the people in Burma-Myanmar who end it. This way, they don’t owe you Gringos any money or status, they are free in the international system (of course, there will need to be IMF loans – but that is just economics, not principle). Does your grandmother remember before WW2? Maybe a ‘World Government’ would have been a much more achievable result if your country did not assume the role for everyone else by being able to ‘beat us all up.’ Fear – the best method for moral arbitration!
*lights the remaining half of a tasty Cuban*
Global protest petition on Burma
“Most wargames suggest that the Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours.”
Which wargames are those?
New Mandala’s election watch
Historicus, I have read that too (on Nation and Manager) and there is probably some truth to it. PAD and its allies in the military, parliament are clearly unhappy with the turn of events (e.g. GenSaprang missing out on army chief), accusing PMSurayud of being soft on and making deals with PMThaksin. I understand it is leaks to the media from Counter Corruption Commission of ministers with shareholding of more than 5% (although this is, I understand, allowable with the 1 year interim constitution) has led to resignations. MPs are now seeking a censure debate against the PM and his cabinet.They felt that the CNS has gone so far as staging a coup and not playing hardball against Thaksin who they want finished for good. And in Samak, PMThakin’s nominee, PAD know they will have a nightmare (the true meaning of payback) if he wins the election (at least GenSaprang is guaranteed to be able to handle Mr.Samak – but not the pensive GenAnupong)… The Nation seemed to also imply that, if anything, PMSurayud does not want a mutually destructive all out war with PMThaksin’s billions. PAD probably see that he doesn’t have the guts for it – that’s why there’s rumours (Thairath? Can’t remember where I read this) to push Prasong Soonsiri as PM to finish the job!
The maxim that there’s “no true friend or foe in (Thai) politics” seem to not hold true here. PMThaksin has created sworn enemies in the course of his five year career – a very rare achievement.
Free Burma
I keep reading opinions like those held by Eric Margolis that the fall of the military regime will lead to segmented chaos in Burma divided along ethnic lines. But I think these opinions, and disintegration is indeed one possible outcome, needs to be tempered by the cohesion generated by the common enemy, the ruling military regime. I can only speak about the united front that is presented in my hometown in the US where we have in residence some of the leaders for the national US Campaign for Burma, and I see Burmans and various “minorities” working for a perceived common good and a common goal everyday. It is not that there would be no problems if there was a regime change, but I think there is a good chance that the problems would be less severe than many pundits such as Margolis anticipate.
Global protest petition on Burma
re: Ex-Ajaran, et. al>
Let’s be clear here, if Grasshopper were talking about Cuba, Belarus (remember them?), Venezuela, or any other authoritarian government who just happens not to follow “the other path” (as Hernando de Soto puts it, then I would agree with him/her; however, were are talking about a government that engages in genocide, which puts it in the infamous club that Sudan, and North Korea belong to. To suggest that we “engage ” with them in the same way is moral relativism and cowardice of the highest degree.
I disagree with jonfernquest that the Burmese are only a threat to their own people. Most wargames suggest that the Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours. Now while the Thais, with their “major non-NATO ally” status with the US could beat back the Burmese, they still would be left with their only urban center ravished and their infrastructure ruined. The price would be too awful to pay, and you can be sure that both the Burmese and Thai juntas are aware of this. This fact, in concert with the lucrative business done, explains the Thai government’s stance toward Burma more than anything else.
My grandmother told me of a time when the nations of the world came together and founded an institution that would insure that genocide would NEVER AGAIN threaten the people of the world. This institution was quickly taken over tinpot dictators and decadent sheiks, who have emasculated this institution into a whimpering, globalized nanny-state that only serves their interests.
As jonfernquest states, the stalemate must end. I do not relish the thought of war, but I cannot ignore the cries of the Burmese people as well. Yet, as Grasshopper said, it all comes down to “our territorial interests.”
Un mundo pazzesco.
Global protest petition on Burma
Lleij Samuel Schwartz \’s science of Rhetorical Chronometrics is very educational (Grasshopper may disagree of course). If Chamberlain\’s 1938 speech merely annoyed Churchill and encouraged Nazi intransigence, what was the point of Grasshopper\’s 2007 reprint, plagiarism forgiven of course?
I still prefer to antagonize rotten eggs thrown at those more rotten Burmese junta generals.
Now my turn at a rhetorical question to New Mandala: Would a Burmese oppressed nationalist be justified with fighting junta terror with terror? Would you now consider any Burmese who will not merely oppose, but bomb Burmese military targets (collateral damage, et al), a hero rather than a terrorist?
New Mandala’s election watch
But there does seem to be much going on:
Sondhi as deputy PM. Ministers ousted. And talk of getting rid of Surayud. The newspapers seem to imply that this is a kind of second coup and that the people behind these apparently related moves are looking to delay the election because the “anti-Thaksin” forces don’t look strong enough.
I’d be interested in comments and analysis of what’s happening.