Anyone who wonder how much abuse from its tyrannical rulers people in Myanmar or Laos can take pnly have to look no farther than North Korea.
I have asked this question before: “What ever happened to the fierce warrior Burmese blood who historically fought the Thais toe-to-toe for glory or territory?”
But surely the Myanmar situation will explode to violence when the peoples’ anger boil over.
Anyone who wonder how much abuse from its tyrannical rulers people in Myanmar or Laos can take pnly have to look no farther than North Korea.
I have asked this question before: “What ever happened to the fierce warrior Burmese blood who historically fought the Thais toe-to-toe for glory or territory?”
But surely the situation cannot go on indefinitely.
I am saying their needs to be change, Grasshopper. I do not think we actually disagree on how the current state of affairs limits outsiders influence over events in Burma – regardless of whether this is a good or bad thing. What I originally said was that I wish there could be change in how this whole system works, that in the absence of change, advocacy efforts could be more focused towards working around this system such that Burmese people have more say and influence than they do now seem too. I have no hypothesis for how to save Burma. I do not personally think the standard awareness raising and letter writing campaigns are effective. I think most action taken by or in the West to date has more to do with token efforts and conscience assuaging. However, I bristle at the statement that change will come from within when the oppression becomes ‘intolerable’. I have heard this before and I think that while action is often ‘conscience-assuaging’, this statement is merely an attempt to assuage one’s conscience in the face of non-action. Whether you intend as such or not, this is how it sounds, and it has been said by many a person with absolutely no experience with conflict and oppression, and a lot of experience with entitlement. I am not accusing you of such, I don’t know you. But it just kind of makes you sound like a Libertarian or Republican.
Personally, I think every government and international governing body currently in existence sucks, and I don’t expect that any of them actually place the principles they espouse in high regard.
“The whole tabian baan system is a wonderful way of manipulating the rural populous.”
It is so incredibly difficult getting through the bottleneck point of Morchit Mai bus station in Bangkok to get back to your rural home, that a lot of people just take a relaxed weekend, not surprising.
Reforms in the jot tabian baan system would have to number among the reforms that the paper calls for, allowing people to vote in, and have a say in, their temporary Bangkok residence.
“the findings go against a traditional belief that most people live in rural areas”
The definition of city is fairly broad including Chiang Mai, for instance. 15 minutes out of Chiang Mai and you’re in paddy fields. Mae Jo is an agricultural university and town only 20-30 minutes out. Bangkok is classified as a mega-city. Chiang Rai will probably be an urban area one day.
The whole tabian baan system is a wonderful way of manipulating the rural populous.
We all know that the population of Bangkok is probably 15mn, but probably less than half of the people have any vote in the town. To vote you need a permenant address. It is as if the landed gentry of Bangkok are importing their own servile workforce.
The sheer cost alone of maintaining this ridiculous system, alongside the aforementioned exodus for songkraan and elections show that the snotty nosed elite in Bangkok have no desire what so ever to allow the poor a proper role in the country.
Let me attempt to make a separate point.
I for one am and have always been 100% aware that while I sit in my comfortable American city, sipping my cup of coffee as I am right now, I can never truly appreciate the realities of what’s going on in Burma. And while I agree with Tara that some of the larger Burma organizations that only work to bring awareness of the situation do very little that is actually productive on the ground OR internationally (understatement of the day), I feel the realities of American (and perhaps Western) Culture make it a necessity. Just look at the Iraq war. It has literally been years since I have had or even heard a conversation about Iraq in my town, meanwhile all hell is breaking loose, we go on like everything is normal, even though many don’t feel that way, culture seems to dictate that it’s something you don’t talk about.
I have tried on many occasions to bring awareness of what’s going on in Burma at my college (I’m about 10 years older than most college students by the way) and you should see the blank look on their faces. Just trying to talk about Burma, Suu Kyi, abuses and oppression leaves many so uninterested it is impossible to discuss any larger opposition movement not to mention discuss ineffective policy. Even those close to me who know my level of involvement have a measured tolerance for hearing about it.
And as far as there being a difference of opinion on how international policy needs to change, that has always been the case and will not change. But at least we can agree there needs to be a change. Since we are the only one’s who seem to care, why can’t we unite behind that?
This touches on a sore spot with me. Burma’s generals get slammed, all the time, and rightfully so.
What about Laos, though, from where Ms Kemp is ostensibly writing? Can there be a more secretive ruling elite in Southeast Asia? Dissenters — at least they usually emerge some time from Burma’s prisons. The few who rear their heads in Laos basically disappear, more or less forever.
And that’s not even touching on the Hmong, or corruption.
Of course, it’s a pretty sweet life for expats and tourists in Laos, generally. Why queer the deal?
Your comment angers me Tara. You should go to an authority in wherever you originate from and lobby for whatever hypothesis strikes you next! Wow, all power to you!
I am being vindictive, please don’t grant me the honour of a response!
Tara, are you the one suggesting there needs to be change? I am commenting on how there can be change. Also you assume I have not dealt with the realities of civil war and oppression. While I am safe now I do understand how people react to pain.
That wasn’t pedantic at all Mike, I agree completely. Grasshopper, the notion that Burmese people will be able to change the situation once it becomes ‘intolerable’ is no less presumptuous than the pontifications of peace activists criticized in the original article. It’s a judgement made at a distance in relative safety. You are not the one dealing with the realities of civil war, oppression, and ethnic cleansing, so what right do you have to make any statement about what they can and cannot tolerate?
Mike, just interested to know whether you believe ‘self-determination’ can be considered by the UN to be an ongoing process or is ‘self determination’ only until the geography has a state? Wouldn’t the Junta argue that they are still suffering the effects of decolonization?
Also thanks for clarifying the other points. However I am not arguing that SEA ‘has different rights’; I am just questioning whether some nations would even recognize or have different interpretation of ‘human rights’ when global integration is not a national concern. And I was mistaken in referring to self-determination as apart of the declaration (or as I said, Charter) and got confused with article 15 which is everyone has the right to a nationality. As you say, humans are humans!
Firstly I must apologise for giving a perhaps pedantic comment. But just to clarify the status of human rights and fix up some mistakes in Grasshopper’s comment:
There is no such thing as the UN Charter for Human Rights – there is the UN charter, and the Univesal Declaration for human rights – quite different documents.
The claim that “no SEA nations consulted when writing it!” is kinda true, though a number of SEA nations quickly agreed to it when the writing was finished, and they did agree by making the later treaties on it law in many of their countries. When one claims human rights is not an Asian thing they are jumping into bed with Singapore PM Lee, and other leaders like Suharto, and Marcos. Human are humans, and they all deserve their rights equally, Asian humans are not any different. Further, China and India were deeply involved in the drafting, and he first human rights ‘action’ at the UN was by India against South Africa, showing a long history of Asia’s participation in human rights. This idea of Asia having different rights is a myth.
The right to self determination (common article one of the ICCPR, ICESCR and not a teen) is primarily for decolonizing nations. It would be a stretch to apply it to the Karen or Shan etc., but perhaps possible, though the UN will not recognize these claims because it doesn’t fit their definition of the ‘peoples’ right.
The multinational force issue would fall under the UN Charter and ‘threats in international peace and security” and is not primarily human rights related – anyway this idea didn’t get up because China, Sth Africa, and Russia don’t see Burma’s problems this way.
Firstly I must apologise for giving a perhaps pedantic comment. But just to clarify the status of human rights and fix up some mistakes in Grasshopper’s comment:
There is no such thing as the UN Charter for Human Rights – there is the UN charter, and the Universal Declaration for human rights – quite different documents.
The claim that “no SEA nations consulted when writing it!” is kinda true, though in the later codification of the declaration SEA nations were consulted, and they did agree by making it law in many of their countries. The Philipinesand Thailand continue to play a big role in human rights at the UN. When one claims human rights are not an Asian thing they are jumping into bed with Singapore PM Lee, and other leaders like Suharto, and Marcos. Human are humans, and they all deserve their rights equally, Asian humans are not any different. Further, China and India were deeply involved in teh drafting, and he first human rights ‘action’ at the UN was my India against South Africa, showing a long history of Asia’s participation in human rights.
The right to self determination (common article one of the ICCPR, ICESCR and not a teen) is primarily for decolonizing nations. The multinational force issue would fall under the UN Charter and ‘threats in international peace and security” – which didn’t get up because China, Sth Africa, and Russia don’t see Burma’s problems this way.
Tara; I do not presume the Burmese opposition movement (oh yes, and George Soros) has much influence over the military junta! Quite the opposite. Yes there are mass human rights violations in Burma, but look at the nations, or at least the permanent 5 nations of the security council that you are looking to be moral benchmarks! As you are aware, the US, China and Russia are seemingly only disposed to upholding the charter that they wrote when it looks good for them.. and as Fernquest highlights, the English and French maybe hesitant to act with their colonial histories…
Also, what is to say that the UN Charter for Human Rights is right for a South East Asian nation? From my memory there were no SEA nations consulted when writing it! Furthermore, it would be a human rights abuse if a multinational force went to Burma for the sole purpose of stopping human rights abuses. I think its article 15(or 18? at least its a #teen) where there is a right to ‘self determination’? Maybe it too is another doctrine of liberal imperialism?
It is a bad system, it has been a bad system for a very long time and the only way for that too change is for Burmese people to stop it. That means the horrible situation within Burma will get worse to the point where the threshold of the average persons tolerance can be broken. Whilst I empathize with those activists highlighting the situation in Burma, their actions are surely in vain (some sort of ‘yeah! lets do something!!’ San Francisco clique) if the aim is to really change something.
Grasshopper – are you unaware of the Burmese opposition movement? Do you think that change has not happened only because people inside the country haven’t expressed enough displeasure? Come on.
My comment is a reference to the way that the world currently deals with human rights abuses committed by ‘sovereign’ nations. Theoretically, the UN and member governments are charged with upholding international human rights treaties and laws. The Burmese government has signed on to many of these laws, and they are violating them. However, getting any government to act through the UN – the appropriate body for such action – requires a ridiculous amount of public pressure. Since the US mainly, and other Western governments, have a great deal of influence in the UN, as well as political and economic clout generally, the US public is often the first target for advocacy and awareness raising efforts. The Burmese activists know this, and activists from other parts of the world know this. When people are unable to influence their own government, and they suffer grevious human rights abuses, they turn to the public in the West to pressure their governments to act through whatever means they have available.
My point is, that this is a bad system. The people of Burma, of whom there are many intelligent, articulate, and dedicated activists travelling the world and advocating with foreign politicians, should have more direct recourse within international bodies.
You are right that it is the opinions of the people of Burma that matter. However, the people of Burma are expressing their opinion – they are trying very hard for their voices to be heard, but, they are put in a position of feeling like their voices must be heard by Westerners for it to count.
This is the way the situation is – not my personal statement on the value of Burmese opinions. International enforcement or action on human rights law to protect citizens persecuted by their own government requires public pressure. Governments of the world, especially the US, will not act on anything not in their express interest without significant pressure from their constituencies. Burmese calling for some kind of help from outside Burma have to deal with this reality. Do you presume that the opinions of Burmese within the country have any influence over the actions of a military dictatorship?
Your comment about the world being divided by borders is correct. Currently, there is no real, effective way to deal with these kinds of human rights abuses that break international conventions and laws. This is what I’m saying needs to change. Citizens of a nation need a mechanism to hold their governments accountable within the international arena when they break international laws, without Westerners acting as intermediaries.
Simply, I did read the first draft, my rational is if it’s 50 % at least acceptable in terms of democracy…i mean you should know the basic concept of democracy.
and as i’ve followed the drafting process nowadays, nothing much has been changed from the first draft. in fact i do understand that the interpretation of democracy can be various but the basic ideology is the most important; we still and will have election, right of the people guaranteed, basic freedom of expression and of coz, political one.
I can tell you that I don’t know it’s better that the old one but in fact, overall, I have never agree that we should not over-empower the government, of coz i was not quite happy with the old cons. on this aspect. This is my serious concern.
Taxi Driver, so I do beleive we still have future. As someone said, why dont you let the next gen. MPs do their job? To prove themselves they really beleive in democracy…
sept 19 cannot be kind of apocalypse. rigid induction of the coup should be softened…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Raging argument about war in Burma
Anyone who wonder how much abuse from its tyrannical rulers people in Myanmar or Laos can take pnly have to look no farther than North Korea.
I have asked this question before: “What ever happened to the fierce warrior Burmese blood who historically fought the Thais toe-to-toe for glory or territory?”
But surely the Myanmar situation will explode to violence when the peoples’ anger boil over.
Raging argument about war in Burma
Anyone who wonder how much abuse from its tyrannical rulers people in Myanmar or Laos can take pnly have to look no farther than North Korea.
I have asked this question before: “What ever happened to the fierce warrior Burmese blood who historically fought the Thais toe-to-toe for glory or territory?”
But surely the situation cannot go on indefinitely.
Raging argument about war in Burma
I am saying their needs to be change, Grasshopper. I do not think we actually disagree on how the current state of affairs limits outsiders influence over events in Burma – regardless of whether this is a good or bad thing. What I originally said was that I wish there could be change in how this whole system works, that in the absence of change, advocacy efforts could be more focused towards working around this system such that Burmese people have more say and influence than they do now seem too. I have no hypothesis for how to save Burma. I do not personally think the standard awareness raising and letter writing campaigns are effective. I think most action taken by or in the West to date has more to do with token efforts and conscience assuaging. However, I bristle at the statement that change will come from within when the oppression becomes ‘intolerable’. I have heard this before and I think that while action is often ‘conscience-assuaging’, this statement is merely an attempt to assuage one’s conscience in the face of non-action. Whether you intend as such or not, this is how it sounds, and it has been said by many a person with absolutely no experience with conflict and oppression, and a lot of experience with entitlement. I am not accusing you of such, I don’t know you. But it just kind of makes you sound like a Libertarian or Republican.
Personally, I think every government and international governing body currently in existence sucks, and I don’t expect that any of them actually place the principles they espouse in high regard.
Raging argument about war in Burma
hear hear
“Rural no more”
“The whole tabian baan system is a wonderful way of manipulating the rural populous.”
It is so incredibly difficult getting through the bottleneck point of Morchit Mai bus station in Bangkok to get back to your rural home, that a lot of people just take a relaxed weekend, not surprising.
Reforms in the jot tabian baan system would have to number among the reforms that the paper calls for, allowing people to vote in, and have a say in, their temporary Bangkok residence.
“the findings go against a traditional belief that most people live in rural areas”
The definition of city is fairly broad including Chiang Mai, for instance. 15 minutes out of Chiang Mai and you’re in paddy fields. Mae Jo is an agricultural university and town only 20-30 minutes out. Bangkok is classified as a mega-city. Chiang Rai will probably be an urban area one day.
“Rural no more”
The whole tabian baan system is a wonderful way of manipulating the rural populous.
We all know that the population of Bangkok is probably 15mn, but probably less than half of the people have any vote in the town. To vote you need a permenant address. It is as if the landed gentry of Bangkok are importing their own servile workforce.
The sheer cost alone of maintaining this ridiculous system, alongside the aforementioned exodus for songkraan and elections show that the snotty nosed elite in Bangkok have no desire what so ever to allow the poor a proper role in the country.
Raging argument about war in Burma
Let me attempt to make a separate point.
I for one am and have always been 100% aware that while I sit in my comfortable American city, sipping my cup of coffee as I am right now, I can never truly appreciate the realities of what’s going on in Burma. And while I agree with Tara that some of the larger Burma organizations that only work to bring awareness of the situation do very little that is actually productive on the ground OR internationally (understatement of the day), I feel the realities of American (and perhaps Western) Culture make it a necessity. Just look at the Iraq war. It has literally been years since I have had or even heard a conversation about Iraq in my town, meanwhile all hell is breaking loose, we go on like everything is normal, even though many don’t feel that way, culture seems to dictate that it’s something you don’t talk about.
I have tried on many occasions to bring awareness of what’s going on in Burma at my college (I’m about 10 years older than most college students by the way) and you should see the blank look on their faces. Just trying to talk about Burma, Suu Kyi, abuses and oppression leaves many so uninterested it is impossible to discuss any larger opposition movement not to mention discuss ineffective policy. Even those close to me who know my level of involvement have a measured tolerance for hearing about it.
And as far as there being a difference of opinion on how international policy needs to change, that has always been the case and will not change. But at least we can agree there needs to be a change. Since we are the only one’s who seem to care, why can’t we unite behind that?
Raging argument about war in Burma
This touches on a sore spot with me. Burma’s generals get slammed, all the time, and rightfully so.
What about Laos, though, from where Ms Kemp is ostensibly writing? Can there be a more secretive ruling elite in Southeast Asia? Dissenters — at least they usually emerge some time from Burma’s prisons. The few who rear their heads in Laos basically disappear, more or less forever.
And that’s not even touching on the Hmong, or corruption.
Of course, it’s a pretty sweet life for expats and tourists in Laos, generally. Why queer the deal?
Raging argument about war in Burma
Your comment angers me Tara. You should go to an authority in wherever you originate from and lobby for whatever hypothesis strikes you next! Wow, all power to you!
I am being vindictive, please don’t grant me the honour of a response!
Raging argument about war in Burma
Tara, are you the one suggesting there needs to be change? I am commenting on how there can be change. Also you assume I have not dealt with the realities of civil war and oppression. While I am safe now I do understand how people react to pain.
Raging argument about war in Burma
That wasn’t pedantic at all Mike, I agree completely. Grasshopper, the notion that Burmese people will be able to change the situation once it becomes ‘intolerable’ is no less presumptuous than the pontifications of peace activists criticized in the original article. It’s a judgement made at a distance in relative safety. You are not the one dealing with the realities of civil war, oppression, and ethnic cleansing, so what right do you have to make any statement about what they can and cannot tolerate?
Raging argument about war in Burma
Mike, just interested to know whether you believe ‘self-determination’ can be considered by the UN to be an ongoing process or is ‘self determination’ only until the geography has a state? Wouldn’t the Junta argue that they are still suffering the effects of decolonization?
Also thanks for clarifying the other points. However I am not arguing that SEA ‘has different rights’; I am just questioning whether some nations would even recognize or have different interpretation of ‘human rights’ when global integration is not a national concern. And I was mistaken in referring to self-determination as apart of the declaration (or as I said, Charter) and got confused with article 15 which is everyone has the right to a nationality. As you say, humans are humans!
Raging argument about war in Burma
Firstly I must apologise for giving a perhaps pedantic comment. But just to clarify the status of human rights and fix up some mistakes in Grasshopper’s comment:
There is no such thing as the UN Charter for Human Rights – there is the UN charter, and the Univesal Declaration for human rights – quite different documents.
The claim that “no SEA nations consulted when writing it!” is kinda true, though a number of SEA nations quickly agreed to it when the writing was finished, and they did agree by making the later treaties on it law in many of their countries. When one claims human rights is not an Asian thing they are jumping into bed with Singapore PM Lee, and other leaders like Suharto, and Marcos. Human are humans, and they all deserve their rights equally, Asian humans are not any different. Further, China and India were deeply involved in the drafting, and he first human rights ‘action’ at the UN was by India against South Africa, showing a long history of Asia’s participation in human rights. This idea of Asia having different rights is a myth.
The right to self determination (common article one of the ICCPR, ICESCR and not a teen) is primarily for decolonizing nations. It would be a stretch to apply it to the Karen or Shan etc., but perhaps possible, though the UN will not recognize these claims because it doesn’t fit their definition of the ‘peoples’ right.
The multinational force issue would fall under the UN Charter and ‘threats in international peace and security” and is not primarily human rights related – anyway this idea didn’t get up because China, Sth Africa, and Russia don’t see Burma’s problems this way.
Raging argument about war in Burma
Firstly I must apologise for giving a perhaps pedantic comment. But just to clarify the status of human rights and fix up some mistakes in Grasshopper’s comment:
There is no such thing as the UN Charter for Human Rights – there is the UN charter, and the Universal Declaration for human rights – quite different documents.
The claim that “no SEA nations consulted when writing it!” is kinda true, though in the later codification of the declaration SEA nations were consulted, and they did agree by making it law in many of their countries. The Philipinesand Thailand continue to play a big role in human rights at the UN. When one claims human rights are not an Asian thing they are jumping into bed with Singapore PM Lee, and other leaders like Suharto, and Marcos. Human are humans, and they all deserve their rights equally, Asian humans are not any different. Further, China and India were deeply involved in teh drafting, and he first human rights ‘action’ at the UN was my India against South Africa, showing a long history of Asia’s participation in human rights.
The right to self determination (common article one of the ICCPR, ICESCR and not a teen) is primarily for decolonizing nations. The multinational force issue would fall under the UN Charter and ‘threats in international peace and security” – which didn’t get up because China, Sth Africa, and Russia don’t see Burma’s problems this way.
“Rural no more”
What about that other fairy tale that Thailand WAS a democracy to start with? Any backdate on that one?
Raging argument about war in Burma
Tara; I do not presume the Burmese opposition movement (oh yes, and George Soros) has much influence over the military junta! Quite the opposite. Yes there are mass human rights violations in Burma, but look at the nations, or at least the permanent 5 nations of the security council that you are looking to be moral benchmarks! As you are aware, the US, China and Russia are seemingly only disposed to upholding the charter that they wrote when it looks good for them.. and as Fernquest highlights, the English and French maybe hesitant to act with their colonial histories…
Also, what is to say that the UN Charter for Human Rights is right for a South East Asian nation? From my memory there were no SEA nations consulted when writing it! Furthermore, it would be a human rights abuse if a multinational force went to Burma for the sole purpose of stopping human rights abuses. I think its article 15(or 18? at least its a #teen) where there is a right to ‘self determination’? Maybe it too is another doctrine of liberal imperialism?
It is a bad system, it has been a bad system for a very long time and the only way for that too change is for Burmese people to stop it. That means the horrible situation within Burma will get worse to the point where the threshold of the average persons tolerance can be broken. Whilst I empathize with those activists highlighting the situation in Burma, their actions are surely in vain (some sort of ‘yeah! lets do something!!’ San Francisco clique) if the aim is to really change something.
“Rural no more”
What about that other fairy tale, the one that talks of Thailand returning to democracy? Any update on that one?
Raging argument about war in Burma
Grasshopper – are you unaware of the Burmese opposition movement? Do you think that change has not happened only because people inside the country haven’t expressed enough displeasure? Come on.
My comment is a reference to the way that the world currently deals with human rights abuses committed by ‘sovereign’ nations. Theoretically, the UN and member governments are charged with upholding international human rights treaties and laws. The Burmese government has signed on to many of these laws, and they are violating them. However, getting any government to act through the UN – the appropriate body for such action – requires a ridiculous amount of public pressure. Since the US mainly, and other Western governments, have a great deal of influence in the UN, as well as political and economic clout generally, the US public is often the first target for advocacy and awareness raising efforts. The Burmese activists know this, and activists from other parts of the world know this. When people are unable to influence their own government, and they suffer grevious human rights abuses, they turn to the public in the West to pressure their governments to act through whatever means they have available.
My point is, that this is a bad system. The people of Burma, of whom there are many intelligent, articulate, and dedicated activists travelling the world and advocating with foreign politicians, should have more direct recourse within international bodies.
You are right that it is the opinions of the people of Burma that matter. However, the people of Burma are expressing their opinion – they are trying very hard for their voices to be heard, but, they are put in a position of feeling like their voices must be heard by Westerners for it to count.
This is the way the situation is – not my personal statement on the value of Burmese opinions. International enforcement or action on human rights law to protect citizens persecuted by their own government requires public pressure. Governments of the world, especially the US, will not act on anything not in their express interest without significant pressure from their constituencies. Burmese calling for some kind of help from outside Burma have to deal with this reality. Do you presume that the opinions of Burmese within the country have any influence over the actions of a military dictatorship?
Your comment about the world being divided by borders is correct. Currently, there is no real, effective way to deal with these kinds of human rights abuses that break international conventions and laws. This is what I’m saying needs to change. Citizens of a nation need a mechanism to hold their governments accountable within the international arena when they break international laws, without Westerners acting as intermediaries.
Mapping the post-coup academic landscape
Taxi Driver
Simply, I did read the first draft, my rational is if it’s 50 % at least acceptable in terms of democracy…i mean you should know the basic concept of democracy.
and as i’ve followed the drafting process nowadays, nothing much has been changed from the first draft. in fact i do understand that the interpretation of democracy can be various but the basic ideology is the most important; we still and will have election, right of the people guaranteed, basic freedom of expression and of coz, political one.
I can tell you that I don’t know it’s better that the old one but in fact, overall, I have never agree that we should not over-empower the government, of coz i was not quite happy with the old cons. on this aspect. This is my serious concern.
Taxi Driver, so I do beleive we still have future. As someone said, why dont you let the next gen. MPs do their job? To prove themselves they really beleive in democracy…
sept 19 cannot be kind of apocalypse. rigid induction of the coup should be softened…
Raging argument about war in Burma
The problem is, the opinions of the citizens of Burma have been ignored by the regime running the place, so their fate isn’t in their own hands.