The Sultan of Johor finally got his play truck. Now we can relax. Malaysia is in good hands. I am more impressed with Pizza Hut now going to inculcate all young Burmese with American junk food. Imagine the profits ! Why weddings among the Burmese Generals need not be catered, the hoi polloi can simply order 400 boxes of pizza from Pizza Hut in Yangon. Of course, being devout Buddhists, they will skip the pepperoni and sausage.
Your point is well-taken, if a little constricted in its point-of-view.
Surely you don’t want to suggest that there was nothing political in Thailand’s decision to ally with the US as opposed to making some sort of stand for regional autonomy?
Because, as I’m sure you will admit, that is why Thailand “war-profited” and not the alternative.
This should be a sticky article concerning friends of Myanmar.
Firstly reaffirming the assertion that the West IS NEVER Myanmar friend. Even then (b/f Ne Win) was to push a SEATO agenda.
Secondly the 2 nations you mentioned are supportive of Myanmar:
Israel, when U Thant was GS of UN, as friendship, for obvious reason the “Canal Street” was well built and still functioning is a testimonial and nothing else after U Thant retire from UN.
As for Sri Lanka the tie went back to the relics of Buddha and remain friendly among the dictators facing similar castigation by the West. This tie will endure no doubt however.
The 2 countries are at best “Spiritual friends” that will not benefit much o every day life of citizenry.
Myanmar have no friend in any country when citizenry well being is concern.
As benefit to citizenry goes:
Thailand and China rank highest the West is even worst than the Bangladesh government.
As for the price of the future the citizenry has to pay the West still extract the most comparatively, unless there is a substantial longterm change in recognizing the citizenry aspiration to the freedom.
Jon – you are making a ridiculous point trying to compare Thailand’s Cold War economic performance against the Indo-Chinese countries. They were war-devastated, Thailand war-profitted.
In a land built on lies, where there is no justice for the victims of everything from Thammasat, the Red Drum Massacres, Black May 1992 and the horror of almost 100 completely unarmed civilians being massacred in front of the world’s media in Bangkok in 2010, does this come as any surprise at all?
The real genuine surprise would have been if the Thai junta – amoral and deficient in almost every regard – had actually conducted a thorough, impartial and proper investigation.
You are partly wrong. You may view them as insignificant or not to your liking,
but there are two nations who have been consistent friends with Burma/Myanmar since Independence, solely for altruistic reasons, expecting nothing in return. Israel and Sri Lanka. Let’s take the case of Sri Lanka first. U Nu knew the young Bandaranaike,
and it is obvious to even a salamander, that
Singhlaese Buddhists and Bamar Buddhists
have ideological and religious commonality.
In addition, these are the only nations with
long historical Socialist/nationalist
Buddhist movements. I am making no judgment
here, merely observation. U Wirathu strongly
supported the Singhalese in their battle
against the LTTE, and Sri Lankan Buddhists
are very sympathetic to activist Bamar Buddhists, which is why the 969 movement
met with leaders in Colombo recently. These ties are likely to continue indefinitely.
U Nu has been friends with the elderly David Ben-Gurion and the younger Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan. U Nu was fascinated with the Kibbutz movement and wanted to establish it in Burma with unionized farmers and planters. A friendship immediately blossomed between Israel and Burma, which remains to this day, as obviously both have common interest and common opponents, though far apart, geographically. Again, my views of the Tatmadaw are well known. This is an observation. U Nu courageously defended Israel’s presence at the Bandung Conference in 1955, to no avail. Basically, a vote of 50-1, the 1 being U Nu. Israel never felt anger, but only respect for U Nu and proceeded to invest millions (at that time, a lot of money) in Burma, which paid off, as I have pointed many times, Burma led Southeast Asia in many quality of life factors in the mid 50s until 1962 (Ne Win’s successful coup). U Nu visited Israel often, rare for Asian leaders, even sympathetic Japanese and Taiwanese (probably more Taiwanese, given Israel’s secret relationship with Taiwan). Israel returned the favor with hundreds of Israeli technicians, educators and teachers in Rangoon (Yangon) and Mandalay. Burma usually abstained on UN votes, where the rest of Asia (except democratic Japan and pro-Israel Philippines) voted against Israel. This relationship was absolutely NOT utilitarian, and even today, U Nu is a hero for older Israelis, if not (apparently) for Moe Aung, Marayu and Plan B. I differ, but we all know that. Remember Ne Win cut everybody off, so there was nothing personal against Israel, whom he had no dislike for, as it has always been fear of Bangladesh and Islam that has worried (correctly, as I have stated repeatedly) Burma’s autocratic leadership. While today, President Thein Sein retains good relations with Israel, one will notice (this can be looked up easily) that unlike all other ASEAN nations, Myanmar has little relations with Islamic World, outside Malaysia and Indonesia. I think this policy of avoiding the Arab World, Iran and South Asia is wise, I hope NLD supports this view, and as I know NM does not, I maintain Myamnar is being smart in taking an avowedly pro-Buddhist (meaning not anti-Israel or even anti-West) position. I am sure to get feedback on this. Like it or not (not, I am sure), Myanmar and Israel (and Sri Lanka don’t just have common interests; they have histories together, that predate even Western relations, except of course UK and Russia which supported U Nu and his “Buddhist Socialism”. But Burma’s socialism was not the dogmatic anti-US and anti-Israel Marxism of the Bandung Conference. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was more attracted to Marxism that U Nu ever was.
Thus, while the cynics Plan B and Moe Aung may (in part, rightly) feel the West, India, Russia and China have only utilitarian interests in Myanmar, that is not case for admittedly small, Israel and Sri Lanka. Though less influential, and also for historical reasons, Nepal has also had good relations with Burma, maybe because both nations are nervous at India and China, at various times and for various reasons. PlanB and Moe Aung, don’t generalize. Israel 60 years ago, gave more aid to Burma, than any other nation, save UK and perhaps Australia. Israel offered all Bandung attendees, even Islamic ones, aid, and was Ben-Gurion was slapped in the face. Only U Nu treated him with dignity and respect. That may mean only a hill of dhals to you, but it is not insignificant to Israel and its supporters. I am sure, had Sri Lanka been wealthier then, it would also have offered a lot of assistance. PM Senanayake, the first PM, inherited an educated, but poor nation, which was politically unstable, and Bandaranaike took over in 1960, which was at the height of Burmese progress. Again, the version of Socialism in S.L. and Burma were similar, but a bit more strident in S.L.
It is thus not accurate to say there have been no true friends of Burma/Myanmar, through thick and thin. The million dollar question is, if in the unlikely event DASSK’s Party wins (like they did in 1990) and assumes office, will it straddle the nationalist/multiculturalist line that DASSK seems to be trying to do, will it go rogue and become a “non-aligned” (meaning do whatever Putin and President Xi wants) nation, or will (the best option) maintain a more democratic version of the “Burmese Way to Buddhist Socialism” with internal reforms, a true judiciary, reduction in poverty and all the things the NLD claims it stands for, while keeping bilateral relations restricted to nations that would not attempt to influence Myanmar, ideologically and religiously. The best combination is to keep the few diplomatic relations Myanmar has (get rid of Pyongyang though, which was Ne Win’s stupid idea) to friendly nations with no ulterior motives, while reforming internal dynamics. Finally, as I have stated many times, and will again, the Bangladeshi “Rohingya” are a foreign element, are not indigenous, and present instability to Myanmar. DASSK avoids talking about this, NOT because she does not believe in human rights, but she is not a fool; she has seen what happens in Europe when Muslim minorities are allowed in. She is being practical and, to her credit, being a loyal patriotic Burmese, much to the displeasure of foreigners hoping beyond hope, to manipulate her. Except for the Aris family with whom she blended (married), few REALLY know her. I won’t answer how well I do, as it won’t believed anyway which is fine with me, but I bet bottoms to dollars, I know what her internal political dynamics are.
Canada is part of the “West”, so are you saying the only true friend of “Myanmar” is from the West? You are contradicting yourself again (Chinese syllogism?) if a few lines after that you say “the worst remains the west”
Bamar has “congenital” contempt for “Kala”
Many “Bamars” are “congenital” Buddhists and Gautama Buddha was a “Kala” who lived on the Indian subcontinent. Inability ot shake off irrational emotion and perceptions
Indeed.
The only true friend of Myanmar that is well known is an organization from Canada called Friends Of Burma.
This organization help the citizenry through the government or more often otherwise religious organizations in the darkest days of Nargis to the present.
Making the adage “A friend in need –” hold true.
Nick
The Chinese are better cousin than the Indian, but the worst remain the west. Even though most Burmese aspire to the west’s freedom do not assume in anyway the west as their better friend.
The only time the west care is when something will be gained from such care just like the Chinese except the Chinese has to put out to benefit while the west just blow hard through HR to achieve their hold.
Even now all the western ambassadors especially USA do is charming everyone with a veil threat of wielding the HR issues again.
There is no country that are friends to Myanmar. Depending on the neighbor for now is the only option.
1. One of the hallmarks of military rule, aside from coercion and repression, has been just that – empty rhetoric spouting pious platitudes way back from their Godfather Ne Win’s ‘socialist transformation’, racial harmony, development, progress, through last minute multi-party democracy, the spy chief Khin Nyunt’s market economy and now to Godfather II Than Shwe’s tailor-made ‘democratic transformation’ – from 1988 onwards their own survival topmost on their single minded agenda, everything else little more than a means to an end.
2. Elites and elitism go together, so top down policies and diktats prevail regardless of the existence of a semblance of democracy or no.
Stability of what kind, and desperately desired by whom? Of their political power, their domination – a Fourth Burmese Empire that they dreamt of like a Thousand Year Reich.
On the surface equal responsibility sounds ‘fair’ but it is surely incumbent upon the mighty and powerful, not the powerless and disenfranchised or the silenced majority, over these six decades and more to have extended the olive branch and striven for a genuine peace to prevail and not ceasefire capitalism punctuating between low intensity conflict (LIC) and flare ups of the interminable civil war that has continued to plague this tragic land of ours. The current ‘peace process’ with international involvement, and more importantly funding, seems like an end in itself and not just a means to an end.
This country does not belong exclusively to the military elite as it certainly appears from the way it plays fast and loose with all the land, forests, mountains and rivers as well as the ongoing land grabs to the detriment of our farmers who make up at least 60% of the population and are left destitute in increasing numbers.
3. Heaven forbid everyone from the ethnic groups seeking asylum! Not for want of the regime behaving like a colonial power with its army of occupation in ethnic homelands replete with free fire zones. The Burmese diaspora cuts right across the board including minorities within minorities.
And I should certainly hope some ethnic nationals in MOFA or anywhere for that matter love the country and the people. Also true it’s more and more of a melting pot in the country formerly known as Burma with minorities in every part of ‘Burma Proper’, and the Bamar too like the Russians in the Baltic states and the Ukraine. No one in their right mind and worth their salt want Balkanisation of the country but why is the military ruling class in actual practice disenfranchising, alienating and pushing people out making it impossible to stick it out, at the same time chanting the mantra of keeping the union together as the raison d’├кtre of their deadly grip on the tiller of the ship of state?
4. People did return anxious to contribute to the ‘greater good’ but unless they happen to be entrepreneurial, dare I say wheeler dealer types, joining in the feeding frenzy or the high priest types ingratiating themselves for position and perks, that is unless they fit in, ‘they just ain’t gettin’ nowhere’.
“The trend is people coming back and after two to three years they get frustrated and go back.”….. Repatriates say that their skills and contributions are respected and eagerly sought out by locals. But there are tensions between those who stayed and those who left, particularly when it comes to the issue of Myanmar’s political transition.
5. I belong to a mongrel race called Bamar. “Jaw, jaw, not war, war” oh yes, but certainly not capitulation or collaboration with coercion always waiting in the wings. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”. People aren’t stupid.
6. Some people are trained to obey and follow orders, no questions asked.
Still you have to concede that Plan B did give accurate answer to Professor Nicholas at the same time.
Bamar has “congenital” contempt for “Kala”. Of course like all other irrational “emotion” it is detrimental to the Bamar him/ herself. But they could not be able to see it. Such is the beauty of life. Inability ot shake off irrational emotion and perceptions. Neat!
The paradox is though that no single Bamar would not have grown up with a Kala Sayar or Sayar Ma instructing them as young and they would have equal respect and affection to them as to any Bamar or Chinese elders.
Darn! The Chinese commies have learned so well from the European colonialists and American imperialists. Burma is destined to be the loser forever. What can you say when you can’t get your own house in order?
Well said, Professor. I agree that there are some larger, foundational cracks in the national project which Myanmar is going through, regarding federalism, race relations, poverty alleviation, and development.
Go ahead and do the piece of research you are suggesting. I’m looking forward to reading it once the research is completed and published. This field is under-researched and needs more empirical studies, rather than bloggers who think they know better.
Jon- Give me one good example of what the Thai monarchy did for the people during post 1976 besides a non-stop 24/7 propaganda in the media and posters in every corner of the streets.
While an interesting and rarely broached topic for NM, this article lacks depth and breadth in its analytical framework, apparently overlooking some key drivers of this burgeoning industry in the less democratic and emerging nations of SE Asia.
As this recent article from BBC contends, the Chinese rulers have long been obsessed with building dams, but it is only recently that the government has had the power and financial means to spread the domestic obsession overseas: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151014-the-chinese-are-obsessed-with-building-giant-dams
Such developments should be conceptualised and analysed through the lens of state power and changing global/regional geo-politics, over the more traditional urge to examine socio-ecological transformations through trans-national capitalism and the role of corporations. This is being graphically brought home to me at the moment, as PM David Cameron wines and dines president Xi Jinping in the presence of the reigning monarch (she remains passive, at least superficially, to the real politik unfolding before her), in a bid to secure Chinese investment in the UK nuclear industry. Such politics are very much played out at the personal uber-elite to elite level, and a price to be paid is the relegation of any mention of human rights and thorny questions such as Tibetan independence, to the end of the agenda, as a footnote to the main show and not mentioned in public.
In the case of the export of Chinese hydropower dam construction, any rigorous analysis is lacking unless one can demonstrate first the particular formation of historical power relations that enables massive dam construction domestically (and at the same time disables resistance or opposition) and by extension, the kind of overseas political context that would allow an entry point for the kind of opaque, undemocratic and socio-ecologically destructive dam development projects to which the article alludes. And it would look beyond the hydropower sector alone, to a wider phenomenon of hydraulic development incorporating a number of technologies of domination.
As one of the pioneers and most comprehensive analysts of authoritarian modes of hydraulic development and state formation pointed out, “The rulers of hydraulic society were great builders” (Wittfogel, 1957), referring specifically to a range of hydraulic and non-hydraulic construction categories under the aegis of the state. Wittfogel also provided the insight that hydraulic societies tended to be benevolent in form, but oppressive in practice, often allowing a “Beggars’ Democracy” to exist, a situation I would argue is apparent in the cases of modern Thailand and Cambodia.
Wittfogel has always been controversial, but it is instructive that relatively few scholars have taken upon themselves to review or reinterpret his theories and concepts in the context of the modern upswing in hydraulic development and societal (trans)formation in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I suspect a return to Wittfogel is long overdue for the insights it might reveal to the modern political context in SE Asia.
The lessons learned and suggestions proffered to the industry at the end of the article are, of course, nothing new but repeats calls made by civil society organisations going back 30 years and more. To be novel, the authors would need to get to grips with analysing the social power relations transformations inherent in hydraulic control processes and then consider what this implies to societal responses.
True that the people of Vietnam do not whine (like Malaysians) and prefer to get on with the business of making money; but I doubt there is space for them to whine Peter. The heavy hand of the government there is — very heavy. Besides there are lots of material wealth to catch-up too. Serious reforms only began late 70s/early 80s; and as you noted, the existential threat is real. None of which are in Malaysia — which explains why Malaysians whine — it’s a luxury we can afford.
But no doubt, that Vietnam will soon leave the rest of ASEAN (sans Singapore) trailing.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Southeast Asian snapshots
The Sultan of Johor finally got his play truck. Now we can relax. Malaysia is in good hands. I am more impressed with Pizza Hut now going to inculcate all young Burmese with American junk food. Imagine the profits ! Why weddings among the Burmese Generals need not be catered, the hoi polloi can simply order 400 boxes of pizza from Pizza Hut in Yangon. Of course, being devout Buddhists, they will skip the pepperoni and sausage.
Why I speak out against the Thai Monarchy
Chris:0
Your point is well-taken, if a little constricted in its point-of-view.
Surely you don’t want to suggest that there was nothing political in Thailand’s decision to ally with the US as opposed to making some sort of stand for regional autonomy?
Because, as I’m sure you will admit, that is why Thailand “war-profited” and not the alternative.
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
Peter Cohen
This should be a sticky article concerning friends of Myanmar.
Firstly reaffirming the assertion that the West IS NEVER Myanmar friend. Even then (b/f Ne Win) was to push a SEATO agenda.
Secondly the 2 nations you mentioned are supportive of Myanmar:
Israel, when U Thant was GS of UN, as friendship, for obvious reason the “Canal Street” was well built and still functioning is a testimonial and nothing else after U Thant retire from UN.
As for Sri Lanka the tie went back to the relics of Buddha and remain friendly among the dictators facing similar castigation by the West. This tie will endure no doubt however.
The 2 countries are at best “Spiritual friends” that will not benefit much o every day life of citizenry.
Myanmar have no friend in any country when citizenry well being is concern.
As benefit to citizenry goes:
Thailand and China rank highest the West is even worst than the Bangladesh government.
As for the price of the future the citizenry has to pay the West still extract the most comparatively, unless there is a substantial longterm change in recognizing the citizenry aspiration to the freedom.
Why I speak out against the Thai Monarchy
Jon – you are making a ridiculous point trying to compare Thailand’s Cold War economic performance against the Indo-Chinese countries. They were war-devastated, Thailand war-profitted.
Truth the latest victim in Bangkok blast
This is just a taste of what Thailand has in store for the foreseeable future.
Truth the latest victim in Bangkok blast
In a land built on lies, where there is no justice for the victims of everything from Thammasat, the Red Drum Massacres, Black May 1992 and the horror of almost 100 completely unarmed civilians being massacred in front of the world’s media in Bangkok in 2010, does this come as any surprise at all?
The real genuine surprise would have been if the Thai junta – amoral and deficient in almost every regard – had actually conducted a thorough, impartial and proper investigation.
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
Typo ===> “NOT utilitarian”
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
Plan B,
You are partly wrong. You may view them as insignificant or not to your liking,
but there are two nations who have been consistent friends with Burma/Myanmar since Independence, solely for altruistic reasons, expecting nothing in return. Israel and Sri Lanka. Let’s take the case of Sri Lanka first. U Nu knew the young Bandaranaike,
and it is obvious to even a salamander, that
Singhlaese Buddhists and Bamar Buddhists
have ideological and religious commonality.
In addition, these are the only nations with
long historical Socialist/nationalist
Buddhist movements. I am making no judgment
here, merely observation. U Wirathu strongly
supported the Singhalese in their battle
against the LTTE, and Sri Lankan Buddhists
are very sympathetic to activist Bamar Buddhists, which is why the 969 movement
met with leaders in Colombo recently. These ties are likely to continue indefinitely.
U Nu has been friends with the elderly David Ben-Gurion and the younger Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan. U Nu was fascinated with the Kibbutz movement and wanted to establish it in Burma with unionized farmers and planters. A friendship immediately blossomed between Israel and Burma, which remains to this day, as obviously both have common interest and common opponents, though far apart, geographically. Again, my views of the Tatmadaw are well known. This is an observation. U Nu courageously defended Israel’s presence at the Bandung Conference in 1955, to no avail. Basically, a vote of 50-1, the 1 being U Nu. Israel never felt anger, but only respect for U Nu and proceeded to invest millions (at that time, a lot of money) in Burma, which paid off, as I have pointed many times, Burma led Southeast Asia in many quality of life factors in the mid 50s until 1962 (Ne Win’s successful coup). U Nu visited Israel often, rare for Asian leaders, even sympathetic Japanese and Taiwanese (probably more Taiwanese, given Israel’s secret relationship with Taiwan). Israel returned the favor with hundreds of Israeli technicians, educators and teachers in Rangoon (Yangon) and Mandalay. Burma usually abstained on UN votes, where the rest of Asia (except democratic Japan and pro-Israel Philippines) voted against Israel. This relationship was absolutely NOT utilitarian, and even today, U Nu is a hero for older Israelis, if not (apparently) for Moe Aung, Marayu and Plan B. I differ, but we all know that. Remember Ne Win cut everybody off, so there was nothing personal against Israel, whom he had no dislike for, as it has always been fear of Bangladesh and Islam that has worried (correctly, as I have stated repeatedly) Burma’s autocratic leadership. While today, President Thein Sein retains good relations with Israel, one will notice (this can be looked up easily) that unlike all other ASEAN nations, Myanmar has little relations with Islamic World, outside Malaysia and Indonesia. I think this policy of avoiding the Arab World, Iran and South Asia is wise, I hope NLD supports this view, and as I know NM does not, I maintain Myamnar is being smart in taking an avowedly pro-Buddhist (meaning not anti-Israel or even anti-West) position. I am sure to get feedback on this. Like it or not (not, I am sure), Myanmar and Israel (and Sri Lanka don’t just have common interests; they have histories together, that predate even Western relations, except of course UK and Russia which supported U Nu and his “Buddhist Socialism”. But Burma’s socialism was not the dogmatic anti-US and anti-Israel Marxism of the Bandung Conference. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was more attracted to Marxism that U Nu ever was.
Thus, while the cynics Plan B and Moe Aung may (in part, rightly) feel the West, India, Russia and China have only utilitarian interests in Myanmar, that is not case for admittedly small, Israel and Sri Lanka. Though less influential, and also for historical reasons, Nepal has also had good relations with Burma, maybe because both nations are nervous at India and China, at various times and for various reasons. PlanB and Moe Aung, don’t generalize. Israel 60 years ago, gave more aid to Burma, than any other nation, save UK and perhaps Australia. Israel offered all Bandung attendees, even Islamic ones, aid, and was Ben-Gurion was slapped in the face. Only U Nu treated him with dignity and respect. That may mean only a hill of dhals to you, but it is not insignificant to Israel and its supporters. I am sure, had Sri Lanka been wealthier then, it would also have offered a lot of assistance. PM Senanayake, the first PM, inherited an educated, but poor nation, which was politically unstable, and Bandaranaike took over in 1960, which was at the height of Burmese progress. Again, the version of Socialism in S.L. and Burma were similar, but a bit more strident in S.L.
It is thus not accurate to say there have been no true friends of Burma/Myanmar, through thick and thin. The million dollar question is, if in the unlikely event DASSK’s Party wins (like they did in 1990) and assumes office, will it straddle the nationalist/multiculturalist line that DASSK seems to be trying to do, will it go rogue and become a “non-aligned” (meaning do whatever Putin and President Xi wants) nation, or will (the best option) maintain a more democratic version of the “Burmese Way to Buddhist Socialism” with internal reforms, a true judiciary, reduction in poverty and all the things the NLD claims it stands for, while keeping bilateral relations restricted to nations that would not attempt to influence Myanmar, ideologically and religiously. The best combination is to keep the few diplomatic relations Myanmar has (get rid of Pyongyang though, which was Ne Win’s stupid idea) to friendly nations with no ulterior motives, while reforming internal dynamics. Finally, as I have stated many times, and will again, the Bangladeshi “Rohingya” are a foreign element, are not indigenous, and present instability to Myanmar. DASSK avoids talking about this, NOT because she does not believe in human rights, but she is not a fool; she has seen what happens in Europe when Muslim minorities are allowed in. She is being practical and, to her credit, being a loyal patriotic Burmese, much to the displeasure of foreigners hoping beyond hope, to manipulate her. Except for the Aris family with whom she blended (married), few REALLY know her. I won’t answer how well I do, as it won’t believed anyway which is fine with me, but I bet bottoms to dollars, I know what her internal political dynamics are.
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
Canada is part of the “West”, so are you saying the only true friend of “Myanmar” is from the West? You are contradicting yourself again (Chinese syllogism?) if a few lines after that you say “the worst remains the west”
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
Bamar has “congenital” contempt for “Kala”
Many “Bamars” are “congenital” Buddhists and Gautama Buddha was a “Kala” who lived on the Indian subcontinent.
Inability ot shake off irrational emotion and perceptions
Indeed.
With no vote we have no voice
http://elevenmyanmar.com/politics/vote-fraud-or-vote-theft-or-vote-rigging-responsible-person-u-tin-aye-should-give-clear
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
The only true friend of Myanmar that is well known is an organization from Canada called Friends Of Burma.
This organization help the citizenry through the government or more often otherwise religious organizations in the darkest days of Nargis to the present.
Making the adage “A friend in need –” hold true.
Nick
The Chinese are better cousin than the Indian, but the worst remain the west. Even though most Burmese aspire to the west’s freedom do not assume in anyway the west as their better friend.
The only time the west care is when something will be gained from such care just like the Chinese except the Chinese has to put out to benefit while the west just blow hard through HR to achieve their hold.
Even now all the western ambassadors especially USA do is charming everyone with a veil threat of wielding the HR issues again.
There is no country that are friends to Myanmar. Depending on the neighbor for now is the only option.
Making Myanmar’s overseas vote count
1. One of the hallmarks of military rule, aside from coercion and repression, has been just that – empty rhetoric spouting pious platitudes way back from their Godfather Ne Win’s ‘socialist transformation’, racial harmony, development, progress, through last minute multi-party democracy, the spy chief Khin Nyunt’s market economy and now to Godfather II Than Shwe’s tailor-made ‘democratic transformation’ – from 1988 onwards their own survival topmost on their single minded agenda, everything else little more than a means to an end.
2. Elites and elitism go together, so top down policies and diktats prevail regardless of the existence of a semblance of democracy or no.
Stability of what kind, and desperately desired by whom? Of their political power, their domination – a Fourth Burmese Empire that they dreamt of like a Thousand Year Reich.
On the surface equal responsibility sounds ‘fair’ but it is surely incumbent upon the mighty and powerful, not the powerless and disenfranchised or the silenced majority, over these six decades and more to have extended the olive branch and striven for a genuine peace to prevail and not ceasefire capitalism punctuating between low intensity conflict (LIC) and flare ups of the interminable civil war that has continued to plague this tragic land of ours. The current ‘peace process’ with international involvement, and more importantly funding, seems like an end in itself and not just a means to an end.
This country does not belong exclusively to the military elite as it certainly appears from the way it plays fast and loose with all the land, forests, mountains and rivers as well as the ongoing land grabs to the detriment of our farmers who make up at least 60% of the population and are left destitute in increasing numbers.
3. Heaven forbid everyone from the ethnic groups seeking asylum! Not for want of the regime behaving like a colonial power with its army of occupation in ethnic homelands replete with free fire zones. The Burmese diaspora cuts right across the board including minorities within minorities.
And I should certainly hope some ethnic nationals in MOFA or anywhere for that matter love the country and the people. Also true it’s more and more of a melting pot in the country formerly known as Burma with minorities in every part of ‘Burma Proper’, and the Bamar too like the Russians in the Baltic states and the Ukraine. No one in their right mind and worth their salt want Balkanisation of the country but why is the military ruling class in actual practice disenfranchising, alienating and pushing people out making it impossible to stick it out, at the same time chanting the mantra of keeping the union together as the raison d’├кtre of their deadly grip on the tiller of the ship of state?
4. People did return anxious to contribute to the ‘greater good’ but unless they happen to be entrepreneurial, dare I say wheeler dealer types, joining in the feeding frenzy or the high priest types ingratiating themselves for position and perks, that is unless they fit in, ‘they just ain’t gettin’ nowhere’.
According to this report:
“The trend is people coming back and after two to three years they get frustrated and go back.”….. Repatriates say that their skills and contributions are respected and eagerly sought out by locals. But there are tensions between those who stayed and those who left, particularly when it comes to the issue of Myanmar’s political transition.
5. I belong to a mongrel race called Bamar. “Jaw, jaw, not war, war” oh yes, but certainly not capitulation or collaboration with coercion always waiting in the wings. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”. People aren’t stupid.
6. Some people are trained to obey and follow orders, no questions asked.
Who are Myanmar’s friends?
Thanks for the accurate definition.
Still you have to concede that Plan B did give accurate answer to Professor Nicholas at the same time.
Bamar has “congenital” contempt for “Kala”. Of course like all other irrational “emotion” it is detrimental to the Bamar him/ herself. But they could not be able to see it. Such is the beauty of life. Inability ot shake off irrational emotion and perceptions. Neat!
The paradox is though that no single Bamar would not have grown up with a Kala Sayar or Sayar Ma instructing them as young and they would have equal respect and affection to them as to any Bamar or Chinese elders.
The high price of Chinese hydropower
Darn! The Chinese commies have learned so well from the European colonialists and American imperialists. Burma is destined to be the loser forever. What can you say when you can’t get your own house in order?
Myanmar’s critical moment
Well said, Professor. I agree that there are some larger, foundational cracks in the national project which Myanmar is going through, regarding federalism, race relations, poverty alleviation, and development.
The high price of Chinese hydropower
@ David Blake
Go ahead and do the piece of research you are suggesting. I’m looking forward to reading it once the research is completed and published. This field is under-researched and needs more empirical studies, rather than bloggers who think they know better.
Why I speak out against the Thai Monarchy
Jon- Give me one good example of what the Thai monarchy did for the people during post 1976 besides a non-stop 24/7 propaganda in the media and posters in every corner of the streets.
The high price of Chinese hydropower
While an interesting and rarely broached topic for NM, this article lacks depth and breadth in its analytical framework, apparently overlooking some key drivers of this burgeoning industry in the less democratic and emerging nations of SE Asia.
As this recent article from BBC contends, the Chinese rulers have long been obsessed with building dams, but it is only recently that the government has had the power and financial means to spread the domestic obsession overseas:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151014-the-chinese-are-obsessed-with-building-giant-dams
Such developments should be conceptualised and analysed through the lens of state power and changing global/regional geo-politics, over the more traditional urge to examine socio-ecological transformations through trans-national capitalism and the role of corporations. This is being graphically brought home to me at the moment, as PM David Cameron wines and dines president Xi Jinping in the presence of the reigning monarch (she remains passive, at least superficially, to the real politik unfolding before her), in a bid to secure Chinese investment in the UK nuclear industry. Such politics are very much played out at the personal uber-elite to elite level, and a price to be paid is the relegation of any mention of human rights and thorny questions such as Tibetan independence, to the end of the agenda, as a footnote to the main show and not mentioned in public.
In the case of the export of Chinese hydropower dam construction, any rigorous analysis is lacking unless one can demonstrate first the particular formation of historical power relations that enables massive dam construction domestically (and at the same time disables resistance or opposition) and by extension, the kind of overseas political context that would allow an entry point for the kind of opaque, undemocratic and socio-ecologically destructive dam development projects to which the article alludes. And it would look beyond the hydropower sector alone, to a wider phenomenon of hydraulic development incorporating a number of technologies of domination.
As one of the pioneers and most comprehensive analysts of authoritarian modes of hydraulic development and state formation pointed out, “The rulers of hydraulic society were great builders” (Wittfogel, 1957), referring specifically to a range of hydraulic and non-hydraulic construction categories under the aegis of the state. Wittfogel also provided the insight that hydraulic societies tended to be benevolent in form, but oppressive in practice, often allowing a “Beggars’ Democracy” to exist, a situation I would argue is apparent in the cases of modern Thailand and Cambodia.
Wittfogel has always been controversial, but it is instructive that relatively few scholars have taken upon themselves to review or reinterpret his theories and concepts in the context of the modern upswing in hydraulic development and societal (trans)formation in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I suspect a return to Wittfogel is long overdue for the insights it might reveal to the modern political context in SE Asia.
The lessons learned and suggestions proffered to the industry at the end of the article are, of course, nothing new but repeats calls made by civil society organisations going back 30 years and more. To be novel, the authors would need to get to grips with analysing the social power relations transformations inherent in hydraulic control processes and then consider what this implies to societal responses.
Cara Menghasilkan Uang Dengan Bermain Dominoqq
In response to your comments below Peter.
You are right.
True that the people of Vietnam do not whine (like Malaysians) and prefer to get on with the business of making money; but I doubt there is space for them to whine Peter. The heavy hand of the government there is — very heavy. Besides there are lots of material wealth to catch-up too. Serious reforms only began late 70s/early 80s; and as you noted, the existential threat is real. None of which are in Malaysia — which explains why Malaysians whine — it’s a luxury we can afford.
But no doubt, that Vietnam will soon leave the rest of ASEAN (sans Singapore) trailing.