Erik, your comment seems to ignore the fact that these type of bomb campaigns have gone on many times over the years, for the most part well before the overt tensions with Myanmar’s Muslims that have arisen in the past two years. Doesn’t this contradict your unsupported claim that “no Burmese would plant these bombs?” It’s pretty clear that , in the past, some Burmese have in fact planted very similar bombs, with targets including upscale shopping centers and Thingyan celebrations, that many would see as not fundamentally dissimilar from the recent targets.
One should be very careful not to make accusations without evidence, to avoid unnecessarily stoking communal tensions, don’t you think?
So, in short, we have no idea who did it. That doesn’t get us terribly far. I wonder what value there is in repeating the rumours and conspiracy theories that pass for political analysis in Myanmar.
I’d also take issue with your final paragraphs – the idea that people in central Myanmar are getting a raw deal because all the focus is on getting a peace dividend in the borderlands. That will strike many minority populations as a sick joke, particularly in Kachin state where 100,000 people have been displaced by government-KIO fighting (with Tatmadaw units repeatedly breaking ceasefires). The reality is that central Myanmar has experienced most of the limited liberalisation that Thein Sein has ushered in; it is the borderlands where business unfortunately continues much as usual.
I agree about unfair and dangerous generalisations. But stereotypes exist when you reach a critical mass. So it’s also about a sense of proportion not just putting things in perspective.
Counterpoints are certainly the essence of debate but this unfortunately reminds me of Hla Oo, one of the guest contributors on NM and ex-Tatmadaw himself, who peddled the line that the Burmese as a race are just as violent as the ruling generals. Go figure.
You don’t want to fall into that trap inadvertently and get labelled an apologist for Islam by tarring the whole lot with the same brush. That was part of my point.
I agree that no Burmese would plant these bombs, even less the opposition or ethnic minorities (at least those involved in politics or even guerrilla, drug trafficking, etc).
I think these attacks are perpetrated to spread the permanent fear that terror causes. This is mainly from outside extremists trained in the long Muslim Terrorist chain from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia.
This is a radicalism that must be fought inside every country in the region, this is not a problem only from Myanmar.
Also, I’m concerned with your report regarding the average people in Myanmar. Democracy is a word long used to cheer people about a shining future, but we all know that there are a lot of democratic poor countries in the world. Democracy is a political system, not a model for development.
This frustration could quickly translate itself in finding a common enemy for ethnic burmese. Decades ago, Chinese and Muslim minorities left the country after a social crisis. Without repression, this anger could spill even more and political instability would come.
I saw your book in Amazon and it looked really interesting. I think every side of the story should be listened, otherwise we can’t fully debate any matter.
The muslim side (which is, of course, very legitimate) can be seen in this suggested reading and also on the everyday news.
I think we must debate this issue and borrow learnings from more authors, like:
Robert Taylor, 2009. The State in Myanmar.
David Steinberg, 2010. What Everyone needs to know.
Christopher Duncan, 2004. Civilizing the margins: Southeast Asian Govt policies for the development of minorities.
Every development in Myanmar has the involvement of other countries and shall be discussed as a big picture.
I believe you need to take a better look at the big picture.
Any (respectable) scholar on Myanmar politics knows that democracy will not flourish from nothing.
Your comments are strongly biased since you don’t come with an alternative solution and I think that’s why people from both sides can’t discuss democratization without recurring to international stances.
I believe NATIONAL enterpreneuralism can’t come from a source other than the military and because of that I suggested they could adapt their role to step progressively out of politics with a hedge. There are other enterpreneurs in Myanmar that aren’t military (I cited Zaw Zaw, but there are others, including (ex)drug traffickers portfolio, e.g. Asia World), but all of them MUST be linked with the government to operate in the country.
In a not so distant future, both groups (military and non-military) can have their market share and maybe compete in some areas. But my point is that this is much better than losing your capitalists to Great Power business, because China, US, India, etc are only interested in their own benefit.
Also you should be aware that the Tatmadaw is changing, a new modern leadership is rising and the old guard is now at least 80 y-old, they don’t have much time. Some of this new leadership is corrupt, like every army in Southeast Asia, but a professional counterpart is undoubtedly ascending.
Finally, I believe the military won’t move out for free for many reasons, including the obvious political instability that would emerge immediately (look at the democracy period, I suggest you to read Michael Charney – A modern history of Burma).
ps.: If the military could pay academics from all over the world to lobby for them, I think they would have already convinced Barack Obama to sell some Tomahawks to the Tatmadaw.
Point of my posts here on this topic is that i reject the summary judgements over religions and cultures (eg. Islam bad – Buddhism good), based on highly selective and self-serving interpretation of history, religion and culture, in order to further certain agendas.
Well that’s good; however, as far as I can tell that’s not what’s this conversation is about. Mr. Cohen merely pointed out that different religions have differing ideologies. One such ideology is the morality of violence. This is a truism; however it seems to have offended your progressive, secular sensibilities. I think Sam Harris is right on the money when he describes your mindset:
So when a suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowd of children, this secular type of person will imagine, “That wasn’t religion. I mean it had nothing to do with a belief in paradise and 72 virgins. Who could believe that? This is a . . . some kind of psychological aberration. Or it’s caused by economic desperation, or policies in the region. I mean it’s not a matter of metaphysical beliefs.” I think the jury is in on this, and we know that people really do believe these things. They are telling us ad nauseum that they believe these things. And I don’t think there’s any more powerful rhetorical device for emphasis than blowing yourself up or flying a plane into a building. And I mean these people are really willing to die for what they believe. And we know it’s not a matter of economics. I’m gonna speak specifically to the Muslim word for a moment. We know it’s not a matter of economics and education, because this recent plot in the U.K., these are all doctors who are . . . who are aspiring suicide bombers. And you know, how much more education did these doctors need? One was a neurosurgeon. You find me a neurosurgeon suicide bomber, and you tell me the problem is education and economics, it clearly isn’t. And . . . but the deeper problem, and I think a far more sinister problem, is that it is possible to be well educated – so well educated that you can be a neurosurgeon – and still believe that you can get 72 virgins in paradise. And this is made possible by the fact that we have allowed a certain mode of thought – religion – to thrive in a cocoon of this sphere of protection from criticism. It is just taboo to criticize people’s religious beliefs.
Your moral relativism when it comes to religious ideology is both patronizing and offensive. Offensive not only to the hundreds of thousands of Buddhists who sincerely believe in the Buddha’s teachings of ahimsa, but also to those hundreds of thousands of Muslim mujihadeen who sincerely believe that violence in the name of Allah (jihad bil saif), for the purposes of defense and expansion of the Islamic World, legitimized by centuries of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), is an activity that is pleasing to Allah.
Just briefly on P.Cohen’s statement that ‘Thai monks ….did not call for mass killings of communists or leftists’ – Sir, do you not recall the famous, or should that be infamous, Thai monk Kittiwutho Bhikku who was known all over Thailand during the mid 1970s for his comments to the effect that ‘it was not sinful to kill communists’?
Also Nick is right on the money to question the assertion that ‘the majority of Thai monks work(ing) with NGOs to help drug addicts.’ As he suggests such monks and temples working with addicts are few and far between on the ground. At the same time if you follow the Thai press you’ll come across stories over the years of monks getting high on ‘yaa baa’ and ‘ice’, not to mention a bit of weed and booze. And then you can throw a fair amount of sexual shenanigans into the mix. Indeed, one of the first Thai monks I ever saw many decades ago was – donned in his jii-worn (robes) – getting treatment for the clap in the well-known VD clinic in Bangrak on Sathon Road.
It would be interesting to see a detailed listing of all the defrockings over the past 20-30 years.
Another point i forgot to add. You stated that Thai monks are massacred by ethnic Malays is South Thailand. Killed yes, but not exactly massacred.
What though you forgot to mention in your emotive statement is that some monks (and teachers) and part of intelligence operations of the Thai state in that murky insurgency. Which does of course not justify attacks against them, i need to add. It though gives a more realistic image on what takes place down there.
Monks and temples do issue also amulets specifically for the Thai military in the three southern provinces(i have one given to me by a colonel of the Thai military).
There are murky Buddhist militias and paramilitary organizations, some openly, like the Or Lor Bor, and others very secretive, who have also been responsible for attacks on mosques and extrajudicial killings of innocents (and guilty).
In 2006 and 2007 i have spent a bit of time with some of those militias and paramilitary organizations. Some of these state sponsored organizations even have children as members, even armed (i have photographed some, as young as 13 or 14), who attended training session by the Thai military.
All sides down there are not behaving nicely. It’s far more complex than “bad Muslims” vs. “good Buddhists”, as you try to convince here. This conflict is fought by both sides very dirty, like all such insurgencies.
Jekyll and Hyde is human nature, not specifically Burmese. Just look at the history of Germany, where i am from… 😉
Point of my posts here on this topic is that i reject the summary judgements over religions and cultures (eg. Islam bad – Buddhism good), based on highly selective and self-serving interpretation of history, religion and culture, in order to further certain agendas. Therefore, i feel the need to present counterpoints.
Hindu clergy? What is Hindu clergy? The different and often diametrically opposed Saddhu sects? Vaishnait, Shivait, Tantric, and whatever else? Brahmin priests working in the temples?
If your assumption that the vast majority would have rejected Hindu extremism then the BJP would have hardly been elected into government back then. I have been in India during the height of BJP power, which in terms of religion and extremism was quite uncomfortable.
The cast system has been first mentioned in the rigveda, and developed from there. While the is a minority of Saddhu sects and more modern interpretations of Hindu philosophy that reject the cast system, it still is – both in theory and practice – in the heart of Hinduism. Stating otherwise is wishful thinking.
The clergy in Thailand rejecting the drug war killings? Any link to that?
From what i can remember the war on drugs had not just the approval of the majority of the population, it also had the approval of the palace (see the 2002 and 2003 birthday speeches – but not the translation by the Nation, which left some elementary points out). I do not remember the any public statement by the supreme council against the drug war killings. Therefore – you need to substantiate your claim.
The majority of monks working with NGO’s to help drug addicts? Really? A few temples indeed have such programs, some individual monks do, but the majority of monks and temples in Thailand do not.
As to Tibet – well, other than having spend a bit of time there i have quite a large library on Tibet. You may start with Alexandra David Neel’s descriptions, read about Ekai Kawaguchi’s travels and travails, educate yourself on the complex history of the Dalai Lamas and their relationship to China, the not exactly peaceful rise of the Gelugpa sect to spiritual and political power. Quite enlightening is also “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, which gives quite an interesting and often neglected view on Tibet’s cold war history, and shows that the present Dalai Lama not always held such peaceful views on the struggle over Tibet’s independence.
The topic is far to wide and complex for a little comment here on New Mandala. Nevertheless – there is not a “Tibetan” (good) or “Bejing” (bad) view on Tibet. Such simplifications are just polemics that once represented utterly biased views from a time where academia primarily served cold war vested interests.
Thank god that time is over.
And of course – how emotive to bring 9/11…
You ask which country bans Buddhist sects? Well, i remember that the Buddhist fundamentalist Santi Asoke sect was kicked out of the Sangha here in Thailand, and its monks are not allowed to call themselves monks, and are not allowed to wear orange robes and wear brown robes instead. In addition to that the Thai Sangha does still not recognize bhikkhuni, even if they were ordained in Sri Lanka.
You contradict yourself and you are a bit harsh. I am not sure who you are calling a paid military lobbyist. I do not think anyone commenting here is a paid lobbyist for Burma
or any other country.
You rightly strongly condemn the Tatmadaw, but then say there must be a middle ground where the Tatmadaw are given a role or the Tatmadaw will gradually move out of politics. That is naive and will not happen. They must go entirely; they will not contribute to nation building, judicial reform and peacemaking. They will go; it’s a matter of time and process. They will implode from within due to internal divisions (younger officers wanting power) or the Burmese people will overthrow them through massive demonstrations. It will not happen right away, but it will happen. Suharto and Marcos were in power a very long time. Burma does not have a Parliament like Indonesia where the military accepted a quota of seats as long as they were allowed to have free reign against criminals and become rich through military-owned companies (that part is similar to Burma).
The Tatmadaw are too invested in their own
survival and endemic cronyism and corruption,
encouraged by benefactors like China, to go
of their own accord. Foreigners will not force them out either-it will be the Burmese people.
“…entrepreneurialism can have a source external to the military (tatmadaw) ranks..”
The local Chinese and Indian entrepreneurial class have largely left Yangon for UK, US and Australia, as have many educated Burmese.
Their place has been taken by China and Japan
who do not re-invest their proceeds in Burma.
Private (non-government; meaning non-Tatmadaw) companies are few in Burma and have small and irregular capitalization. Burma
is poor but the Tatmadaw are relatively wealthy. Foreign investment will not change this. Judicial and economic reform instituted by a democratic government led
by someone like Tin Oo (Daw Aung Suu Kyi
isn’t much of a technocrat), Deputy Leader
of the NLD, is the way ahead.
This is a shockingly regime-apologetic piece, barely considering how inept, uneducated, corrupt, and power hungry the military officers running these crony companies can be. The SPDC junta thrived for decades and mismanaged the economy and government by willed ignorance and misinformation. I’m dismayed that the author doesn’t consider that entrepreneurialism can have a source external to the military (tatmadaw) ranks. This whole piece rings hollow and appears as if written by a paid military lobbyist. Obviously the military will be important (indeed, central) to Myanmar’s society and political economy for decades to come. I don’t think Peter’s comments calling for the military to go have any genuine possibility of unfolding, but there must be a middle ground: a process by which the military moves gradually out of politics and contributes to genuine national reconciliation, nation-building, and peacebuilding.
Joshua Kurlantzik is a newcomer to Southeast Asian affairs and not someone with long years
in the region. His Ideal Man is a mixture of
anecdote and supposed history. I won’t go into great detail about some inconsistencies and wishful thinking in the book.
“He notes that the OSS of William Donovan, in which Thompson instantly “felt at home” (page 29), was “a very left-wing and informal organization” (page 24), one that “stood out in wartime for its intense idealism and anti-colonialism” (page 25).”
The OSS was not a bastion of Left-wing idealism. I have personal familial familiarity with the OSS and the organization
it later became which I cannot detail. But the OSS in East and Southeast Asia, Europe, Russia, and the Middle-East was neither “Left-Wing” nor anti-Colonial; it was pro-American. The OSS had ties with European
colonial powers. Kurlantzick in this instance, and others, romanticizes Thompson
and his involvement with American and Thai
organizations and exaggerates his role in
Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos (“Thompson soon emerged as the man on whom a range of Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodian nationalists depended “to plead their cause with Washington and with the Thai government” (page 49). Thompson was only one of many that
Indochinese nationalists approached for
assistance; Thompson was not the primary one.
“Kurlantzick cannot really mean to suggest, pace David Halberstam, that, if only Americans with such backgrounds had had their way, events in Southeast Asia would not have taken their disappointing Cold War course.”
Of course, Kurlantzick pace Fareed Zakaria
means that. Philipe Baude is correct in his
assessment of Thompson, I believe.
As to his disappearance in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia; the mystery endures as a form of
swashbuckling exoticism. Thus, I agree with
the statement:
“Jim Thompson” has become a brand that has more in common with Starbucks..”
A more balanced and realistic written treatment of Jim Thompson still awaits an author.
Your last point I do agree with. Frugality, contentment, lack of ambition may all be deterrents to progress, as is blaming any misfortune on your karma.
Karma however is widely misinterpreted as all to do with your past, hence preordained and there’s nothing you can do about it.. a nihilistic view. The crucial message which tends to be overlooked is that the present is indeed a great opportunity to shape your future karma, so it’s proactive, not passive and supine.
If Christianity is once removed from the Old Testament and Judaism, then Buddhism is a more distant cousin to Hinduism with its caste system. Look no further than the untouchables turning to Buddhism.
People who perceive their religion and way of life coming under attack within their own borders are bound to react violently, in this instance displaying the Jekyll and Hyde nature of man, perhaps a strong trait of the Burmese. It’s hardly justifiable to try and tar the whole lot with the same brush.
“I remember quite clearly that well known Buddhist monks and abbots went on TV arguing that killing drug dealers during the 2003 war on drugs here in Thailand would not draw bad karma, and this way not just legitimizing the killings but also absolving killers from any “sin”.
These were not typical monks and their pronouncements were rejected by the Thai
Board of Buddhist Clergy. There are monks
(and Imams and Rabbis and Christian clergy) everywhere that crave media attention.
The vast majority of Buddhist monks neither
support this kind of materialism and media vanity nor the killing of drug dealers. Most monks and abbots in Thailand work with Thai and NGOs to help drug addicts and, while Buddhist monks may reject drug use, your inference that they support elimination of drug dealers by violence is wrong and absurd. How many monasteries and monks have you developed relationships with ? Not many, I think. Monks are actively involved in helping addicts and other Thai indigents. Your are
using an anomalous example to generalize
about Thai Buddhism and Buddhism in general.
“The same occurred during the communist insurgency here in Thailand.”
Not it did not. Thai monks, while being
massacred by Communists and currently by
Muslim Malays in southern Thailand, did not
call for mass killings of Thai Communists
or Leftist. Thai monks oppose Communism just
as they oppose Capitalism. Rich Monks in Thailand (like rich Evangelical Christians)
are not rich because of Buddhism which advocates non-materialism. This is a result
of misuse and misinterpretation of Buddhist
teachings, not based on Buddhism.
“Both of these were systematical in nature, and at least to some part faith based.”
You are totally wrong. They were not systematic and they were not based on faith
but lack of faith.
“The Tibetan system of oppression was religiously based, and not just secular, as the dalai lamas claimed not only spiritual but also secular leadership, supported by an intricate system of rule by both clergy and aristocracy.”
NO, the Tibetan system and hierarchy was not
oppressive; the Dalai Lama claims spiritual
leadership only. There is no secularism in
Tibetan Buddhism. You must be listening to
Beijing. It is Beijing that is trying to
secularize and select the Lamas in Lhasa.
Again, you need to speak to Professor Lopez
who can educate properly about Budddhism
and Tibet.
Christianity has committed atrocities in the
past (crusades, forced conversion). Christianity today is reformed because it
underwent several reformations. Is the Vatican rich ? Yes. Are there wealthy Protestants ? Yes. Accumulation of wealth
is not inherently anti-Christian, though
against Buddhist teachings. On a global scale
today, there are not massive killings committed by Christians.
The caste system is a misunderstanding of Hinduism. Again, violence in India is not
because of the Hindu religion. the Hindu
extremists and the RSS have committed violence against other Hindus and Muslims.
This has been rejected by the vast majority
of the Hindu clergy.
The Golden Age of Islam did not last. And there was violence at that time by Muslims.
You are not well-read when it comes to Islam.
Salafism is not only popular, it is spreading
throughout the world. Where I used to live in the Washington, DC area there are a hundred
or so Muslim schools that teach Salafi doctrine with books supplied directly from
Saudi Arabia. Imagine how many Islamic schools in the rest of the US, UK, Australia, France, not to mention Muslim nations. You
ignore the constant attacks against minority
sects; whether it’s Sunnis in Syria or Shiites in all majority Sunni countries.
You are intent on a cultural and religious equivalency outlook; that is your right, of course. It is naive, however.
Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Taoists,
Jains or whatever did not commit 9/11, do not
bomb people in foreign countries, do not subscribe to a religious-based (Koran) requirement for spreading faith and rejecting
the unbeliever through violence. If Buddhists and Hindus in SE Asia were so intolerant why did Islam spread rapidly
and systematically 600 years ago ? Why did
Islam almost exterminate Zoroastrianism in Iran so that Parsis has to flee to India ?
Tibetans flee to India because of China.
“moderate” Malaysians are in crisis because
of the word ‘Allah’ when nobody else cares
who uses Jesus, Buddha, Rama, Zoroaster, etc.
Finally, the Sufis are rejected by mainstream
Islam and are restricted in Pakistan and
Central Asia, just like the Ahmadiyya are
often persecuted and even killed in Pakistan
and Indonesia and elsewhere. Sufism and Shiism are practically illegal in the Gulf states. Which country bans some Buddhist sects and only allows one sect ? None…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
Erik, your comment seems to ignore the fact that these type of bomb campaigns have gone on many times over the years, for the most part well before the overt tensions with Myanmar’s Muslims that have arisen in the past two years. Doesn’t this contradict your unsupported claim that “no Burmese would plant these bombs?” It’s pretty clear that , in the past, some Burmese have in fact planted very similar bombs, with targets including upscale shopping centers and Thingyan celebrations, that many would see as not fundamentally dissimilar from the recent targets.
One should be very careful not to make accusations without evidence, to avoid unnecessarily stoking communal tensions, don’t you think?
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
So, in short, we have no idea who did it. That doesn’t get us terribly far. I wonder what value there is in repeating the rumours and conspiracy theories that pass for political analysis in Myanmar.
I’d also take issue with your final paragraphs – the idea that people in central Myanmar are getting a raw deal because all the focus is on getting a peace dividend in the borderlands. That will strike many minority populations as a sick joke, particularly in Kachin state where 100,000 people have been displaced by government-KIO fighting (with Tatmadaw units repeatedly breaking ceasefires). The reality is that central Myanmar has experienced most of the limited liberalisation that Thein Sein has ushered in; it is the borderlands where business unfortunately continues much as usual.
Far reaching implications….
I agree about unfair and dangerous generalisations. But stereotypes exist when you reach a critical mass. So it’s also about a sense of proportion not just putting things in perspective.
Counterpoints are certainly the essence of debate but this unfortunately reminds me of Hla Oo, one of the guest contributors on NM and ex-Tatmadaw himself, who peddled the line that the Burmese as a race are just as violent as the ruling generals. Go figure.
You don’t want to fall into that trap inadvertently and get labelled an apologist for Islam by tarring the whole lot with the same brush. That was part of my point.
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
Dear Yola Verbruggen,
You captured the picture very well.
I agree that no Burmese would plant these bombs, even less the opposition or ethnic minorities (at least those involved in politics or even guerrilla, drug trafficking, etc).
I think these attacks are perpetrated to spread the permanent fear that terror causes. This is mainly from outside extremists trained in the long Muslim Terrorist chain from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia.
This is a radicalism that must be fought inside every country in the region, this is not a problem only from Myanmar.
Also, I’m concerned with your report regarding the average people in Myanmar. Democracy is a word long used to cheer people about a shining future, but we all know that there are a lot of democratic poor countries in the world. Democracy is a political system, not a model for development.
This frustration could quickly translate itself in finding a common enemy for ethnic burmese. Decades ago, Chinese and Muslim minorities left the country after a social crisis. Without repression, this anger could spill even more and political instability would come.
Cheers.
Education in Burma: where some are more equal than others
I don’t know if we’re talking about the same Aye Kyaw. But the one whom I know is a pretty decent scholar.
He published the book “Red Peacocks” alongside professor John Badgley. He is also a lawyer and tries to understand the legally basis of Burmese law.
Education in Burma: where some are more equal than others
Dear Dr. Koh Kim Seng.
I saw your book in Amazon and it looked really interesting. I think every side of the story should be listened, otherwise we can’t fully debate any matter.
The muslim side (which is, of course, very legitimate) can be seen in this suggested reading and also on the everyday news.
I think we must debate this issue and borrow learnings from more authors, like:
Robert Taylor, 2009. The State in Myanmar.
David Steinberg, 2010. What Everyone needs to know.
Christopher Duncan, 2004. Civilizing the margins: Southeast Asian Govt policies for the development of minorities.
Every development in Myanmar has the involvement of other countries and shall be discussed as a big picture.
Cheers.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Hunter,
I believe you need to take a better look at the big picture.
Any (respectable) scholar on Myanmar politics knows that democracy will not flourish from nothing.
Your comments are strongly biased since you don’t come with an alternative solution and I think that’s why people from both sides can’t discuss democratization without recurring to international stances.
I believe NATIONAL enterpreneuralism can’t come from a source other than the military and because of that I suggested they could adapt their role to step progressively out of politics with a hedge. There are other enterpreneurs in Myanmar that aren’t military (I cited Zaw Zaw, but there are others, including (ex)drug traffickers portfolio, e.g. Asia World), but all of them MUST be linked with the government to operate in the country.
In a not so distant future, both groups (military and non-military) can have their market share and maybe compete in some areas. But my point is that this is much better than losing your capitalists to Great Power business, because China, US, India, etc are only interested in their own benefit.
Also you should be aware that the Tatmadaw is changing, a new modern leadership is rising and the old guard is now at least 80 y-old, they don’t have much time. Some of this new leadership is corrupt, like every army in Southeast Asia, but a professional counterpart is undoubtedly ascending.
Finally, I believe the military won’t move out for free for many reasons, including the obvious political instability that would emerge immediately (look at the democracy period, I suggest you to read Michael Charney – A modern history of Burma).
ps.: If the military could pay academics from all over the world to lobby for them, I think they would have already convinced Barack Obama to sell some Tomahawks to the Tatmadaw.
Far reaching implications….
Well that’s good; however, as far as I can tell that’s not what’s this conversation is about. Mr. Cohen merely pointed out that different religions have differing ideologies. One such ideology is the morality of violence. This is a truism; however it seems to have offended your progressive, secular sensibilities. I think Sam Harris is right on the money when he describes your mindset:
Your moral relativism when it comes to religious ideology is both patronizing and offensive. Offensive not only to the hundreds of thousands of Buddhists who sincerely believe in the Buddha’s teachings of ahimsa, but also to those hundreds of thousands of Muslim mujihadeen who sincerely believe that violence in the name of Allah (jihad bil saif), for the purposes of defense and expansion of the Islamic World, legitimized by centuries of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), is an activity that is pleasing to Allah.
Haris Ibrahim @ ANU
Good news indeed 🙂
This should be mentioned on Haris’s blog I reckon.
Anybody have any news on Sydney dates?
Far reaching implications….
Just briefly on P.Cohen’s statement that ‘Thai monks ….did not call for mass killings of communists or leftists’ – Sir, do you not recall the famous, or should that be infamous, Thai monk Kittiwutho Bhikku who was known all over Thailand during the mid 1970s for his comments to the effect that ‘it was not sinful to kill communists’?
Also Nick is right on the money to question the assertion that ‘the majority of Thai monks work(ing) with NGOs to help drug addicts.’ As he suggests such monks and temples working with addicts are few and far between on the ground. At the same time if you follow the Thai press you’ll come across stories over the years of monks getting high on ‘yaa baa’ and ‘ice’, not to mention a bit of weed and booze. And then you can throw a fair amount of sexual shenanigans into the mix. Indeed, one of the first Thai monks I ever saw many decades ago was – donned in his jii-worn (robes) – getting treatment for the clap in the well-known VD clinic in Bangrak on Sathon Road.
It would be interesting to see a detailed listing of all the defrockings over the past 20-30 years.
Education in Burma: where some are more equal than others
Have you read Dr koh’s book entitled ‘MISUNERSTOOD MYANMAR ….? PUBLISHED RECEDNTLY. Thank you.
Far reaching implications….
“Peter Cohen”:
Another point i forgot to add. You stated that Thai monks are massacred by ethnic Malays is South Thailand. Killed yes, but not exactly massacred.
What though you forgot to mention in your emotive statement is that some monks (and teachers) and part of intelligence operations of the Thai state in that murky insurgency. Which does of course not justify attacks against them, i need to add. It though gives a more realistic image on what takes place down there.
Monks and temples do issue also amulets specifically for the Thai military in the three southern provinces(i have one given to me by a colonel of the Thai military).
There are murky Buddhist militias and paramilitary organizations, some openly, like the Or Lor Bor, and others very secretive, who have also been responsible for attacks on mosques and extrajudicial killings of innocents (and guilty).
In 2006 and 2007 i have spent a bit of time with some of those militias and paramilitary organizations. Some of these state sponsored organizations even have children as members, even armed (i have photographed some, as young as 13 or 14), who attended training session by the Thai military.
All sides down there are not behaving nicely. It’s far more complex than “bad Muslims” vs. “good Buddhists”, as you try to convince here. This conflict is fought by both sides very dirty, like all such insurgencies.
Gentle reminder – thou shall not think
Mr. Anwar Ibrahim was interviewed by Professor Kanishka Jayasuria (University of Adelaide).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xyV3yGWsgv4&list=PLAh-tHkRU3k8H62oXWa4WAur6tT2TYkE9
Far reaching implications….
“Moe Aung”:
Jekyll and Hyde is human nature, not specifically Burmese. Just look at the history of Germany, where i am from… 😉
Point of my posts here on this topic is that i reject the summary judgements over religions and cultures (eg. Islam bad – Buddhism good), based on highly selective and self-serving interpretation of history, religion and culture, in order to further certain agendas. Therefore, i feel the need to present counterpoints.
Far reaching implications….
“Peter Cohen”:
I don’t even know where to start…
Hindu clergy? What is Hindu clergy? The different and often diametrically opposed Saddhu sects? Vaishnait, Shivait, Tantric, and whatever else? Brahmin priests working in the temples?
If your assumption that the vast majority would have rejected Hindu extremism then the BJP would have hardly been elected into government back then. I have been in India during the height of BJP power, which in terms of religion and extremism was quite uncomfortable.
The cast system has been first mentioned in the rigveda, and developed from there. While the is a minority of Saddhu sects and more modern interpretations of Hindu philosophy that reject the cast system, it still is – both in theory and practice – in the heart of Hinduism. Stating otherwise is wishful thinking.
The clergy in Thailand rejecting the drug war killings? Any link to that?
From what i can remember the war on drugs had not just the approval of the majority of the population, it also had the approval of the palace (see the 2002 and 2003 birthday speeches – but not the translation by the Nation, which left some elementary points out). I do not remember the any public statement by the supreme council against the drug war killings. Therefore – you need to substantiate your claim.
The majority of monks working with NGO’s to help drug addicts? Really? A few temples indeed have such programs, some individual monks do, but the majority of monks and temples in Thailand do not.
As to Tibet – well, other than having spend a bit of time there i have quite a large library on Tibet. You may start with Alexandra David Neel’s descriptions, read about Ekai Kawaguchi’s travels and travails, educate yourself on the complex history of the Dalai Lamas and their relationship to China, the not exactly peaceful rise of the Gelugpa sect to spiritual and political power. Quite enlightening is also “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, which gives quite an interesting and often neglected view on Tibet’s cold war history, and shows that the present Dalai Lama not always held such peaceful views on the struggle over Tibet’s independence.
The topic is far to wide and complex for a little comment here on New Mandala. Nevertheless – there is not a “Tibetan” (good) or “Bejing” (bad) view on Tibet. Such simplifications are just polemics that once represented utterly biased views from a time where academia primarily served cold war vested interests.
Thank god that time is over.
And of course – how emotive to bring 9/11…
You ask which country bans Buddhist sects? Well, i remember that the Buddhist fundamentalist Santi Asoke sect was kicked out of the Sangha here in Thailand, and its monks are not allowed to call themselves monks, and are not allowed to wear orange robes and wear brown robes instead. In addition to that the Thai Sangha does still not recognize bhikkhuni, even if they were ordained in Sri Lanka.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Hunter,
You contradict yourself and you are a bit harsh. I am not sure who you are calling a paid military lobbyist. I do not think anyone commenting here is a paid lobbyist for Burma
or any other country.
You rightly strongly condemn the Tatmadaw, but then say there must be a middle ground where the Tatmadaw are given a role or the Tatmadaw will gradually move out of politics. That is naive and will not happen. They must go entirely; they will not contribute to nation building, judicial reform and peacemaking. They will go; it’s a matter of time and process. They will implode from within due to internal divisions (younger officers wanting power) or the Burmese people will overthrow them through massive demonstrations. It will not happen right away, but it will happen. Suharto and Marcos were in power a very long time. Burma does not have a Parliament like Indonesia where the military accepted a quota of seats as long as they were allowed to have free reign against criminals and become rich through military-owned companies (that part is similar to Burma).
The Tatmadaw are too invested in their own
survival and endemic cronyism and corruption,
encouraged by benefactors like China, to go
of their own accord. Foreigners will not force them out either-it will be the Burmese people.
“…entrepreneurialism can have a source external to the military (tatmadaw) ranks..”
The local Chinese and Indian entrepreneurial class have largely left Yangon for UK, US and Australia, as have many educated Burmese.
Their place has been taken by China and Japan
who do not re-invest their proceeds in Burma.
Private (non-government; meaning non-Tatmadaw) companies are few in Burma and have small and irregular capitalization. Burma
is poor but the Tatmadaw are relatively wealthy. Foreign investment will not change this. Judicial and economic reform instituted by a democratic government led
by someone like Tin Oo (Daw Aung Suu Kyi
isn’t much of a technocrat), Deputy Leader
of the NLD, is the way ahead.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
This is a shockingly regime-apologetic piece, barely considering how inept, uneducated, corrupt, and power hungry the military officers running these crony companies can be. The SPDC junta thrived for decades and mismanaged the economy and government by willed ignorance and misinformation. I’m dismayed that the author doesn’t consider that entrepreneurialism can have a source external to the military (tatmadaw) ranks. This whole piece rings hollow and appears as if written by a paid military lobbyist. Obviously the military will be important (indeed, central) to Myanmar’s society and political economy for decades to come. I don’t think Peter’s comments calling for the military to go have any genuine possibility of unfolding, but there must be a middle ground: a process by which the military moves gradually out of politics and contributes to genuine national reconciliation, nation-building, and peacebuilding.
Review of Ideal Man
Joshua Kurlantzik is a newcomer to Southeast Asian affairs and not someone with long years
in the region. His Ideal Man is a mixture of
anecdote and supposed history. I won’t go into great detail about some inconsistencies and wishful thinking in the book.
“He notes that the OSS of William Donovan, in which Thompson instantly “felt at home” (page 29), was “a very left-wing and informal organization” (page 24), one that “stood out in wartime for its intense idealism and anti-colonialism” (page 25).”
The OSS was not a bastion of Left-wing idealism. I have personal familial familiarity with the OSS and the organization
it later became which I cannot detail. But the OSS in East and Southeast Asia, Europe, Russia, and the Middle-East was neither “Left-Wing” nor anti-Colonial; it was pro-American. The OSS had ties with European
colonial powers. Kurlantzick in this instance, and others, romanticizes Thompson
and his involvement with American and Thai
organizations and exaggerates his role in
Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos (“Thompson soon emerged as the man on whom a range of Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodian nationalists depended “to plead their cause with Washington and with the Thai government” (page 49). Thompson was only one of many that
Indochinese nationalists approached for
assistance; Thompson was not the primary one.
“Kurlantzick cannot really mean to suggest, pace David Halberstam, that, if only Americans with such backgrounds had had their way, events in Southeast Asia would not have taken their disappointing Cold War course.”
Of course, Kurlantzick pace Fareed Zakaria
means that. Philipe Baude is correct in his
assessment of Thompson, I believe.
As to his disappearance in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia; the mystery endures as a form of
swashbuckling exoticism. Thus, I agree with
the statement:
“Jim Thompson” has become a brand that has more in common with Starbucks..”
A more balanced and realistic written treatment of Jim Thompson still awaits an author.
Far reaching implications….
Your last point I do agree with. Frugality, contentment, lack of ambition may all be deterrents to progress, as is blaming any misfortune on your karma.
Karma however is widely misinterpreted as all to do with your past, hence preordained and there’s nothing you can do about it.. a nihilistic view. The crucial message which tends to be overlooked is that the present is indeed a great opportunity to shape your future karma, so it’s proactive, not passive and supine.
If Christianity is once removed from the Old Testament and Judaism, then Buddhism is a more distant cousin to Hinduism with its caste system. Look no further than the untouchables turning to Buddhism.
People who perceive their religion and way of life coming under attack within their own borders are bound to react violently, in this instance displaying the Jekyll and Hyde nature of man, perhaps a strong trait of the Burmese. It’s hardly justifiable to try and tar the whole lot with the same brush.
Far reaching implications….
Nick,
Your knowledge of Buddhism and Islam is
shallow.
“I remember quite clearly that well known Buddhist monks and abbots went on TV arguing that killing drug dealers during the 2003 war on drugs here in Thailand would not draw bad karma, and this way not just legitimizing the killings but also absolving killers from any “sin”.
These were not typical monks and their pronouncements were rejected by the Thai
Board of Buddhist Clergy. There are monks
(and Imams and Rabbis and Christian clergy) everywhere that crave media attention.
The vast majority of Buddhist monks neither
support this kind of materialism and media vanity nor the killing of drug dealers. Most monks and abbots in Thailand work with Thai and NGOs to help drug addicts and, while Buddhist monks may reject drug use, your inference that they support elimination of drug dealers by violence is wrong and absurd. How many monasteries and monks have you developed relationships with ? Not many, I think. Monks are actively involved in helping addicts and other Thai indigents. Your are
using an anomalous example to generalize
about Thai Buddhism and Buddhism in general.
“The same occurred during the communist insurgency here in Thailand.”
Not it did not. Thai monks, while being
massacred by Communists and currently by
Muslim Malays in southern Thailand, did not
call for mass killings of Thai Communists
or Leftist. Thai monks oppose Communism just
as they oppose Capitalism. Rich Monks in Thailand (like rich Evangelical Christians)
are not rich because of Buddhism which advocates non-materialism. This is a result
of misuse and misinterpretation of Buddhist
teachings, not based on Buddhism.
“Both of these were systematical in nature, and at least to some part faith based.”
You are totally wrong. They were not systematic and they were not based on faith
but lack of faith.
“The Tibetan system of oppression was religiously based, and not just secular, as the dalai lamas claimed not only spiritual but also secular leadership, supported by an intricate system of rule by both clergy and aristocracy.”
NO, the Tibetan system and hierarchy was not
oppressive; the Dalai Lama claims spiritual
leadership only. There is no secularism in
Tibetan Buddhism. You must be listening to
Beijing. It is Beijing that is trying to
secularize and select the Lamas in Lhasa.
Again, you need to speak to Professor Lopez
who can educate properly about Budddhism
and Tibet.
Christianity has committed atrocities in the
past (crusades, forced conversion). Christianity today is reformed because it
underwent several reformations. Is the Vatican rich ? Yes. Are there wealthy Protestants ? Yes. Accumulation of wealth
is not inherently anti-Christian, though
against Buddhist teachings. On a global scale
today, there are not massive killings committed by Christians.
The caste system is a misunderstanding of Hinduism. Again, violence in India is not
because of the Hindu religion. the Hindu
extremists and the RSS have committed violence against other Hindus and Muslims.
This has been rejected by the vast majority
of the Hindu clergy.
The Golden Age of Islam did not last. And there was violence at that time by Muslims.
You are not well-read when it comes to Islam.
Salafism is not only popular, it is spreading
throughout the world. Where I used to live in the Washington, DC area there are a hundred
or so Muslim schools that teach Salafi doctrine with books supplied directly from
Saudi Arabia. Imagine how many Islamic schools in the rest of the US, UK, Australia, France, not to mention Muslim nations. You
ignore the constant attacks against minority
sects; whether it’s Sunnis in Syria or Shiites in all majority Sunni countries.
You are intent on a cultural and religious equivalency outlook; that is your right, of course. It is naive, however.
Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Taoists,
Jains or whatever did not commit 9/11, do not
bomb people in foreign countries, do not subscribe to a religious-based (Koran) requirement for spreading faith and rejecting
the unbeliever through violence. If Buddhists and Hindus in SE Asia were so intolerant why did Islam spread rapidly
and systematically 600 years ago ? Why did
Islam almost exterminate Zoroastrianism in Iran so that Parsis has to flee to India ?
Tibetans flee to India because of China.
“moderate” Malaysians are in crisis because
of the word ‘Allah’ when nobody else cares
who uses Jesus, Buddha, Rama, Zoroaster, etc.
Finally, the Sufis are rejected by mainstream
Islam and are restricted in Pakistan and
Central Asia, just like the Ahmadiyya are
often persecuted and even killed in Pakistan
and Indonesia and elsewhere. Sufism and Shiism are practically illegal in the Gulf states. Which country bans some Buddhist sects and only allows one sect ? None…