Myanmar's Unnoticed Struggle for Freedom

[Travis]

It's been covered extensively here also. It just hasn't been a big topic at the JREF because nobody, not even Oliver, has been able to figure out how this is all the fault of the USA yet.

I'd say you're cynical but this is probably, sadly, the truth.

 

[SomeGuy]

It's been covered extensively here also. It just hasn't been a big topic at the JREF because nobody, not even Oliver, has been able to figure out how this is all the fault of the USA yet.

In that case I extend my apologies for taking Wolfman's word for it not being covered (much) over there.

Though, I still think we all should stop thinking that what happens in our country is typical for the western world, we are quite diverse... that's what you get with all that freedom....

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, stop equating USA with the whole of the western world.

I live in the Netherlands, western Europe, and this story has been one of the main stories in every news bulletin for over a week now.

Actually, I was not equating the USA with the rest of the world at all. I'm living in China, so admittedly do not have regular access to what is being said in the media everywhere. However, when I looked at various newspapers (from around the world), I found that this news was generally relegated to minor coverage on the inside of the papers, while news about Britney being a bad dancer got front page coverage.

This has, as I said above, changed quite a bit in the last one or two days, with much more significant coverage. Which is a great thing.

But the fact remains that, until that coverage began, most people were entirely unaware of Aung San Suu Kyi was; or that a massacre far worse than that in Tiananmen Square took place only a year earlier in Myanmar. It is great that yes, people are finally paying attention. But whether it is the U.S., or any European country, I'd still bet that more than a week ago, most everyone was entirely ignorant of Myanmar, or what was happening there.

I'll readily accept chastisement, and admit my error, in regards to claims of media coverage of the most recent events in Myanmar; in fact, I will do so happily, as it means that more people are aware of what is happening. But this is something that has been going on for over 20 years now...with virtually no notice from the rest of the world. In the broader context, I maintain that my comments were still quite relevant and accurate. If it takes 100,000 people literally putting their lives on the line just to get the media to write about it, it is still not a ringing endorsement.

I agree with PortlandAtheist as to the reasons why people have not generally paid attention to Myanmar; I just think it is sad that things have to come to such an extreme for people to start paying attention.

China is not supporting democracy, they prefer stability in order to protect their oil supplies. China certainly is not advocating democracy in Burma.

Well...China's purpose is not to support democracy, that's for sure. Their purpose is to ensure stable political/economic ties, and avoid any conflict that could sully the 2008 Olympic Games. However, if supporting democracy is the best way to accomplish that goal, that is certainly what they'll do.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'll agree that coverage until recently has been muted, but among people I know who take more than a passing interest in world news, pretty much all of them know who Aung San Suu Kyi is even if they didn't know a great amount of the details.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

How will Oliver deal with the truth that the US seems to be the only country imposing sanctions?

Do not personalise discussions

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Travis]

How will Oliver deal with the truth that the US seems to be the only country imposing sanctions?

Probably claim the sanctions are hurting the people.

Or...

La La La, I can't hear you!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Coincidentally:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RSFCU80&show_article=1&lsn=1

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - President Bush will address the U.N. General Assembly this morning at 9:45 a.m. EDT. Bush wants the U.N. to uphold its pledge to fight for freedom in lands of poverty and terror, and plans to punctuate his challenge by promising new sanctions against the military regime in Myanmar.

* * *

Instead of Iran, the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar, also known as Burma, was drawing Bush's ire. He was expected to announce new visa restrictions and financial sanctions against the regime and those who provide it financial aid.

 

[Wolfman]

How will Oliver deal with the truth that the US seems to be the only country imposing sanctions?

Actually, most Western countries have imposed sanctions, your "truth" isn't even close to that. Any further "sanctions" will have little or no effect, there's not much more that they can sanction.

The main effect of those sanctions has been to isolate the totalitarian regime in Myanmar, and give countries like the U.S. little or no influence at all in what happens there. I mean, come on..."We have not given you anything for the past 10 years, and if you don't do what we want now, we will still not give anything to you". Hardly an argument that's going to have much power.

I readily admit that it is not an easy situation, and there are no easy answers. Those who support the Myanmar regime (like China) can be accused of enabling or supporting dictators; those who impose sanctions on the Myanmar regime (like the U.S.) remove any real influence that they might have had. Standing by and doing nothing seems cold and uncaring; whereas invading and trying to impose a new government on them just repeats the mistakes already made in Iraq.

However, I would propose that the current reaction of the U.S. is entirely wrong; a long history of sanctions against the government of Myanmar has only hurt the general populace, while keeping the government isolated and paranoid.

What would my suggestion be?

Instead of threatening more sanctions -- which will have little or no effect, and which certainly will not affect the decisions of the leaders positively -- offer to decrease sanctions and offer economic incentives if the government restrains itself from cracking down on these demonstrators. This is, in fact, pretty much the tactic that China is using, and it is working far, far more effectively than anything being done by Western nations (regardless of the motivation for doing so).

Sanctions at this point are a blind, moralistic reaction that are part of a political game -- make yourself look good, while accomplishing nothing of real value. Toss off a few soundbites to the press, pass a few bills, and "Hey, look, we've done our bit, we've shown we don't approve of those nasty people."

The policy of isolating Myanmar, and the use of sanctions, most obviously has not worked. We've got decades of evidence of just how useless this policy has been. I say try changing the policy -- show the leaders in Myanmar that they will benefit in a very concrete, substantial way from cooperation. Cooperation that is tied to specific actions and policies on their part.

This is the tactic the Chinese are using. I have thus far to hear any Western leader (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) suggest a similar strategy.

I'm not talking about appeasement. Appeasement is when you let them keep on doing as they please, and reward them for it. I am talking about giving a positive incentive to show them that it will be more beneficial to tolerate these protests, than it is to crack down. Right now, with the attitude of most Western countries, the gov't of Myanmar loses virtually nothing by cracking down, while being assured of maintaining their military grip. There is no incentive, no reason for them not to crack down.

 

[Uzzy]

The situation in Burma has been covered in some detail by the BBC news programmes. It got seven minutes out of thirty in the News at One bulletin. It's the top story on the BBC news website. So don't worry, it's not gone unreported. However, your correct that most people would not have known about the troubles over there until recently. Just as most people over in China are likely unaware of the political difficulties currently occurring in Belgium. Until something major happens, it just not big enough to warrant interest in the news bulletins, pressed for time as they are. The American news companies might want to concentrate on things like General Petraeus's report, for instance.

I can only hope that the protests work, and that the people of Burma can get the reform they are after peacefully.

 

[bruto]

It's been pretty prominent in my local papers recently, but considering how bad the situation has been and for how long, it has taken a while to hit the front pages. I'm guessing they don't have a lot of oil.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I've been following the news about developments in Myanmar (formerly Burma) quite closely; I've visited there twice, and have several good friends there. Outside of China, it is one of my favorite places on the planet. It also, sadly, is governed by a military dictatorship that makes China look downright democratic by comparison.

Yep. Sad but true.

Myanmar is, in my opinion, is an inspiring story of human persistence in the face of oppression.

In spades.

It is also an incredibly depressing story of inaction and ignorance from the rest of the world.

Right. Call George Bush, and ask for Operation Burmese Freedom to be undertaken.

Everyone knows the story of how Nelson Mandela suffered in prison for many years while seeking equality for his people; yet almost nobody even knows the name of Aung San Suu Kyi

No sir, you are in error. She is an international hero.

Burma and her principled resistance was all over the world news, and has been, since about ten years ago. She won a freaking Nobel Prize. Even cursory reading of current events on Asia brings up Burma on a continual basis. Yes, it isn't as interesting as Ms Spears or Ms Hilton , but it's not off the radar. The latest UN moves by the US for sanctions seem to have been blocked by China. Did I miss an update? The Economist covers Burma frequently. (Economist is one of my required reading list items. Better international coverage, IMO, than a lot of American rags.)

Everyone knows about the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989; yet I'll bet that almost nobody on this board, even those who consider themselves to be fairly well politically informed, are aware of the massacre that took place one year before that, in Myanmar. Same situation -- citizens protesting peacefully. Result -- a massacre that killed considerably more people than were killed in Tiananmen Square.

Why do you presume ignorance in others? You seem to mistake a lack of passion for Burma and its troubles for ignorance.

In the face of threats from the government, and the full knowledge that they could be imprisoned/killed for their actions, more than 100,000 people are on the streets, holding a peaceful protest calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and for greater freedom. They are led by Buddhist monks, who are acting literally as human shields (Myanmar is a devoutly Buddhist country, and the authorities will be less likely to shoot at them).

Sir, you are on a Skeptics board. How dare you act the apologist for religious woo? (Sorry, I was channeling articulett there for a moment, I am better now.)

In the West, this is being virtually ignored. The media mentions it occasionally, but I see little or no public discussion, much less expressions of outrage or moral indignation. If something like this were to happen in China on a much smaller scale, it would garner international attention, and huge political pressure. But Myanmar?

Check what the US has proposed in the last year at the UN regarding sanctions proposals on Burma's regime.

Who cares?

I am guessing Condi Rice, but perhaps I am wrong.

Ironically, one of the main reasons that the government has not yet acted against these protesters is because of political pressure from -- guess who -- China. Myanmar is an important Chinese trading partner, particularly in regards to oil, and they don't want to see their supplies threatened by a civil war, or other such political instability.

BINGO!

Follow the money.

Which leads to one of the most ironic political situations in the world today. The U.S., a democratic nation, has traditionally supported and sustained repressive regimes in order to guarantee their oil supplies (look at pre-war Saddam as an example). Now, we have China, a non-democratic dictatorship, supporting a democratic movement (and opposing actions by the military government) in order to guarantee their oil supplies.

Aye, tis humorous indeed, except you seem to ignore the UN moves that China has not supported. (Again, has there been a sea change in China on this? I may have missed a story or two.)
From Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Reuters in an interview on Monday that Washington would step up pressure for the U.N. Security Council to take action. China and Russia vetoed a resolution on Myanmar in January.
"The international community's got to stand up much more than it has," Rice said. "I think what the Burmese junta is doing is just a reminder of how really brutal this regime is."

No, I'm not implying any moral superiority here; it is all about politics and economics. In the end, both the U.S. and China make their foreign policy decisions based on what is perceived as their best political/economic interest. Both countries will support "democracy" and "freedom" when it is politically/economically convenient to do so; both countries will support dictatorships and repression when it is politically/economically convenient to do so.

Yes, realist politics tends to do that. See above: follow the money.

But...if the 17 year imprisonment of a woman who speaks for freedom doesn't get people stirred up; if the massacre in 1988 of hundreds of protesters, and today's similar demonstrations of over 100,000 people who know they could face a similar fate doesn't make your heart heavy...

Yes.

...should not the fact that the number one force protecting these demonstrators is China instill in us a sense of shame? While Western countries can't even be bothered, apparently, to comment on it, much less get involved?

Shame as a political motivation runs smack into realpolitic. Since when is this news?

These people, at the very least, deserve to be noticed and acknowledged by the rest of the world. They deserve at the very least to have our moral support, our acknowledgment of what they are fighting for, and the risks they are facing. They should not be relegated to "other news" somewhere in the middle of the newspaper, or used as filler in a news broadcast when there isn't enough news about Britney Spears.

Moral support they have. See UN moves above. Spears observation noted, and agreed.

They deserve to know that they're not alone. That although our governments may make their decisions and determine their policies based on political expediencies, that we ourselves care enough to at least pay attention to what they are doing, and inform ourselves about their situation. They are people fighting for freedom, who are fighting for change...

...and the rest of the world just ignores them.

Nope. See UN proceedings. THen again, UN rhetoric and a buck might get you a cup of coffee, sometimes.
Myanmar rights resolution vetoed by China, Russia at UN

China and Russia Friday vetoed a proposed UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to political repression and human rights violations in Myanmar. The resolution was jointly sponsored by the United States and Great Britain, but was blocked by the other two major powers on the grounds that it was outside the Council's jurisdiction, as they said Myanmar was not a threat to international peace. Acting US ambassador to the UN Alejandro Wolff nonetheless characterized Myanmar as a "contemporary threat that the council and the international community needs to address before they become imminent...threats to international peace and security."

South Africa also voted against the resolution, with Indonesia, Qatar, and the Republic of Congo abstaining. China and Russia have consistently declined to support Security Council resolutions it perceives as encroachments to exclusive sovereignty in domestic affairs. In November, a UN committee denounced Myanmar for continued human rights violations. Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has been ruled by a military junta since 1988, which took power after crushing a democratic movement led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Wolfman, an American humorist named Will Rogers once quipped:

"I only know what I read in the papers."

Be wary of falling into that trap, it can happen to any of us. There is so darned much going on out there.

DR

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Dropping in to state that this has been in the news a lot in Norway, too.

 

[Cello Man]

In the US (and Texas no less) it's all over National Public Radio. Front page Yahoo several times in the past few days. It's not going unnoticed. Not by me, anyway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wolfman:

Your timing is uncanny.

I just heard a news excerpt on the radio, wherein Pres Bush of the U.S. states:

"The U.S. is outraged by what is going on in Burma, where a Junta . . . " I lost the rest when the phone rang.

ETA: Correction. From The Guardian.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - President Bush announced new sanctions Tuesday against the military dictatorship in Myanmar, accusing it of imposing "a 19-year reign of fear'' that denies basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma,'' the president said in an address to the U.N. General Assembly. Now called Myanmar, the Asian country also is known as Burma.

Bush also urged other nations to support the struggle for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them,'' Bush said.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship,'' the president said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration'' of the United Nations.

DR

 

[steverino]

Most Americans don't know Burma from Bermuda, nor could they find Myanmar on a map, let alone have knowledge of Aug San Suu Kyi. Because it was covered on NPR or BBC does not mean it is on the radar of "Peter from Peoria."

I will break ranks, and suggest that the U.S. shares some blame in this conflict as they do in their unwillingness to "Free Tibet," as the bumper stickers say.

We are so in bed with China, we wouldn't dare shoot one over the bow for the sake of the monks, either in Myanmar, or in Tibet.

 

[Oliver]

Could be that the protests turn into violence now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013638.stm

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I may sound awfully niave, but where is all this military brutality coming from? I mean, this isn't North Korea, nor is it Communist Russia.

What ideology makes this military rape and murder thousands of people?

 

[Gurdur]

Since when was an ideology necessary to be brutal? Since when does a ruling clique need an ideology to be brutal in defending its privileges and hold on power?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I see, but I was talking more about the military troops. Presumably they came from the same areas that many of those who are protesting in the streets came from, and not a twitching of remorse?

I'm not sure why this makes me so niave, but it does seem odd.

 

[Gurdur]

I see, but I was talking more about the military troops. Presumably they came from the same areas that many of those who are protesting in the streets came from, and not a twitching of remorse?

I'm not sure why this makes me so niave, but it does seem odd.

When Pinochet came to power in a coup and murdered thousands, the troops he used were part of a draft. IOW, many would have been related to the victims.

When China cracked down on dissent, the troops used often came from the same areas as the pro-democracy demonstrators.

When Franco took over Spain after a coup and civil war, the numbers murdered were a great many, and many murdered after the war had just ended -- by fellow villagers.

Never underestimate the potential for brutality among the cowardly, let alone the willing.