Burma

[Marshal Murat]

While some of you may use the term 'Myanmar' I am disgusted, saddened, and ashamed, but also proud of Burma.

Times on Burma

Burma’s generals silenced the Buddhist monks yesterday morning.

For a week and a half, the monks had been on the streets of Rangoon in their tens of thousands, and their angry calm gave courage to the people around them.

But overnight, they were beaten, shot and arrested, and locked in their monasteries. Handfuls of them emerged yesterday – two or three brave individuals, a dozen at most – but nothing to approach the mass marches of the previous nine days. Everyone felt their absence.

It shows how powerful religious figures can be.
It shows that aggression and violence don't always lead to change.
It shows that something is terribly wrong. ( )

BBC:Bush talks about BurmaBBC:Picture s in Burma
Accounts from Inside Burma

This is where democracy started, and I hope that the world will bring attention to this issue, just as many people bring attention to Darfur.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is where democracy started, and I hope that the world will bring attention to this issue, just as many people bring attention to Darfur.

I hope something is actually done about it. This isn't Iraq, this is a country where the majority of people are actually fighting (without violence) for democracy, or at least a more humane regime. Help them with an international force, I say.

[master of the puppets]

Be realistic, since when have international forces been deployed to avenge what is a relatively miniscule amount of deaths and injuries. i'm not defending Myanmar's junta and i certainly disapprove of there us of wanton violence but honestly thats how it goes sometimes. there are many violent regimes around the world, Syria, Saudi Arabia, half of Africa, and much of southern Asia all suffer under harsh rule. Can we honestly go and save every ailing country from itself on the basis simply that they do not live so soundly or comfortably as us? Are YOU willing to risk your life behind a gun to free those people?

The world is a up place, far more than it has to be, and likely for yet more time.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Be realistic, since when have international forces been deployed to avenge what is a relatively miniscule amount of deaths and injuries.

I am. I know nothing will be done there, I just hope that somebody will have the decency to do what is right. I doubt they will, but one can hope.

[master of the puppets]

Noone is hoping more than those monks, my friend. They are the firebrands, let us hope the populations outrage one day outweighs there fear. It seems they must first try to help themselves before anyone will help them.

[HoreTore]

I want to go there.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Armed intervention will never happen, nor should it.

However, one does not need to sit and wring one's hands. There are many ways as an individual you can try to help.

Most importantly, write frequently to your political representative urging them to take a stand. Whereas it may seem fruitless, it does have an impact when they note that their voters care.

Boycott Chinese goods - and write to the embassy in your country telling them why. China is the biggest backer of the regime and in the run up to the Olympics, are rather sensitive. If they see people protesting, it may influence them to stop blocking UN resolutions or more likely, work harder behind the scenes to moderate the junta.

Boycott Total Oil. One of the biggest investors in Burma, they are in joint partnership with the military dictatorship and one of France's biggest shames, leading to France often blocking EU initatives to impact the regime.

Write to the Burmese government protesting the imprisonment of political prisoners, especially Aung San Suu Kyi. Whilst again it may seem futile, Amnesty campaigns (for example) have managed to embarrass the regime enough to treat her better than might have been expected (ie she's still alive).

Don't just tut to yourself, make yourself a nuisance. This, of course, goes for all oppressive regimes - just a few letters a week, a couple of buying decisions and a difference can be made.

[Papewaio]

Why not boycott all French goods? If the government is blocking EU initiatives... like the Chinese one is doing at the UN... and if the Chinese weren't blocking at the UN wouldn't the French? Why not put the squeeze on the French in the EU by not subsidizing their farming as well.. it is the perfect excuse er reason to do so...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Boycott Total Oil. One of the biggest investors in Burma, they are in joint partnership with the military dictatorship and one of France's biggest shames, leading to France often blocking EU initatives to impact the regime.

Ancient history, I should hope.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sarkozy to meet with Myanmar opposition, as France urges more EU sanctions against Myanmar
AP
Posted: 2007-09-26 06:01:39
PARIS (AP) - A French government official urged stronger European Union sanctions against Myanmar 's junta on Wednesday, as President Nicolas Sarkozy planned to meet with opponents of the Southeast Asian nation's regime.

As anti-government protests continued in Myanmar, with security forces firing warning shots and tear gas, France's European affairs minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, said the situation there was unacceptable and getting worse. He called the protests "completely legitimate."

"Among Europeans, we must discuss the necessity of reinforcing sanctions against the junta," he told France-Info radio.

The French president announced at the U.N. General Assembly that he would meet with Myanmar opposition figures. He did not say specifically who he would speak with. Info Birmanie, a French group supporting the Myanmar opposition, said he had invited Sein Win, an exiled opposition leader, to the Elysee Palace.

Frederic Debomy, coordinator of Info Birmanie, said Sein Win's meeting would be the first between a French president and the southeast Asian country's opposition.

"It was a lack of interest, the (Myanmar) opposition was not central enough to their strategy before," he said of French officials. Sarkozy came to office in May, pledging that France would "be at the side of the world's oppressed."

But by all means keep the pressure on that sinister Total...

[Odin]

this is a wonderful opportunity for India and China to show they truly are budding superpowers and step in with political and economic pressure. I am encouraged the Bush at least announced sanctions, hope others follow, and hope he gets credit for it as well.

Short of that there should be no intervention by any western power or UN body IMHO, india and china should be able to excert sufficent pressure to correct this situation.

Here's hoping the new world order passes its first test.

[HoreTore]

Armed intervention will never happen, nor should it.

However, one does not need to sit and wring one's hands. There are many ways as an individual you can try to help.

Most importantly, write frequently to your political representative urging them to take a stand. Whereas it may seem fruitless, it does have an impact when they note that their voters care.

Boycott Chinese goods - and write to the embassy in your country telling them why. China is the biggest backer of the regime and in the run up to the Olympics, are rather sensitive. If they see people protesting, it may influence them to stop blocking UN resolutions or more likely, work harder behind the scenes to moderate the junta.

Boycott Total Oil. One of the biggest investors in Burma, they are in joint partnership with the military dictatorship and one of France's biggest shames, leading to France often blocking EU initatives to impact the regime.

Write to the Burmese government protesting the imprisonment of political prisoners, especially Aung San Suu Kyi. Whilst again it may seem futile, Amnesty campaigns (for example) have managed to embarrass the regime enough to treat her better than might have been expected (ie she's still alive).

Don't just tut to yourself, make yourself a nuisance. This, of course, goes for all oppressive regimes - just a few letters a week, a couple of buying decisions and a difference can be made.

Pfft, we can do more, we can go there to throw gasoline on the fires of revolution! I assume I can count you in, Banqou?

[rotorgun]

I think that the Bhuddist Monks have done the most effective thing they could to oppose their repressive government-passive resistance. A study of Gandy's approach will show the power in not fighting back with violence. Nothing demonstrates the futility of violence to the oppressor than his victim calmly remaining steadfast in the face of his attacks. It robs the oppressor of so much of his self-percieved power.

I am praying for the people of this region that they may follow the example of the monks-resist, but use no violence. The bravery of such an act leaves me speechless.

[Tribesman]

I think that the Bhuddist Monks have done the most effective thing they could to oppose their repressive government-passive resistance.

Unfortunately the people in power don't give a damn how much passive or even active resistance they face , they have the power to carry on regardless and they have the backers that will help them do it .
It is not in Chinas interest to mess up their beneficial relationship with the junta and there is no movement within China abe to oppose their leaders policies .
Ghandi had success with his movement because Britain was getting massively diminishing returns from India , its power and influence were in serious decline , there was a healthy opposition in government and the people had a voice .
Since it is not in other countries interest to put sufficient pressure on China to force them to change policy they are not going to do it .

[woad&fangs]

Somehow using military force to help a revolution started by monks just seems wrong. The revolution needs to be won through passive social and economic resistance. Regardless of how we feel about them, China is one of the main superpowers in Asia so they need to take initiative by boycotting trade with Burma. Obviously they won't do that with out a little bit of prodding so I say that every country boycotts the Beijing '08 Olympics unless China stops trade with Burma and Sudan. Every country should boycott trade with Burma but how China reacts will probably dictate the success or failure of the revolution.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In many cases the nature of the revolution will define the nature of the state that comes from that revolution. If the Junta is overthrown by force, having gained power through force, then you are starting a vicious cycle which will ultimately not benefit Burma in the slightest.

Peaceful protest will be more painful but it has the potentional to have more positive long-term results.

[Ironside]

In many cases the nature of the revolution will define the nature of the state that comes from that revolution. If the Junta is overthrown by force, having gained power through force, then you are starting a vicious cycle which will ultimately not benefit Burma in the slightest.

Peaceful protest will be more painful but it has the potentional to have more positive long-term results.

Ah, but you still need military support if those in power can cause massacres without severe consequences.
Now, it should be enough if for example the highest military commander of the forces in Rangoon had joined his forces with the people. Beating those down would be quite hard and probably trigger a civil war (and that at a point were the rebels got very high support).

[Reverend Joe]

I think the point that the supporters of a peaceful revolution are trying to make is that nonviolent resistance itself is the key to persuading, and thus disarming, the military and the power structure. No revolution has ever come about through simple peaceful protests. But if the resistance movement can convince the military to refuse to perform any more massacres or beatings, mainly by making these massacres seem futile, then they will win through sheer force of will. It is one of the hardest things in the world to do, but it is also one of the most effective vehicles of change, when it finally works.

[Marshal Murat]

This makes me sad.

[Lemur]

The situation in Burma makes me think that the right to keep and bear arms would have radically changed the equation, had it been part of the culture and legal heritage. If a small percentage of civilians were armed, the military regime would have needed to be much more careful about where to send troops. And the soldiers themselves would have been more thoughtful about facing down thousands of protesters, if they knew that some were armed.

A lot of folks scoff at the "prevention of tyranny" argument for gun ownership, but let's face it -- peaceful revolution does not work if the ruling regime has any support from the outside (cough, India, cough, China).

[AntiochusIII]

I'm not sure guns would help, Lemur. The government would just drive the armed citizens into the jungle and call them rebels, similar to what happens in various South and Central American countries.

There's just no infrastructure for a popular revolution in Burma to succeed. Not as long as China keeps providing the regime with whatever it needs; not without a middle class; and not without continuous resistance, which to most Burmese translates to certain death by the hands of the junta.

[Slyspy]

The situation in Burma makes me think that the right to keep and bear arms would have radically changed the equation, had it been part of the culture and legal heritage. If a small percentage of civilians were armed, the military regime would have needed to be much more careful about where to send troops. And the soldiers themselves would have been more thoughtful about facing down thousands of protesters, if they knew that some were armed.

A lot of folks scoff at the "prevention of tyranny" argument for gun ownership, but let's face it -- peaceful revolution does not work if the ruling regime has any support from the outside (cough, India, cough, China).

Rubbish, it would simply have raised the death toll terribly.

[Lemur]

Slyspy, Antiochus, I hear what you're saying. From another discussion:

The days of the Revolutionary War are over. Native Americans had guns. The Iraqi insurgency even has pretty decent guns (AK-47s). Having guns is just an invitation to get slaughtered. Without equivalent firepower, no militia or popular uprising has any chance against a modern army. Being seen holding a gun simply means "shoot me first". There's a reason why IEDs are the weapon of choice in Iraq. Every time that the insurgency tries to stand and fight, or even snipe at the troops, they get mowed down. If the Burmese people suddenly find massive caches of assault rifles, body armor, RPGs, armored vehicles and air support, let me know.

Good points all. I guess I'm just terribly frustrated at what's going on in Burma, and I wish the protesters could do more than march and get shot/beaten. At the moment, it looks as though their bid for democracy is on hold. Very depressing.

[AntiochusIII]

Good points all. I guess I'm just terribly frustrated at what's going on in Burma, and I wish the protesters could do more than march and get shot/beaten. At the moment, it looks as though their bid for democracy is on hold. Very depressing.

Oh, certainly, I desperately despise such thuggish regimes as that of the current Burmese -- pardon, Myanmar -- government.

I guess it was cynicism that holds me back from truly applauding their hopeless cause. Despite massive international pressures, which the U.S. essentially leads by the way (good for them), the leader of the Burmese Democrats [note: no US correlation] has yet to be released from her years of "house arrest." I suspect she'll never get out alive.

Considering the position of monks in Southeast Asian society -- very elevated, almost like a caste of Brahmans -- the sheer audacity in the methods used in suppressing them expresses very well how far the bunch of scums in charge will go in protecting their pathetic little warlord status from crumbling.

The only way to end the regime in the near future would be a Chinese embargo, which we'll not likely see for a long time. The Old Men in Beijing are far too Machiavellian in their neo-colonialism to care about such trifles as a few dead and tortured monks.

Apologies to the noble Machiavelli for the abuse of his name.

[Tribesman]

Just to expand on slyspy and antiochs thing , there is armed opposition , there has been lots of it for a long long time , it hasn't worked .

The government would just drive the armed citizens into the jungle and call them rebels, similar to what happens in various South and Central American countries.

Wheras the Burmese governments have not only driven them into the jungle , they have driven several of the groups out of the country altogether , not that it has stopped them launching raids or doing little bombing campaigns in the towns and cities, but while world powers are still backing the junta it ain't gonna amount to much .

[Ironside]

Wheras the Burmese governments have not only driven them into the jungle , they have driven several of the groups out of the country altogether , not that it has stopped them launching raids or doing little bombing campaigns in the towns and cities, but while world powers are still backing the junta it ain't gonna amount to much .

Those village purges are done due to this resistance, correct?

[Tribesman]

Those village purges are done due to this resistance, correct?

Yep , they have been done by the various regimes in Burma since independance .
To clarify further what Lemur should have written when he wrote.....

The situation in Burma makes me think that the right to keep and bear arms would have radically changed the equation, had it been part of the culture and legal heritage. If a small percentage of civilians were armed, the military regime would have needed to be much more careful about where to send troops. And the soldiers themselves would have been more thoughtful about facing down thousands of protesters, if they knew that some were armed.

A lot of folks scoff at the "prevention of tyranny" argument for gun ownership, but let's face it -- peaceful revolution does not work if the ruling regime has any support from the outside (cough, India, cough, China).

......he should have added that for the "prevention of tyranny" thing to work not only would the people have to be armed and the government not have substantial foriegn backing , the "rebels" would also have to have very serious foriegn backing .

[Lemur]

Tribes, I already retracted that post, and expanded on why I was wrong, but feel free to flog it for all it's worth. I assume you're keeping some sort of score or something?

[Samurai Waki]

Its a frustrating mess over there... I think the eventual outcome will probably end better than say the African juntas or the Banana Republics. However, as it has been stated before, without any serious foreign backing a Rebel Front is probably out of the question, considering the junta has the support of China, and to further that end it would cause even more needless bloodshed. I mean at this point, all the Burmese can really do to cause the eventual decline of the military regime is to quite literally "lay back and relax" as much as they are permitted. Causing the regimes own eventual downfall.

[Tribesman]

Tribes, I already retracted that post, and expanded on why I was wrong

So what ?

but feel free to flog it for all it's worth. I assume you're keeping some sort of score or something?

No , but its worth expanding on further

Waki sort of touches on it with his juntas and bananas

So how about going from....the "rebels" would also have to have very serious foriegn backing .....? Now which rebel groups would be worth backing and given the ethnic or political agendas of the different groups which ones could turn out to be just another junta in waiting propped up by another nation to serve that nations economic interests ?

[Samurai Waki]

Not sure to be honest. It was more of a generalized statement, that if a "Rebel Group" had been in the eye of another player to capitalize it's own interests upon. The current Junta has the support of China, I'd imagine with the USA's illustrious reputation of backing "Democratic Movements" that they'd choose to arm a group claiming to be pro west. In the imperialistic eyes, it doesn't matter what form of government is over there as long is it "trades with us and only us". Pretty much exactly what you said.