New Mandala

13 responses so far ↓

• 1 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 3:28 am

  On Wednesday, October 3rd, Human Rights Watch, a Bangkok NGO, presented a man they said was a Myanmar army major who had fled the country to Thailand (this is Officer Win who is telling the story of the monks massacre). The group released a transcript of an interview with the unidentified man.

  “The demonstrators were very peaceful. Later when I heard they were shot and killed and the armed forces used tear gas, I was really upset and I thought the army should stand for their own people,” the man was quoted as saying.

  Human Rights Watch declined to allow the AP to interview or photograph the man, saying it would compromise his safety.

  David Mathieson from Human Rights Watch is the guy next to the Burma Officer in Bangkok.

  Can someone in Bangkok get a hold of a transcript of this interview and post it?

• 2 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 4:10 am

  here is a link to a Der Spiegel story that just came out titled: “They Come at Night and Murder the Monks”

  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,509232,00.html

• 3 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 5:02 am

  here is a link to a UK Times article just published about some battles between soldiers and monks in Rangoon today:

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2583600.ece

• 4 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 5:12 am

  here is link to UK Guardian follow up story on Burma Officer who crossed over into Thailand with monk massacre story. The Guardian adds more detail regarding possible cracks within the Burma military in regard to the present situation.

  The Guardian story titled: Burmese Army Major Defects to Thailand by Matthew Weaver
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2182816,00.html

• 5 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 7:37 am

  In a Channel 4 UK broadcast later tonight (Wednesday), they interview the Burmese army Major Win who fled his Burma for Thailand because of his revulsion at the treatment of Buddhist monks.

  Warning: you may be disturbed by some of the images in Jonathan Miller’s report later tonight.

  http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/new+evidence+of+burmese+violence/875262

  It would be great if someone in UK could tape this interview and post it on this blog or one of the video sites.

• 6 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 7:53 am

  link to UK Channel 4 segment in which some of their Jonathan Miller interview with the Burma officer who crossed into Thailand appears:

  http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=9498

• 7 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 2:37 pm

  link to CNN report titled Myanmar Death Total: Where are the Monks?

  http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/01/myanmar.dead.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText

  link to CNN Report titled Myanmar Bodies Were a Warning:

  http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/myanmar.witness/index.html#cnnSTCText

  link to CNN video story titled Concern for Myanmar’s Monks (ignore the dumb ad at the front):

  http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/03/chance.myanmar.fearful.monks.cnn

  Special Note: Anderson Cooper of CNN Anderson Cooper 360 started his career as a journalist in SE Asia and was actually in Burma as a reporter during the earlier upheaval. As such he seems to have genuine and special interest in the Burma situation and anyone with new information from inside Burma, new videos or photos, should try to get them to Anderson Cooper at CNN.com

• 8 ChrisIPS // Oct 4, 2007 at 5:15 pm

  link to very interesting testimony Wednesday from the Burmese who is Head of the VOA Burma Service. During his testimony, he goes into the overall strategy of the present protest movement in Burma which extends beyond the initial crackdown of this past week:

  http://voanews.com/english/About/2007-10-03-burmese-statement.cfm

• 9 ChrisIPS // Oct 5, 2007 at 4:50 am

  link to an interesting slightly academic article by Eric S. Margolis from the International Herald Tribune placing the present Burma situation in an historical context:

  http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/04/news/edmargo.php

• 10 Johpa // Oct 5, 2007 at 4:04 pm

  I keep reading opinions like those held by Eric Margolis that the fall of the military regime will lead to segmented chaos in Burma divided along ethnic lines. But I think these opinions, and disintegration is indeed one possible outcome, needs to be tempered by the cohesion generated by the common enemy, the ruling military regime. I can only speak about the united front that is presented in my hometown in the US where we have in residence some of the leaders for the national US Campaign for Burma, and I see Burmans and various “minorities” working for a perceived common good and a common goal everyday. It is not that there would be no problems if there was a regime change, but I think there is a good chance that the problems would be less severe than many pundits such as Margolis anticipate.

• 11 jonfernquest // Oct 5, 2007 at 10:49 pm

  http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/04/news/edmargo.php

  Thanks for the link to the Margolis article. I wouldn’t call it an academic piece though, rather a contrarian piece in the sort of way that’s asking to get smacked in the face during emotional times like these. But I agree with the points he makes, particular the final one:

  “…the Western powers and Asean must understand that if they force the Burmese military from power, they had better have an almost equally strong new government to replace the unloved junta.”

  I think of post-UNCTAC in Cambodia and post-East Timor elections both times when dreams of smooth sailing under democracy were deflated after a period of initial euphoria, but not as much as Iraq of course which was made even worse by American neo-con policies under Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney.

  The background on Margolis is interesting. He seems to take a conservative and contrarian stance on many issues which probably explains why he even dare write such a piece at a time like this.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Margolis

  But I don’t think they are likely to overthrow the regime because too many neighboring states (Singapore, China, Thaialnd) are more worried about their investments in and stability in Burma (exactly what Margolis discusses) than who is ruling the country. Even if one is an idealist like I am (I’d just as soon see the US boycott the China Olympics), political realism is the only way you can see how this is going to play out, and short of some freak mutiny (made less likely due to no relations between Burma’s military and the West) the prognosis would have to be more of the same “great game” with the junta playing China, India, and Thailand off of each other for its natural resources.
  http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/burmamyanmar/thitinan_pongsudhirak_on_the_2.php#article

• 12 bystander // Oct 6, 2007 at 2:15 pm

  This has a chance of becoming another case of realpolitik as usual, with all the state players doing whatever they need to do to protect their interest. For example, the Indian army chief offered his opinion that this is an internal affairs. And this is from a country that is often called world’s largest democracy’. Likewise, I don’t expect the state of Thailand, China, Singapore or whatever, to do something conscientous. However, there’s the hope that in this day and age, state power is not the only power. Individuals, particular in the free world, are better equipped than before to counterbalance the interest of the state.

  In this particular case, I don’t think world public opinion has much direct leverage on India and ASEAN players like Thailand or Singapore. (In the case of Singapore, I’m not sure how their Burma investment is structured. But if it’s by Temasek, then it might be possible to put a little bit of pressure on them, by for example, picketing their recruiter–Temasek is well known to be keen on recruiting at top business schools–particularly making a point about corporate social responsibility.. just my 2 cents). But China is a special case. The coming Beijing olympics make them vulnerable to the world’s outrage. I personall don’t see the US officially boycotting the olympics. But if the Chinese keep stonewalling and protecting the Junta, I think there’s a chance that some country in the EU, without too much of a business stake in China might boycott the olympics.. I don’t know..The Danes or the Norwegians might. And I think if one country does it, there might suddenly be a peer pressure for fellow EU country or at least individual athletes to show solidarity by boycotting the Olympics. I think this threat of boycott from small country might be the more practical one.

  It is probably not going to be easy though. Even if the boycott threat looks formidable, there would still be a split in opinion in the chinese leadership. The officers would likely insist on keeping the junta at all cost. Burma is too important to let it slip from their grip. I think it’s not just the natural resources, but the fact that Burma is the overland access to the Chinese southwest heartland. In the chinese’s war plan, in case of war with superior power, their plan would call for a retreat to the interior, e.g. Szechuan like in WWII and waging a war of attrition over the vast interior. Burma is the backdoor into Szechuan, i.e. the so-called Burma road. The people’s liberation army will not allow a pro-western entity to control Burma. Nevertheless, the civilian leadership put so much at stake on the olympics.. it will be interesting.

• 13 Dickie Simpkins // Oct 6, 2007 at 6:26 pm

  The Magolis article is nonsense.

  If a democratic regime comes into Burma, they will take care of politicizing and growing the infrastructure of the country.
  The military will continue its war against rebel factions as the Shan State Army, the Mon, etc.

  There will be no India-China war on Burma. What you will see is both sides publicly courting their political leaders. The main dynamic frame that will change once Burma is ‘democratic’ is that Europe and the United States will also openly court Burma in access of its resources.

  The only thing is that the Generals lose their prestige and access to big money lobbyists, and that money will be transferred instead to political leaders.

Leave a Comment