The new issue of the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies is out. The umbrella for this batch of articles is “Communities of interpretation and the construction of modern Myanmar” and there are contributions from Michael Aung-Thwin, Robert H. Taylor, U Chit Hlaing, Juliane Schober, Bob Hudson and Terry Lustig, and Maitrii Aung-Thwin.
New Mandala readers with even a passing interest in scholarship on Burma will want to check out more of the details here.
80 responses so far ↓
1 david w // Jun 14, 2008 at 6:31 am
On a somewhat tangential point, Michael Aung-Thwin has created a bit of a stir….
From the Irrawaddy.
Burmese Academic’s Letter Draws Fire
——————————————————————————–
By WAI MOE Friday, June 13, 2008
——————————————————————————–
A Burmese historian who wrote a letter to the editor of the Workers World newspaper charging that US foundations were behind the monk-led uprising last year has drawn critical reactions from Burma observers.
The newspaper is published by The Worker’s World Party, a communist political party in the US.
In the letter, “Exploiting a Human Tragedy,” published on June 1, Michael Aung-Thwin, a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, alleged US-based foundations, such as the Soros Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), were behind the monk-led mass demonstrations last September.
As evidence, he cited their awarding grants of US $40,000 to Burmese monasteries.
“This was to be used for ‘education’ [of] Burmese monks about how to hold ‘democratic’ demonstrations,” he claimed. “Is it any surprise the riots led by a small group of bogus monks and ‘outlaw monasteries’ occurred shortly thereafter?
“The US even has a head of the Sangha-Buddhist Church ready to be installed if there is the regime change it wants,” he said.
Win Min, a Burmese political observer in Chiang Mai, Thailand, said he disagreed with Prof Aung-Thwin’s unsupported charges that the mass demonstrations were created by the US.
“The root of the mass demonstrations last September was mass outrage about the misrule by the Burmese military junta,” Win Min said. “So Prof Aung-Thwin’s writing on Burmese monks in the letter was quite groundless.”
Nyo Ohn Myint of the National League for Democracy in exile said Aung-Thwin’s calling the 1988 Burmese student uprising and the 2007 uprising “riots” was “wrong historically and academically.”
Gustaaf Houtman, a Dutch expert on Burma and editor of Anthropology Today, told The Irrawaddy by e-mail the letter lacked a legitimate “moral ground.”
“The weakness of his argument is [that it has no] compassionate statement of concern about the suffering in Burma, [but] is as an argument against the country he lives in so comfortably,” said the Dutch scholar.
“Why did Aung-Thwin not raise the need for the [Burmese] military to accept relief efforts from anyone who could remedy the suffering of the people he says he represents?” he asked.
A Burmese researcher on Burma’s civil society who is based in Rangoon said if Aung-Thwin thinks the situation in Burma is not bad and Western actions made it worse, he should come back to Burma and live as a normal Burmese citizen.
He said Prof Aung-Thwin allegations in an international media outlet offered support to the junta’s claim that the US attempts to directly interfere in Burma’s internal affairs and those who undertake pro-democracy activities in Burma are destructive elements.
2 jonfernquest // Jun 16, 2008 at 5:39 am
“Win Min, a Burmese political observer in Chiang Mai, Thailand, said he disagreed with Prof Aung-Thwin’s unsupported charges that the mass demonstrations were created by the US.”
Win Min is right in that you cannot posit direct causality, but:
1. The Soros Foundation does not give money for anything but political activism, so by their own mission statement, the donation to the monks had to be for political activism.
2. Exactly what multiple factors paved the way for demonstrations among the monks is a completely legitimate objective historical question to ask. And the answer most likely goes beyond the immediate precipitating causes of the demonstration.
3. No rational discussion of this issue is possible given the circumstances, as Gustaaf Houtman, essentially points out with the phrase “legitimate moral ground” which means that you will be attacked or threatened in some way, if you don’t follow the opposition party line.
4. Over in New Mandala’s fruitcake mercenary thread, some angry guy with a gun is asking NGO types what did they ever did for the Burmese people. Teaching people would be one contribution that I know several people have made without shooting people, but I’m afraid to say this, because he might get angry and shoot me.
America’s longstanding ( since 1988) policy of disengagement and economic sanctions with Burma means the answer to this question is probably nothing much for most people, since there is very little if any foreign aid or NGOs there, and economic sanctions bar all investment and probably trade too.
5. The American policy of isolation for the last 20 years certainly set up the long-term conditions that made the recent cyclone disaster possible. (But perhaps I have just committed a thought crime in positing this.)
6. The underlying force behind the whole stalemate is probably the fundamental unimportance of Burma strategically for the US., and the absolute importance of China.
When was the last time you heard the US talking about Tianamen Square? It’s actually a taboo subject in China, just like the Franco years in Spain.
Do you hear the US still talking about the 1991 elections in Burma? (Yes) Are there vital shared interests between the US and China that go beyond the Dalai Lhama? (Of course) Are there vital shared interests in Burma that go beyond the NLD and the 1991 election? (No)
Best prediction for the future here is a repetition of the past, unless some freak accident happens.
3 Don Jameson // Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44 am
I think jonferquest has it about right. Since the US and most western countries perceive no strategic interest in Burma thay have made it into a whipping boy to demonstrate concern about human rights abuses that are generally glossed over elsewhere because of larger interests. China and Saudi Arabia are two prime examples but the list could also include smaller human rights abusers such as Cambodia and Laos where the western world, out of guilt and/or a desire to develop ties useful to waging the “war on terror”, has decided to overlook continued human rights abuses and an absence of progress toward real democracy, not to mention rampant corruption and government incompetence. So it is convient to have Burma as a vehicle to demonstrate outrage over human rights abuses, however hypocritical this may be. The presence of Aung San Suu Kyi as a symbol of the opposition to military rule helps to make this more credible. But as Justin Wintle points out in his recent biography of Suu Kyi “Perfect Hostage” her presence, along with frequent statements of strong support for her by western nations, may in fact be retarding progress toward democracy in Burma because it further fuels the paranoia of an already quite paranoid group. As someone has said, “even paranoids have enemies”, and the Burmese generals certainly do, in spades. So most likely we are stuck in a continuing stalemate on Burma, as we have been for the last twenty years. Only a new, more realistic and more innovative approach can break this log jam and that appears very unlikely given the political benefits to nearly all concerned, except the Burmese people, in perpetuating this situation.
4 Stephen // Jun 16, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Relatedly, this is a footnote from the International Crisis Group report on the protests,
5 Stephen // Jun 16, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Also, if anyone would actually like to read Michael Aung-Thwin’s article it is available here.
I would also recommend reading Awzar Thi’s commentary Teaching Grandma How to Peel Onions regarding previous allegations in the South China Morning Post which were very much in line with the ‘Aung-Thwin paradigm’.
6 burmaforyou // Jun 17, 2008 at 8:05 am
Does Fernquest know what he is blogging about? No point in referring twice to Burmese elections in 1991, as none were held in that year (might 1990 be a better bet?). BTW Soros also runs a major scholarship programme and offers huge sums in the service of scholarship, namely to get academic journals to underfunded third world countries.
Perhaps short of seratonin, there is a cold-hearted abnormal posturing to Michael Aung-Thwin’s letter and also to Fernquest’s style of blogging while the consequences of the cyclone are still being felt by a multitude of homeless, hungry and abandoned Burmese.
Bahh! Big words, small hearts. Why run a blog if you cannot even get your facts straight?
7 Don Jameson // Jun 17, 2008 at 8:44 am
One way to obscure reality is to focus on nit picky details, as “burma for you” seems to be doing. I really don’t get his point. What Micheal Aung Thwin and some bloggers have said is that political motives on the part of western governments and a number of Burmese opposition figures, some of whom get monetary support from these same governments, is making it more difficult to address the humanitarian situation which now exists in Burma. It is also creating a misleading picture of the situation in Burma and rendering political solutions even more difficult I don’t think he has addressed this crucial point at all.
8 Stephen // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I do think that Jon Fernquest and Don Jameson raise an important point about being sceptical of the motivations and practical benifits of the US government’s ‘loudspeaker’ diplomacy with Burma. The hypocritical application of human rights criticisms have severely discredited the US government’s claims to be supporting human rights, as such, rather than particular allied regimes. However, I also think it’s problematic if this scepticism leads to the conclusion that external actors can not and should not attempt to engage in political solidarity with a clearly indigenous opposition to abusive military rule.
Michael Aung-Thwin appears to be suggesting in his letter that this opposition is entirely ‘bogus’, marginal and externally created. However, the evidence suggests that resistance to the military is widespread in Burma and goes far beyond the organised poltical opposition. Although there is a risk that some organisations may shape their programmes to fit with the funding requirements of Soros and others, I think it would be wrong to suggest that 1) there would not be any indigenous agreement with the human rights arguments of Soros, the US government and others if it wasn’t for the funding received from these sources, and 2) the opposition to miltiary rule would not exist if these sources were not providing funding.
Interestingly, Michael Aung-Thwin concludes his article on ‘Mranma Pran: When context encounters notion’ in the latest issue of the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies with a criticism of what he sees as the “anti-elite” trend in contemporary Burmese historiography. The slogan for Workers World, the website where he published his criticism of external support to indigenous Burmese opposition to abusive military rule, is “workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite.” I wonder what the readers of Workers World would think of his opposition to “anti-elite” tendencies. It seems to be a case of Michael Aung-Thwin going so far to the left, he’s ended up on the right.
9 jonfernquest // Jun 18, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“Fernquest’s style of blogging”
It is not a “style” of blogging. I lived in the country for two years and experienced it first hand what economic sanctions did to real flesh and blood people, particularly when my own family got sick and I had to look after them in hospitals.
I do not derive one cent of my livelihood from writing about Burma, so I feel free to speak what I actually believe, unlike others.
One of the best investigative journalists on Burma who I bumped into last week and spoke to last week (wrote the best piece on the Wa situation that I ever read) is of the same mind and literally refuses to read anything that comes out on contemporary Burmese politics because most of it is a repetitive rehash of the same points that have been made for the last 20 years, and which…have not worked at all.
Don Jameson says it all:
“…political motives on the part of western governments and a number of Burmese opposition figures, some of whom get monetary support from these same governments, is making it more difficult to address the humanitarian situation which now exists in Burma. It is also creating a misleading picture of the situation in Burma and rendering political solutions even more difficult”
10 jonfernquest // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Read:
Steinberg, David I, “The United States and Its Allies: The Problem of Burma/Myanmar Policy,” Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, Volume 29, Number 2, August 2007
Abstract: Significant differences in policies towards Burma / Myanmar are apparent among the United States and its allies: Japan, Australia, Thailand and the European Union (EU). The most restrictive sanctions have been imposed by the U.S., followed by the EU, while Japan and Thailand have been more liberal in their policies. The sanctions regimen, which to date has failed to achieve its goal of regime change, is based on a set of assumptions that opponents of such policies believe to be erroneous. International efforts through the UN to censure Myanmar have been more theatrical than likely to achieve their objective. There is evidence of increased frustrations with the policies that concentrate on political change as a prior condition for greater humanitarian assistance, but changes are unlikely without a significant shift in internal Myanmar policies. The alliances themselves will not splinter because of these differences in approaches to Myanmar. Most likely, changes in Myanmar may evolve slowly within that country from its internal dynamics and contradictions. Myanmar will likely be changed by an internal dynamic that may evolve from the military’s dissatisfaction with its own leadership, its own role, or its own sullied reputation. The possibility of violent change in the streets can never be completely discounted. However, it would take an economic catastrophe or some egregious act of ignorance or villainy by the authorities at some level to trigger a popular response.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/contemporary_southeast_asia_a_journal_of_international_and_strategic_affairs/toc/csa29.2.html
11 Robert Horn // Jun 18, 2008 at 9:14 pm
No amount of money from George Soros or any American foundation could pushed those monks onto the streets of Rangoon and in front of soldiers with a track record of shooting unarmed civilians if there wasn’t genuine, severe and desperate suffering among the Burmese people. It’s sad to see academics and bloggers who don’t live under these conditions completely ignoring them in their “analysis”.
The notion that the actions of the US made the junta’s criminal response to the victims of Cyclone Nargis possible is also completely ludicrous. The US has failed to isolate Burma. The regime in Burma receives more than ample support and succor from the Chinese, Indians, Russians and ASEAN. Yet all that money, arms and coddling from those “allies” did nothing to make the junta the least bit more responsible in dealing with the suffering of its own people. So, blame the US and Western Europe instead.
I wouldn’t call some of the views expressed here “thought crimes” (oh how ye noble defenders of the SPDC regime suffer at the hands of your heartless persecutors, woe unto you), but I would call them thoughtless.
12 Don Jameson // Jun 19, 2008 at 12:27 am
Apparently Robert Horn has never been to Burma, as jonfernquest and I have (I lived there for three years) and thus has no appreciation for the actual situation on the ground. He also has been brainwashed by the media on Burma it appears. No one is saying that the Burmese military government is good. What we are saying is that it is not much different from many other similar governments in the third world which do not get this sort of treatment by western governments and media. He has noted that isolation did not work but blames China, India and others for this rather than recognizing that it was ill advised to embark on a policy of isolation under these conditions in the first place. The result has been to drive Burma into the arms of governments which have no interest in promoting democracy and human rights rather than maintaining contacts which would make it possible to influence the situation there, however marginally. David Steinberg is one of the few realistic commentators on the situation in Burma, which he has been studying since he lived there in the 1950s. How stupid is it to dismiss the advice of people with lengthy experience on the spot in Burma while adopting policies based on ignorance of the actual situation and then complaining that they did not work because others see through this nonsense and do not go along with it. This is a head in the sand approach to international affairs and no amount of abuse directed at those who actually understand the situation will change that fact. This attitude is reminiscent of the “who lost China” debate of the 1950s/60s and the “who lost Vietnam” debate which surfaces again at every election cycle. Soon there will be a “who lost Iraq” debate of the same nature. These places were never ours to lose but the failures in each case can be attributed very clearly to those who made the original erroneous policies and no amount of bluster to the contrary can alter that fact, except perhaps in the minds of people who are so ill informed that they do not realize what actually happened. With this kind of thinking so widespread in America we can expect more such disasters in the future, unfortunately.
13 Ralph Cramden // Jun 19, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Wow, you Burma guys really get caught up in your debates. A couple of points:
1) Most informed observers, including academics, agree that sanctions have failed and have been poorly targeted so that the impact has not been on the junta’s members.
2) Most of those observers also agree that the regime in Burma is providing bad government (witness the cyclone debacle). Aung-Thwin and a couple of other academic observers take a more pro-regime position, of course.
3) Steinberg suggesting that political change must be internally driven begs the question of why there has been so little change since 1962. It also ignores that most political change (generally) is not entirely internally driven; at least that seems to be the consensus of historians of SE Asia of late. (I should add that I don’t have access to the Steinberg article.)
4) Thinking that Soros et al are responsible for the monks uprising provides great succor to the regime. Recal that Aung-Thwin also joined the regime in accusing the monks of being false and depraved not real monks.
5) Having lived in a country (or even having been born there) is no guarantee of great insight or necessarily of the capacity to reject the views of others. My undergraduates always say that being “on the ground” is the best way to understand. I reject this unless that on the ground experience is based on critical academic study. I doubt that I am any great expert on the politics of the country of my birth and where I spent 30 years growing up when compared with others who have intensively studied that country (even if they are outside it). In other words, a capacity to understand a place is not obtained through osmosis but through learning and study.
14 Don Jameson // Jun 19, 2008 at 3:05 pm
We “Burma guys” are caught up in the debate because we find it frustrating to read statements by people who have apparently never been to the country but presume to know more about it than those who have lived there and studied it extensively. In many respects Burma is a very beautiful place with an engaging people and it is heartrending to see this distorted by much of the media commentary, which seems to view it as a plaything to advance personal or ideological agendas. As for our knowledge of Burma generally, in my case, I was Political and Economic Counsellor at a major western embassy, was in daily contact with people at all levels of society, as well as many government officials, and traveled extensively thoughout the country on a regular basis. I also read extensively on Burmese culture and history, much of this from material obtained at the venerable Pagan Book Store in downtown Rangoon, which curiously has almost every significant book ever published on Burma in English. Since normally there was only one copy of each the proprietor made bound zerox copies for sale to customers. I also have some cherished first editions of classic writings by early English colonial administrators in Burma from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which I purchased from the same source. To suggest that such carefully and painstakingly developed knowledge is less meaningful than wild opinions based on often sensationalized media reporting boggles the mind. The simple fact seems to be that many of those commenting on Burma have never taken the time to study or understand the country in all its complexity and are thus free to tee off with any idea that pops off the top of their heads. I find that offensive and tremendously sad because the people of Burma, among whom I have many close friends, deserve much better from outside observers who claim to have their interests at heart but in many cases do not know what they are talking about.
15 Robert Horn // Jun 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“Apparently Robert Horn has never been to Burma, as jonfernquest and I have (I lived there for three years) and thus has no appreciation for the actual situation on the ground. He also has been brainwashed by the media on Burma it appears.”
That’s pretty funny, Don Jameson.
16 Stephen // Jun 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Ralph, I think you’ve raised some important points.
It does seem as though in the Burma sanctions debate people generally get caught up in thinking of economic sanctions relating to trade to and from Burma, but there are of course many other forms of sanctions which are being applied and are being debated about being applied. Some argue that these are more relevant and more able to avoid the negative impact on the wider population. I am interested to hear Jon Ferquest and Don Jameson’s views on other forms of sanctions, like the freezing of miltiary officers’ financial assets held abroad, visa bans on junta officials and a (potentially universal) arms embargo. (I also haven’t been able to access Steinburg’s sanctions article yet).
Interestingly, Maitrii Aung-Thwin in her article “Structuring revolt: Communities of interpretation in the historiography of the Saya San rebellion” in the latest issue of the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies challenges previous theories of single issue causation in the Saya San rebellion and supports the argument that multiple (including external) factors such as the the influence of western notions of social organisation played a part.
17 jonfernquest // Jun 19, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Don Jameson: “To suggest that such carefully and painstakingly developed knowledge is less meaningful than wild opinions based on often sensationalized media reporting boggles the mind.”
Exactly. Living in Mae Sot in the early 1990s there was an endless stream of amateur photojournalists, journalists, and strange military types hoping to, apparently, make a name for themselves, get that 15 minute Andy Warhol sound bite of fame. And they all produced the same cookie cutter story and photos. Now it’s Rambo-craze time.
The tragedy is that the country has been isolated for so long (~46 years), that the vast majority of people know nothing else. I think it’s a mute point whether you freeze some nasty dictator’s assets or try an arms embargo, they’ll just find some way around it and adapt as they have for the last 20 years.
It may be a harsh reality, but after 20 years, the generals have won and are still firmly in power. In order that the people can quickly carry on normal trade, educational, and other relations with the outside world, and end their isolation, and not all die in the next major natural disaster, IMHO the ending of sanctions and normalisation of relations is necessary, but that will never happen, so I predict that China will continue to become more important in Burma via Yunnan.
Steinberg suggesting that political change must be internally driven begs the question of why there has been so little change since 1962. It also ignores that most political change (generally) is not entirely internally driven.
To get externally driven change first a country needs relations with outside world. 46+ years of isolation.
18 Don Jameson // Jun 20, 2008 at 12:26 am
This conversation is beginning to reflect the craziness that characteriszes most of the commentary on Burma. The county’s isolation apparently invites wild speculation on the assumption that none of this can actually be verified on the spot. Much of this comes out of Bangkok, where Thai cultural distain for Burma (”a poor country with a naked king” as portrayed in the King and I) combines with the search for sensational stories by journalists to create a heady brew of misinformation. When I was in Burma we spent much of our time knocking down erroneous or exaggerated reports out of Bangkok, supposedly based on informants in Burma, many of which could be verified as ridiculous simply by walking down the street. In many respects Burma is a fairly normal traditional Southeast Asian society, especially in rural areas. It is also extremely rich in natural resources as well as agricultural productivity. Traveleing through central Burma I was often amazed by the bounty of the land. The idea that a country like this can somehow be bludgeoned into submission through “isolation” is ludicrous on the face of it for anyone who takes the time to see what the place is really like. But if one is sitting in Bangkok apparently it is easy to conjure up the picture of a starving people wallowing in poverty or as in the book “Finding George Orwell in Burma” (written by a Bangkok based journalist) a living version of 1984. These portrayals are so far from the mark as to constitute fiction rather than journalism. I think jonfernquest has dealt pretty will with the question of internal vs external change and sanctions of any kind are mostly symbolic to make outsiders feel that they are doing something useful. The idea that the Burmese leaders have vast amounts of money stashed abroad is another myth. They have little or no interest in leaving their own country (they never travel outside Burma except on short official visits) and in general live a rather simple and austere lifestyle (as do most Burmese). Hard as it may be for many outsiders to believe they are not frivilous even though they may be ignorant and misguided. It is hard to understand how isolation and sanctions can be a remedy for this situation. What Burma needs is more exposure to the outside world so that some of these outmoded ideas can be challenged and shown to be out of date (by at least a century). This would also open opportunites for the Burmese people in general to benefit from new ideas and exposure to what is happening in the rest of the world. That is the way for outside influence to make itself felt. Isolation just retards the process and leaves no alternative to change through internal forces. In short, the outside world needs to completely rethink its attitude toward Burma and adopt policies that are baseed on a realistic assessment of the situation there rather than on hopes of forcing change flowing in large part from a farytale view of what Burma is all about.
19 Moe Aung // Jun 20, 2008 at 9:33 am
Real change can only stem from inside, with a little help maybe. Ever thought of arming the next uprising to level the playing field a bit? The fire next time…. bound to come while we are busy pontificating given the junta’s intransigence and lust for power. Or would it be more ritual condemnation ad nauseum ad infinitum?
20 Don Jameson // Jun 20, 2008 at 11:20 am
Moe Aung: Your comments are somewhat cryptic. Can you clarify what you mean? Thanks
21 Ralph Cramden // Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57 am
Don Jameson - claims to be a political officer in Burma (when?) and (on another blog) to have been a political officer in Cambodia during the Lon Nol period. He also apparently reads and comments on http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/06/a-quiet-revolt-in-burma-by-eug.html#comments
But I can’t find anything under his name other than comments that almost all begin by claiming the residence halo. I’d like to see the sustained critical analysis he has completed. Where would I look? Recently declassified State Department documents perhaps?
22 Robert Horn // Jun 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Yes, oh Raphie-boy, pal-o-mine, Mr. Jameson appears on several Burma blogs and webboards showering himself with praise for the exceptional and painstaking gnosticism he obtained reading old British manuscripts during his three years in Burma and dismissing we mere mortals who simply can’t comprehend his genius. And all who disagree are either crazy, brainwashed by the mainstream media or have never set in foot in the country.
It all sounds so familiar. Do the names Miriam Marshall Seagal, Michael Dobbs-Higginson and Pat James ring any bells?
23 Moe Aung // Jun 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Sorry Dom, I’m away for the weekend. I thought I’d put the cat among the pigeons. I owe you an explanation.
24 Don Jameson // Jun 21, 2008 at 12:17 am
If this is the Robert Horn I know perhaps he should engage in full disclosure by explaining why he left Burma involuntarily, and not because of the miliary government there. The brief snippets on this blog help to understand the sort of convoluted thinking that got him into trouble then. Apparently he has not learned anything from this experience or any others he may have had since then.
25 Don Jameson // Jun 21, 2008 at 12:39 am
I would like Ralph Cramden to provide his credentials for claiming knowledge of Burma since he does not think living there, traveling all over the country, reading extensively on the country and maintaining continuing contact with Burmese friends there are of any significance. Yes declassified State Department cables would be a good source of information on my reporting. Those from 1970s Cambodia have been declassified and are available at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. The ones on Burma would have to be requested through freedom of information at this point. Some titles to look for are “How Burma’s Generals View the World”, “Buddhism and Politics in Burma”, “Burma and the World: Will the Twain Ever Meet”, “Negotiating with the Burmese”, “Burma’s Future: Market Economics and Political Change”, “Burmese Nat Worship and its Political Relevance”, and “Upcountry Burma: Marching to its Own Drummer”. I think Mr. Cramden and others might find them interesting reading if they really to want to understand something about Burma.
26 Robert Horn // Jun 21, 2008 at 12:55 am
Apparently I’m not the Robert Horn “you know” because I’ve never had to leave Burma involuntarily.
I also sincerely doubt you, Don Jameson, know any Robert Horn.
First you said I had never set foot in Burma. Now you’re saying I left the country involuntarily.
The fact that you are making things up speaks volumes about your analysis of the situation in Burma.
27 Don Jameson // Jun 21, 2008 at 1:22 am
To Mr. Horn. Then please explain your reference to Miriam Marshall Seagel and others (who I do not recognize). If you are not the Robert Horn who was expelled from Burma then please tell us who you are and why you seem so bitter about anyone who has taken the time to study the country.
28 Don Jameson // Jun 21, 2008 at 10:02 am
I suggest that those interested in media coverage of Burma after the cyclone consult the article “Burma and the Grey Lady” on the blogspot “Informed Comment: Global Affairs” at icga.blogspot.com.
29 Robert Horn // Jun 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
LOL. You really are a comical fellow, Don Jameson. If anyone is bitter it is obviously you, roaming web boards and blogs denouncing anyone who has a different view on Burma than your own as brainwashed, crazy or just not knowing anything at all about the country. That’s how a loser argues.
Even worse, you make things up about people.
I’m certain that no one by the name of Robert Horn has ever been “expelled” from Burma.
Which of the 37 Nats told you that?
Why don’t you tell us who YOU are, Mr. Jameson? And not with cryptic references to documents that require us to file a Freedom of Information Act request or travel to the National Archives in Maryland.
Your scholarly work on Burma must of incredible earth-shaking insight and importance if that’s the only place it can be found.
As for credentials, Ralph Cramden has a credential you never will:
Common sense.
30 Ralph Cramden // Jun 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Don Jamieson: I don’t understand. I make no claim to speak expertly on Burma. My initial post was to report other’s published and spoken claims. I do question your credentials. For me, critical study involves publication and subjecting one’s views to peer review. I know that sounds academic, but it is the best measure I have. Your views, expressed here, do not suggest to me that you have that training or the insight gained from that kind of experience.
31 Grasshopper // Jun 21, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Yes, handbags gentlemen. I think the Germans will win Euro 2008.
32 Don Jameson // Jun 22, 2008 at 12:01 am
Apparently there is no point in attempting to enlighten people with closed minds amd no interest in learning if this involves questioning their own prejudiced views. In the case of Mr. Horn, I think his explosive words reflect well his character and behavior, which is why he left Burma abruptly and under protest, a fact which he still seems to be denying many years later. I guess we just have to accept the fact that there are many different kinds of people in the world, from misguided Burmese gemerals to delusional bloggers. Education never ends, for those who are willing to learn, and for some others it is not a goal because they seem to know everthing from some intuitive source of information which noone else has ever seen or heard. There is not much one can do about the latter except to be amused by their rantings.
33 amberwaves // Jun 22, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Forget this Robert Horn, he’s boring.
I want to know about the Robert Horn who was forced to leave Burma involuntarily.
Was it a sex scandal?
Salacious minds want to know!
34 Robert Horn // Jun 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Mr. Jameson, you really should stop making things up and telling lies - oh, but that’s the whole basis of your “research.”
Really. Where’s your proof?
You don’t have any.
Because you’re lying.
35 Robert Horn // Jun 23, 2008 at 12:21 am
“I want to know about the Robert Horn who was forced to leave Burma involuntarily.
Was it a sex scandal?
Salacious minds want to know!”
Oh definitely. I was arrested, tortured for five days at Insein prison and then deported from the country after the authorities discovered me having a menage a trois with the Sandar Win and Thandar Shwe in the penthouse of the Traders Hotel.
It was the rhyming moans that turned me on. ‘Oh, Sandar! Oh Thandar!’
Little did I realize that the tryst was being filmed by Lo Hsing Han!!!
36 Don Jameson // Jun 23, 2008 at 1:22 am
Sorry, I cannot provide any more details on the Robert Horn story except that it did not involve sex. But just reading his blog postings shoud give you an idea of the sort of personality we are, and were, dealing with
37 Andrew Walker // Jun 23, 2008 at 8:18 am
The “discussion” on this post is getting tedious and unnecessarily abusive. Personally abusive comments that raise no issues of substance may not be approved!
38 Moe Aung // Jun 24, 2008 at 4:27 am
What was that all about? Cloak and dagger stuff? Or just play acting?
Here’s the scenario:
Burmese politics has never been totally polarised as now, the rulers vs. the ruled. The junta is deemed beyond the pale post- September 2007, post-Nargis. They belong in Avici, the deepest of hells, as far as the populace is concerned.
The next uprising, even as we speak, is being talked about for 8808 or 8th August. The Burmese never have ruled out armed resistance to tyrants at any time in their history, foreign or domestic. The last time they tried, 8888, they only had swords and sling shots, and the outcome was predictable. Suu Kyi failed to split the army and at the same time managed to split the opposition by refusing to work with U Nu. Her commitment to non-violence and liberal politics was out of place in Burma and proved an abject failure after so much sacrifice.
So how are the people going to arm themselves this time? If the army
splits as hoped by many - otherwise the odds are no better than in 1988 - then there won’t be an insurmountable problem. They’ll have access to enough arms to begin with. If people fail to win over a significant number to start a mutiny as some experts predicted, help from outside becomes paramount. They are unlikely to wait for anyone when the whole thing explodes once again. Leaders will be found and those who can’t lead will simply be left by the wayside. The Burmese nation will find its own strength.
When is the West likely to come in flying the UN flag, probably not when they are needed, as usual, but when things start going the “wrong” way. The “moderate” faction is their choice - here read their own placemen ideally or at least friendly Western oriented leaders - to follow their own model of democracy and development. So watch this space.
39 Don Jameson // Jun 24, 2008 at 6:16 am
Moe Aung, you are an idealist. The military has all the arms, and the will to use them. If there is another uprising as in 8888 or September 2007 the results will most likely be the same. You can always hope for a split in the armed forces but it is just hope. There is no evidence that I know of to support this prospect. In my view another uprising would only result in another misfortune for the Burmese people, who deserve better from their leaders, both in the military and in the opposition. From my perspective the only way to promote positive change in Burma is through gradual evolution in which people learn to live democratically and develop the institutions to implement democracy effectively. Perhaps the civil society groups that have sprung up in response to the cyclone are a start in this direction. But I do not think a sudden “magic” solution is either likely or even possible given the existing conditions in Burma.
40 Moe Aung // Jun 24, 2008 at 9:16 am
Don, can you recall any expert inside or outside Burma predicting the Saffron Revolution? People make their own history from circumstances they find themselves in but not necessarily of their own making. And push comes to shove all too often in Burma these days.
Evolution has passed them by in Burma, and in Europe it took centuries, not within a person’s life time and not without violent struggle from time to time either. Westerners just take it for granted what their forefathers had fought for them, spilling their blood and guts literally at certain moments in history.
So it’s all very well to tell others to wait for civil society to spring up and move things forward bit by bit just because we abhor bloodshed and we are now in the 21st century, not that things are that much better elsewhere in the Third World. Nobody wants another massacre and defeat. We are flattering ourselves if we think we are so good at determining and timing of the course of events. One can only prepare to the best of one’s ability.
The only positive outcome of the 8888 Uprising was the existence of an above ground opposition - yes, it did take an insurrection with loss of thousands of life, and Aung San Suu Kyi and her party filled the leadership vacuum on the back of it - but just look at how it can barely breathe under the military boot, denied of its election victory and totally hamstrung, reduced to making statements in reaction to events unfolding only to fall on deaf ears, and at the beck and call of the generals to play the game on terms dictated by the generals. Has the NLD made any headway in any effective manner either in negotiating for national reconciliation or in organising mass action to achieve some semblence of political freedom and human rights?
I couldn’t agree more that the Burmese deserve better leaders both in the military and in the opposition. The only realistic positive scenarios at this juncture are a palace coup by a Burmese de Klerk in the army or a split in the army with some Young Turks starting a mutiny and adding a new dimension to the 60 year old civil war.
Would the generals allow civil society to develop to the extent that it can affect genuine reform or radical change let alone challenge its grip on power? Would mass boycotts and strikes gain concessions from let alone bring down the regime without bloodshed? Now that’s what I call idealism.
The tragedy of Burma is that people have been reduced to either waiting for the West to intervene or wooing the army to split and fight for the people against tyranny. Non-violent civil disobedience and protest or dialogue just ain’t working.
41 Don Jameson // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:56 am
Moe Aumg, I agree that the situation in Burma poses a real dilemma. In the end it is up to the Burmese themselves to decide how best to deal with this but personally I do not believe that violence is going to make things better, even though that is the traditional Burmese method of solving political problems. In my view it is irresponsible for outsiders to be encouraging this approach because it is the Burmese people who will suffer even more as a result, not those sitting comfortably before their TVs or computers somewhere outside the country. What is needed is a serious rethinking of how positive change can be promoted in Burma, with the least amount of damage in the process. Sadly I do not see that happening. What we get is a lot of rhetoric about “responsibility to protect” and other apparently tough statements, with no practical results on the ground, except to make the generals even more suspicious and reclusive. This has been going on for so long that it is totally predictable, and it has produced zero results. That alone should eventually lead people to believe that there must be a better way but it does not seem to be doing so. This poverty of serious thought about how to address the situation there is the real tragedy of Burma, in my view.
42 Moe Aung // Jun 25, 2008 at 4:43 am
Don, Burmese do not have a monopoly on solving political problems by violence. You only need to look at the world around you, including the great western liberal democracies. When it comes to the crunch, out comes the gunboats, or shall I say stealth bombers. Even the “troubles” in N Ireland or Kent State University wasn’t that long ago.
Sadly the junta understands only one language, and though no students of Mao they seem to have a visceral belief in his dictum, “political power comes from the barrel of the gun”. They never hesitate to use it on unarmed people, do they? So it’d be only fair to level the playing field a bit. The late dictator Ne Win’s famous speech in 1962 after killing the students and blowing up the union building was “sword against sword, spear against spear”. If only the country were flush with AK47s and RPGs as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, the international community is not addressing the situation, and I agree too that the Burmese will have to fight their own battles not just metaphorically. Also that outsiders, particularly “great white saviours” or “white knights in shining armour” for whatever the reason - humanitarian, crusading, mercenary, personal glory - taking sides selectively with ethnic Christian insurgencies, will only increase the paranoia and reinforce the stereotype, and more importantly play into the hands of the generals whose raison d’etre, let’s not forget, is holding the union together.
43 Don Jameson // Jun 25, 2008 at 7:01 am
Moe Aung, you raise many of the problems in dealing with the Burma situation, which makes finding workable solutions all the more difficult. I don’t expect any breakthroughs in the near future so we will probably be debating these same points for some time into the future. Sadly the Burmese people can expect little relief anytime soon, and they know it, so they will just have to struggle on, as they have been doing for so long.
44 Totila // Jun 25, 2008 at 9:33 am
This debate and focus here appears to have turned inward. In the nature of things, the elephant in the room is the Tatmadaw and the central argument should be what to do with the beast since it clearly has gone bad. Instead, arguing tactics rather than strategy, one has questions here concerning how much fodder to extend or withhold, whether to offer sweet words to the recalcitrant tusker or berate it or, ignoring its ability to reproduce, hope it grows old and dies or goes soft. Or whether the beast can be induced to develop a schizophrenic character and chew itself into some form of debility. Or debates over which training techniques to adopt or discard, how many years the mahouts have been in training, who controls them from afar them or doesn’t, whether the audience and trainers should be limited by nationality or even by local ethnicity, and whether neighboring elephants and their herds should be involved or not.
One thought here, though, about any perceived need to lessen paranoia amongst the security caste. While one should take into account that all conflicts have local contexts—which cannot be explained 100 percent by academic models—a little more paranoia might not be a bad thing.
In recent memory, offering 1979 as an example, it was neither the Ugandans who solved their own problems nor the Cambodians. And in the case of the latter so much misery had been visited upon them from outside, doing so would have been more than difficult. Whether through outside maneuver or self-delusion or both, the paranoia of both irredeemable leaderships ratcheted upwards and both embarked on foolish adventures whose consequences lessened, if not ended, the misery of many of their peoples. Amin felt Julius Nyerere had not accorded the rotund Field Marshal the expected and proper filial affection (should Nyerere have done so in the interests of peace and non-intereference?) so he attacked Tanzania, while the murderous Anghka convinced themselves they were more than a match for what was probably then the world’s best light infantry. Amin’s rule was swiftly decapitated and Pol Pot’s pushed to the edges though certainly not eliminated. In both cases, dealing directly with the elephant in the room did not herald a completely new dawn but it meant that positive change could happen, albeit with slow measured steps and occasional missteps. This is lacking in Burma today.
Whether through trade networks, diplomatic channels, personal networks or other forms of interconnectedness, people outside Burma are by definition involved in Burma (and the reverse can be true as well) and at some level with all sides. Better questions would be who calls the shots (and yes, here it should be local) and how they can work together a strategy that will either take down or completely transform the elephant in the room. Change will happen in Burma and it may well surprise one and all as to when and how. Only afterwards will analysts offer that its precise nature was inevitable and should have been foreseen.
45 Don Jameson // Jun 25, 2008 at 9:52 am
Totila: Could you give us a better idea what your point is? Change may take place in Burma and it may not. Nothing much has changed there for at least 20 years so I think the smart money would be on continuity. And when change does take place in Burma, and similar countries living under authoritarian regimes, it is often not a very pleasant experience for those on the spot. It is nice to be optimistic, but based on what?
46 Moe Aung // Jun 25, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Totila, I agree that Burma is capable of another surprise or shock, and that experts will be wise after the fact as they do.
Don, Burmese cannot afford not to be optimistic. In the long run I am too but it is the how that will determine the when, and people are unlikely to wait too long at this rate. And that’s where the leadership issue arises for preparedness and versatility, for plan A - non-violent action as well as plan B - armed rebellion. Unified action by the majority Burmans and minorities is of paramount importance, unless they have failed to learn their lessons from the protracted civil war, 8888 Uprising and the Saffron Revolution.
47 Don Jameson // Jun 26, 2008 at 1:01 am
Moe Aung, good luck on promoting unified action. If that can be done most of Burma’s problems could be solved. Unfortunately it has never been done and I am rather skeptical that it will be any time soon.
48 Moe Aung // Jun 26, 2008 at 4:21 am
Thanks Don. They have done it before in the struggle for independence under the umbrella organistion, Anti Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL), with the notable exception of the Karen. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it happens again in a similar fashion. Your sceptism is justified. Jack Slade, discussed in another thread, made the feature article in Asian Tribune today.
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/11920
An interesting coincidence is that the Buddhist monks are also supposed to be looking for weapons and to have started collecting sling shots once again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300974_2.html
49 Don Jameson // Jun 26, 2008 at 10:27 am
Moe Aung, I don’t think the Karen, with or without soldiers of fortune like Jack Slade, are going to change the direction of events in Burma. This is old history and smacks of the POW/MIA exploits of former US soldiers following the Vietnam war. Rambo will not save Burma, however popular that idea may be in Hollywood and among those who enjoy its productions. Real change will have to come from developments inside Burma and among Burmans, not insurrectionist minority groups, who will never be happy with any government in Rangoon. There are no simple and easy solutions to the problem in Burma, if there are any solutions at all. And unemployed former marines are among the most unlikely of people to advance the process of real poliitcal change, in my view. This makes for nice fiction but a much more sophisiticated approach will be necessary to produce sustainable results.
50 Jack Slade // Jun 26, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Don- You are right….The KNLA and other ethnic groups will have to fight to free themselves. They need to unite and defeat the SPDC on several fronts at the same time.
However, You are wrong on one thing. You referred to me as a “soldier of fortune” which implies I am in this fight for the money. In essence you called me a mercenary, this is not the case. I have spent more money out of my own pocket than you will ever give to the Karen poeple. And as an “unemployed former marine” you can only guess at the level of determination that must have taken. I am not unemployed. The I spend every day trying to get food and aid to the people of Burma. I wake at 7 am and go to bed around 3am the next morning because I am trying to make a difference in the lives of my friends on the other side of the planet.
Show me how dedicated you are. Stop talking and start doing. Action speaks louder than words.
You are a smart man as I can tell by your postings. Start putting that intelligence to work in productive ways that benefit the people dodging bullets in Burma.
I am not a “Rambo wanna be” nor I have delusions of grandure or self promotion. As I see it you are correct on several points in your postings, this shows that you follow events and think about things on a regular basis. Start posting what should be done and not what others failed at when they at least made an attempt to create change.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
The only sure way to fail is to never TRY at all.
I am trying every day to come up with funds to get Food, medical supplies, Doctors, aid, industry, teachers, and trainers into the country. If you are doing this, then GREAT. If not then you should close you lips and get busy TRYING.
Because while you run your mouth my friends are DYEING. Sorry if I sound a little angry, I am not angry, only a little frustrated that so many people seem content to spend hours ripping others to shreads and down playing their efforts with out any real knowlege of that persons efforts or lifting a finger of their own to help.
As I have said in other postings…. We all need to work together for a regime change. That can not be done by political means alone.
Bow down to the tiger and he will attack you. Stand UP and fight and you will at least have a change at life.
I fully support demonstrations and everything the monks did. However, how many monks must die before some other country gets involved and puts its boot up the generals behinds? If there was demonstrations in Rangoon, coordinated attacks by ethnic groups in all areas, and all SPDC trucks and resupply stopped, all at once and these actions continued for 3 days the SPDC will stretched too thinly and they will fall. This will not happen, ever, unless people stop talking and start doing. Team work is the only thing that will put the SPDC down. After they are gone we can talk ourselves into old age.
Don- Do not think I am attacking you. I just get a little frustrated when people call me a mercenary and a soldier of fortune. It just shows me that you have no idea who I am or what I stand for.
I support freedom, self determination, and respect for your fellow humans. I stand up and fight to protect the innocent, because if I tolerate the actions of the SPDC in Burma, that means I would let it happen here in my own country.
Do something…. Jack out.
51 Moe Aung // Jun 26, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Don, I agree singleminded separationist goals are harmful at this juncture and should be put on hold while everyone needs to team up, and here I endorse Jack Slade’s view, so that the common enemy can be rid of once and for all.
Jack, I don’t see you as a mercenary but would you be helping Burman groups in the area such as the student army, ABSDF? Selectivity by white knights and saviours is bound to be seen as divisive and encouraging separatist ambitions by the majority Burmans not just the junta although I can understand your natural inclination towards the Karen; they are very nice, friendly, hospitable and gentle people after all.
Unfortunately the Karen on their part are so beholden to the white christian nations despite being let down so many times, it’s sad to see them still aspiring to become the 51st state of the US. Even the British don’t suffer from this malady half as bad. I’m sure it also reflects on the way the Karen, or for that matter everyone else, have been treated by the Burman ruling elite so far.
Genuine national reconciliation can only become a reality when, not if, the junta is toppled because they are the embodiment of Burman militarism and chauvinism.
52 Don Jameson // Jun 27, 2008 at 12:38 am
Dear Jack Slade: Thanks for you detailed comments, which do not bother me because I have been involved with Burma for many years and know that everyone dealing with it is frustrated. That is the main reason there are so many crazy ideas out there. In my view trying to help Burma by aiding the Karen insurgents is one of them. This approach started during British rule, largely because many of the Karen are Christian and thus much easier to deal with than ethnic Burmans, who are Buddhist and xenophobic. As a result the British promised the Karen and other groups that they would never be forced to live in a Burmese dominated Burma following independence, and then broke their promise, leaving a legacy of insurgency by minority groups which has persisted since then. The only way to change this is to work toward creating a more moderate leadership in Burma proper. Helping the Karen insurgency just fuels the xenophobia and anti-foreign suspicions of the miliary leadership, and many other Burmese. We (my wife, who is Cambodian, and I) are channeling our assistance to Burma through Burmese friends inside the country. This is not difficult to do since many Burmese and friends of Burma living in the US and elsewhere outside the country have set up mechanisms for channeling assistance to cyclone victims. I too want to see a peaceful and prosperous Burma but based on long experience there do no believe that promoting insurgency and revolution is the way to achieve that goal. To be successful there must be a long slow process of evolution toward a more democratic society. What the outside world has been doing for the past 20 years in isolating Burma is just retarding this sort of change. In my view Burma has been ill-served both by its leaders and by many of those foreigners who claim to be providing assistance but are actually just reinforcing the divisions which led to the situation we now face. Until more people understand that nothing much will change in Burma, unless the situation gets worse. I doubt that you will find these ideas very persuasive but I just ask that you consider what positive results the approach taken by the international community for the past twenty years has produced. There are none.
53 War Mongers // Jun 27, 2008 at 2:22 am
To Mr. Slade and the rest of you. It is individuals like yourself, undressing Peter to dress Paul which contribute to the cycle of voilence.
Everyone here seems to just be here to publicly pat themselves on the back. But I fear it is this line of thinking which will only lead to more civilain deaths.
If that is what you call freedom, than I am just lost for words.
It is this type of dialogue which makes me want to give up hope for the philosphy of non-voilence.
I read about Mr. Slade in the recent Asian Tribune article
It’s a sad day.
54 Charles F. // Jun 27, 2008 at 8:35 am
A philosophy of non-violence is nice - until the wolf is at the door.
I just read that Burmese monks are now looking for weapons to protect themselves with.
55 Ed W // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:39 am
War Mongers,
“One man’s opinion is still an opinion, however meaningless it may be” (hopefully you are a woman)
56 jonfernquest // Jun 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“I read about Mr. Slade in the recent Asian Tribune article.”
1. A PR job for his security services contract firm is the most likely explanation.
2. Kawthoolei, the so-called Karen state, is a malaria infested little stretch of river in the middle of nowhere. (At Manerplaw the malaria infection rate was, I believe, above 90%)
3. Kawthoolei is not a viable state.
4. The Karens in Kawthoolei will eventually have to become part of a larger state called Burma.
5. China is the ultimate arbiter in the region, not a bunch of military hobbyists (not mercenaries because they don’t get paid)
6. What is the Asian Tribune? Looks like a front for a PR organisation to me. Most of the links don’t work. This sort of set up is very easy on the internet.
7. Burmese monks with weapons are no longer monks anymore, by definition.
8. Rich Americans with their defense contracting Iraq spoils should just go home and not attempt to spread their severely warped idea of how the world works elsewhere. It’s well-documented what a failure the Iraq war and attempt to rebuild the state in America’s image under Bremer was.
57 jonfernquest // Jun 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Furthermore, the contention by the military hobbyists that they are doing something useful while others are not is ridiculous:
1. Helping aggravate longstanding civil wars is not useful.
2. Foreign teachers in rural Thailand may not receive as much money or publicity as military hobbyists in the Karen area do, but in the long-run they may be performing a more valuable function than their military counterparts.
(A specific case: a long-term resident guest house owner who was eeking out a living cheating Japanese tourists by selling them substandard gemstones and illegally taking westerners on adventure tours of Akha villages where they can smoke opium and sleep with all the natives, suddenly is earning $10,000 per month doing contract work in Iraq, buying homes back in Thailand, living high on the hog, does that make what he does, being part of the American war machine in Iraq, more important? the incentives are certainly aligned with making this activity more important, i.e. be a soldier, not a useless teacher, but many would not agree that his windfall makes what he does anymore important…)
Many former Iraq defense-security contractors have settled in Thailand after receiving their Iraq windfalls. Of course, they come to Thailand with so much money and they can buy anything they want (houses, cars, etc..), even a warfare experience in the jungle, where they are led to believe that they are a hero…
58 Moe Aung // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Jon, any kind of political or military adventurism is bound to end in tears. I’m sure teachers, though undervalued and the butt of many jokes in Britain - perhaps the Bash Street Kids and the Banana Bunch are to blame as well as politicians who engage in divide and rule tactics all the time, are doing a sterling job in nation-builing all over the world. They are venerated in Burma next only to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and one’s parents.
Absolute commitment to non-violence hopefully works for those happily in a state of denial. It’s a lovely idea and I dare say the best of innate human good nature, but violence, legitimised or otherwise, by states or individuals and groups, is all around us.
Western invasions, covert interventions and repression by the Burmese junta are all violence meted out by the state or a group of states. It’s noble and Christian to turn the other cheek, although I dare say it’s the very un-Christian acts of those states - greed, racism and xenophobia as well as bigotry - that we see much in evidence and as a disastrous role model by dint of their material success and their latest venture - globalisation. And their constant seizing the high moral ground only works on the converted, not on many of us on the receiving end in the Third World, just as saying “we live in a classless society” like a mantra only works on the comfortable classes.
So it looks like the Burmese have no choice but to wait for evolutionary processes for what 50 years, a century? One thing I’m absolutely sure of - they ain’t gonna wait for long, outside help or no, and they ain’t just gonna roll over under the military boot.
Burmese monks, Jon, have never shirked from struggle, peaceful or armed, on behalf of the people throughout history. They’ll just stop being monks for the duration.
59 War Mongers // Jun 28, 2008 at 12:48 am
jonfernquest,
Thank You, I couldn’t agree more with what you said.
Except what you say about Asian Tribune. I have been reading this online magazine for years and have always found it to be reliable, informative, dependable and worth taking note when they report something like that. If you read the article carefully, there appears to be what I would certainly call an “insinuation” that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to US govt/military involvement there.
I do hope this is just a case of an article written out of context, which happens. But my attention is still grabbed.
Your right, the idea that the Karen could bring down the junta to me seems absurd, despite what logic I’ve heard here.
Though I certainly defend their right to defend themselves, and I am glad they have had help in training, as they have had for years and years.
If ever an attempt by the Karen to bring down the junta was to take place, as was suggest here, it would not be a war between the Karen and the junta. The junta would bring everyone in the mix, and up to hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be killed.
Though looking at a map, it is easy to see a “military mind’s” logic to such a venture, esp. considering Shan is not too far way, and both are in proximity to Naypiydaw. Which gives me greater concern that military minds might be busy, as you say, considering themselves and their ideas to be of greater importance than Teachers.
60 Charles F. // Jun 28, 2008 at 1:40 am
Opinions vary widely on how to best help the Karens and Burmese.
One camp would take the tack of benign neglect, leaving the people of Burma to their fate, to sort things out on their own. That doesn’t appear to be working too well.
Another group wants to engage the Burmese junta in what they call “constructive dialogue”. They feel that talking to the generals will bring about some sort of change. This has been tried repeatedly, and has gotten nowhere.
Then we have the group that Jonfernquest refers to as “military hobbyists”.
While they are incapable of turning the tide, their numbers being too small, they do provide the resistance with the means to defend themselves a little bit better.
The tatmadaw cannot be beaten on the battlefield by the small numbers arrayed against them. They have the second largest army in that part of Asia. But they can be bloodied enough to give them pause.
No one in their right mind expects the KNLA or any of the other dissident groups to ride into Rangoon in triumph, ala the Northern Alliance in Kabul.
But if they can resist enough, just perhaps they might be able to exist as a people on the Thai border, living their lives in peace, and determining their own fate.
I won’t pretend to have the answer. This conflict began before I was even born, and it will most probably continue after I’ve exited this mortal coil.
But I do know that someone has to try. You can’t just wring your hands and say, “It’s too hard. Let’s not get involved.”
61 Don Jameson // Jun 28, 2008 at 3:30 am
John F., When has “constructive dialogue” been tried by western countries? They have rejected this since 1988 despite repeated arguments by the ASEAN nations and other Asian countries that this was the only reasonable approach. In any case it does not have to be dialogue with the generals. The presence of more western organizations of all type, governmental and non-governmental, as well as tourists, in Burma would open doors to the outside world and help to stimulate gradual change. Instead the international community somehow thinks that isolating Burma will have a beneficial effect. Isolation is what the ruling generals want so this just plays into their hands, especially in a natural resource rich country which is self sufficient in basic necessities. In my view this sort of approach represents a poverty of imaginative thinking and a resort to tired old methods that have never worked well anywhere.
62 Moe Aung // Jun 28, 2008 at 3:37 am
Some of you I’m sure are aware of the siege of Insein in 1949 when the besieged Socialist government of U Nu was dubbed the Rangoon government, and Naw Seng’s little escapade when his Kachin outfit was sent to fight the KNDO/KNU and he ended up joining them and hijacking a plane from Meiktila to Maymyo over 500 miles north of Rangoon in a daring exploit. But of course no ethnic rebellion, not just the Karen, on their own will ever topple the government, and let’s not forget that 17 insurgent armies were arrayed against the government at one stage of the conflict.
Disunity has plagued the myriad opponents of the government, dubbed multicoloured insurgents in the early days. Unless they all team up with the majority Burman opposition, national reconciliation and national self-determination will remain a pipe dream.
The Tatmadaw has grown too big to ensure absolute loyalty to the junta. The officer class treats the troops badly. Many units are left to forage for themselves. They are mostly Buddhists and impacted by both the cyclone and September 2007. The Burman majority has been treated no differently from the minorities once they started challenging the junta’s legitimacy and authority. It’s high time the minorities wised up and not repeat the same costly mistakes of the last 60 years.
63 Don Jameson // Jun 28, 2008 at 5:04 am
Moe Aung: Good comments. Disunity has been the bane of Burmese political movements of all types, both Burman and ethnic miniority insurgencies, from the outset. Only the Tatmadaw has managed to overcome this problem, which is why they are in power and have stayed there so long. Unfortuately there is no end to this in sight as far as I can see because patron-client and family based clannism is a basic element of Burmese culture. This is one of the issues that must be addressed in order to create an environment hospitable to democracy in Burma. To date most people have been concentrating on the military leadership but the genereals are mostly a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. That is why, in my view, a much more sophsisticated approach to change in Burma is needed. If this does not happen nothing much will change. And when the Buddhist law of impermanence eventually catches up with Than Shwe there is no guarantee that his successor will be much better, given the existing conditions in Burma.
64 Moe Aung // Jun 28, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Don, when I said a mutiny in the Tatmadaw will add a new dimension to the civil war, it’s not strictly speaking true. Three Burma Rifle regiments rebelled in 1948 calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) and they joined the communists later. True, at the time there were communists, socialists and nationalists in the army re-organised after the British returned.
I have said in another thread only the ultimate overthrow of the junta in its current or future incarnations, that means any hardline successor of Than Shwe too, will guarantee peace and prosperity for the many and diverse peoples of Burma. Someone has said Burma’s problem is not the cyclone but the generals.
As for patron-client and family based clannism, that can certainly follow your cherished evolutionary process, although I do recognise that very important element in the army’s loyalty to the junta so far.
Burma’s urgent and immediate problem, as universally acknowledged by the people and most outsiders, remains the entrenched and intransigent military dictatorship.
65 Don Jameson // Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09 am
Moe Aung: Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it correct. In the Burma case much of the so called analysis of the situation is based more on hope rather than deep thought about the problem. That is one reason why nothing changes. In most cases people adjust their views to fit reality at some point when there are no results. For some reason when dealing with Burma there is a tendency by many to believe that if you just cling to the same approach it will eventually work. I don’t think so. Clearly I am in a minority on this but after long experience and study of Burma I think there has to be a better way. If not there is not much hope at all.
66 Moe Aung // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:34 am
Don, why do I get the feeling you have no alternative to offer but a long and uneven evolutionary process, in other words muddling through? Reality certainly won’t fit into your view or mine. Events have a habit of overtaking us, and we like most experts then spout wisdom with the benefit of hindsight after the event.
I’m all ears for any deep thoughts and strategies for the way ahead.
67 jonfernquest // Jun 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Don Jameson: “When has “constructive dialogue” been tried by western countries? They have rejected this since 1988 despite repeated arguments by the ASEAN nations and other Asian countries that this was the only reasonable approach.”
And things have just got worse and worse.
” In any case it does not have to be dialogue with the generals. The presence of more western organizations of all type, governmental and non-governmental, as well as tourists, in Burma would open doors to the outside world and help to stimulate gradual change.”
Sanctions have actually punished all the citizens of Burma by denying them these shared interests with the world outside Burma: business, education, and cultural.
After 46 years of isolation the contrast with Thailand which is thoroughly connected with the world is just amazing.
“Instead the international community somehow thinks that isolating Burma will have a beneficial effect. Isolation is what the ruling generals want so this just plays into their hands, especially in a natural resource rich country which is self sufficient in basic necessities. ”
Again look at the so called fortified Green Zone under Bremer in Iraq. Complete lack of any imagination and engagement with the people of Iraq and complete failure.
“In my view this sort of approach represents a poverty of imaginative thinking and a resort to tired old methods that have never worked well anywhere.”
Poverty of imagination, or in actuality western governments just don’t care, not strategically important, deprioritized to the point of handing it all over to the activists. Policymakers don’t even devote enough mental bandwidth to really find out about the country (except for that ANU conference). Supposedly, one or two meetings by Bush with a couple of activists set the whole course of America’s Myanmar policy.
True believer activists have filled in the vacuum and dictated policy for the last 20 years. And they have achieved absolutely nothing.
Let’s have another Burma protest, is the biggest non-news event there could be.
68 jonfernquest // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I have lived in a Burmese hospital as a member of the family was dieing.
I have used up every penny I had in the world looking after that dieing person.
I have watched Burmese people in that same Rangoon hospital doing exactly the same thing. (Countless others don’t even get as far as a diagnosis.)
Why is this not on television?
Why aren’t there news reports about this?
Why is there never a report on what the sanctions have done to the Burmese people?
Why is every single news report always about the generals, a group of people, that no one can do anything about. After 40 years this is just gratuitous nonsense, by foreigners who want to exhibit their own political correctness at hands length.
69 Don Jameson // Jun 30, 2008 at 12:24 am
Moe Aung: Many (most?) people apparently just do not want to accept reality in Burma. That is why they keep proposing ineffective and often counterproductive policies, apparently out of frustration. The point is that no clearcut solution exists, unless you just wipe Burma the way it is off the map and start over. That is not a very practical or humane approach but in essence it seems to be what most of the activists and foreign critics are proposing. Barring that you have to deal with Burma as it is, which means gradual evolutionary change or more of the same stalemated situation, while the Burmese people suffer as much from the actions of outside self appointed do gooders as from their own government. As we have seen following the cyclone, the Burmese people are perfectly capable of acting in their own interest when that is feasible or necessary. But they are there on the spot and as a result most know that the sort of pie in the sky “solutions” proposed by outsiders are not possible under existing circumstances. Not only that, such “solutions” are dangerous and most likely would lead to an even worse situation. Many people in the world, including the Burmese activists in exile, seem to need Burma as a cause for their own purposes and apparently have little concern about the consequences for the Burmese people in the process. For many people Burma has become a caricature rather than a country with real people who have normal everyday needs. This is a sad situation all the way around.
70 Totil