Burma.. Lads, its getting very serious right now.

seamus

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm still trying to see why China should be held responsible, just because they -could- do something but failed to interfere in another country's activities. The 1980 boycott against the Soviets was against Soviet, not client action. It sets a precedent that I'm not sure many people here would be happy to see followed to its logical conclusion.

I think that most people aren't necessarily holding China responsible, but they are acting like the bouncer blocking the door while a guy gets a beating behind him. They have effectively made the UN impotent on the issue and their stance coupled with their interest in Burma gives the world the impression that any attempts to go over the UN's head will be met with resistance from China.
I don't think any country is willing to risk waking up the Chinese military.

irish eyes

lastest news from burma oct 3
it has been heard that 17 trucks full loaded with people left InnSein GTI campus last night in Yangon. it is not known exactly whether those people on the trucks are monks who are forced to change to civilian clothes or the people who are arrested during the protests. This evening, at Bahan Road No. (3), every male between the ages of 15 - 40 were detained. Only old men, who are around 70 - 80 yrs old, and women were left behind
Received news that SPDC Prime Minister Soe Win has died from blood cancer on the evening of 2nd Oct
it has been confirmed by KNU that Colonel Htay Win from Battalion 99 has defected to thai boarder with his son. http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?idthis video shows the police (lone htane) beating up the protestors brutally after arresting them. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/02/riv
there have been yhousand of monks killes. some dumped in rivers other in jungles. others stripped of their robes, shackled. still on hunger strike. a report from yesterday, monks in monstery heads beaten on wall, stripped of robes and thrown into vans for disposal. a few elder monks hide. this info i got from http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

o.0

blood cancer?

blood can get cancer?

irish eyes

Mordeth wrote:

o.0

blood cancer?

blood can get cancer?

called lukemia...can't sp...but i'm sure u know what i mean:rolleyes:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oooh, that's what leukimia is

riight

oh, back on topic.. apologies for the spam

edanto

Speaking of spam, here's a notice of an event that's on tomorrow. I don't know anything about it other than it's on.

Details copied from http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=6510226862

6th of October
At O'Connell Bridge 12 noon
We shall be casting flowers into the Liffey as a symbol of grief and solidarity with the monks and people of Burma.

Also on Saturday, Burma Action Ireland will be raising money for Burmese refugees at a bag-pack in Tesco, Dun Laoghaire, and I would be very grateful for any volunteers to help with this.
Get in touch in ring on 01 286 0497

EDIT - There's also a list of things that you can do at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24957770200

Sand

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government. Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in an oppressive dictatorship? All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.

6th of October
At O'Connell Bridge 12 noon
We shall be casting flowers into the Liffey as a symbol of grief and solidarity with the monks and people of Burma.

Thats nice.

lostexpectation

irish eyes wrote:

lastest news from burma oct 3
it has been heard that 17 trucks full loaded with people left InnSein GTI campus last night in Yangon. it is not known exactly whether those people on the trucks are monks who are forced to change to civilian clothes or the people who are arrested during the protests. This evening, at Bahan Road No. (3), every male between the ages of 15 - 40 were detained. Only old men, who are around 70 - 80 yrs old, and women were left behind
Received news that SPDC Prime Minister Soe Win has died from blood cancer on the evening of 2nd Oct
it has been confirmed by KNU that Colonel Htay Win from Battalion 99 has defected to thai boarder with his son. http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?idthis video shows the police (lone htane) beating up the protestors brutally after arresting them. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/02/riv
there have been yhousand of monks killes. some dumped in rivers other in jungles. others stripped of their robes, shackled. still on hunger strike. a report from yesterday, monks in monstery heads beaten on wall, stripped of robes and thrown into vans for disposal. a few elder monks hide. this info i got from http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/.

thanks for the update

does this guy dieing change anything?

who is this guy that defected?

seems that they are good few army people refusing to repress the people if not cross over, Is a military coup the best bet for democracy?

http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2007/October/4/Burmese-soldiers-were-17939.asp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2577680.ece
If I shot monks I'd go to Hell, says major who fled



I am sure officers must have refused their orders to shoot monks. They will themselves be shot — it will happen in a prison and we will never hear about it. If I went back to Burma,

Of the officers who were loyal to the junta, he said: “There are two reasons for loyalty; they become rich from business, and they are afraid of being killed for disobedience. But in their hearts many of them loathe Than Shwe’s cruelty and they are with the people. I haven’t heard of soldiers mutinying, but it could happen.

“Than Shwe will try to hang on to power, but I believe this time next year he will be gone. There are other soldiers who want his power.”



who are the leaders of burma most afraid of, I mean why didn't allow the government to form after going as far as holding elections?



surprised to hear they agreed to a meeting ang sun?

jonny72

Sand wrote:

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government. Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in a liberal democracy? All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.

This post is sarcasm right?

If not, it seems to fail to identify that people are no longer living in 18th Century France. If you were Burmese, you would obviously want to be rid of that military junta so what would you do? join in the rising and protests in the hope that it would work, or stay at home in the knowledge that it wasn't going to work. What would your family have let you do? would your mother and relatives protest in the knowledge that at least 3000 had been slaughtered years before? Dictators and juntas have adapted.

Dictators like Saddam and Kim Il Yong have or had systems that are almost impossible to break simply because they give the weak and fearful power against the strong ones who could possibly challenge the dictatorship, just look at how the Ba'ath party operated.

Do you think the black people dragged over in chains to the States deserved that? that the people of North Korea deserve their situation? That the Jews in the concentration camps deserved their situation? because they didn't go and "bloody well" rise up..

Sand

This post is sarcasm right?

No, I dont think so. That was basically the gist of the argument against intervention as I recall it. People seemed to be quite serious when presenting it.

Do you think the black people dragged over in chains to the States deserved that? that the people of North Korea deserve their situation? That the Jews in the concentration camps deserved their situation? because they didn't go and "bloody well" rise up..

Again, Burma is a sovereign state with its own government. Who are we to judge their system of government? Is our so called "democracy" any better? Some guy got beaten up in Garda custody not so long ago. Ive also heard some Gardai were rude and nasty to some young people exercising their right to assemble freely by the canal and drink cans of dutch gold as part of their struggle for democracy and freedom. Clearly were in no position to lecture the fine men and women of the Burmese secret police.

Like I said, the neo con/neo imperialists need to learn to respect the UN and the right to self determination of the Burmese people.

Mick86

Sand wrote:

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. .

I thought that's what they were trying to do.

Sand wrote:

Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government.

I doubt it.

Sand wrote:

Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in an oppressive dictatorship? .

This is also true. Regime change is a bad idea to be planting in the minds of people like the Chinese, Russians, Iranians and other nice people. It also has a habit of turning around and biting the hand that changes the regime. Like in Iraq. Not that deposing mass murdering madmen is a bad thing it just needs to be done subtly.

Sand wrote:

All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.

Tut Tut.

Mick86

Sand wrote:

No, I dont think so. That was basically the gist of the argument against intervention as I recall it. People seemed to be quite serious when presenting it.

It always makes me laugh when people who start foaming at the mouth when you mention the US intervention in Iraq start waffling on about invading Zimbabwe and Burma.

edanto

Sand wrote:

As I remember it, if the Burmese people wanted to be free of their oppressive dictatorship they would bloody well go and do it themselves. Clearly seeing as they have not removed the dictatorship they appear to be quite happy with their current sovereign government. Who are we in our western arrogance to impose democracy, freedom and liberty on these people? Who are we to say to live in a liberal democracy is better than to live in an oppressive dictatorship? All you imperialists ought to be ashamed.



Thats nice.

The postneocon satire you're trying to pull falls apart when I point out that no-one has called for the US to invade and take over the gasfields.

You read the bit about the flowers, right? A spectacle, to attract attention. Maybe you have a better idea for what should be done? Some sort of armed conflict to resolve this the old-fashioned way?

Well, look if you think there's another way for it to be fixed I'd like to read it.

Edit: Only just now saw the posts where you explained a bit more, I had been looking at an old copy of the thread. About the guards here that break the law, that's not quite on the same scale as Burma. They're not exactly filling busses and lorries with trainee Capuchins and imprisoning them under armed guard in Croker. And killing the leaders.

You mentioned respecting the UN. Do you think there is any advantage in giving the UN more authority somehow, for situations like this. Or perhaps more of a rotation of countries on the Security Council instead of the winners of WWII?

MoominPapa

Sand wrote:

Burma is a sovereign state with its own government.

The current government in Burma is illegitimate having disregarded the results democratic elections in 1990 in which the National League for Democracy won 392 out of 492 seats. After refusing to honor the results the junta repressed the NLD and arrested may of its members forcing many others into exile, it has also held its leader , Nobel Peace Prize holder Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for most of that time since. Burma is a country without a consistution, the last one being suspended in 1988 when the current junta took power. This means the junta rule by dictate. Dispite vast natural resources and a population of 55 million the annual GDP is only $1691 ranked 150th in the world. Coupled with chronic infrastructural deficits and , according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the 15th highest military spending in the world and endemic corruption and the use of forced labour, the International Labour Organisation is bringing a case to the International Court of Justice to prosecute members of the junta for crimes against humanity, the current regime is incapable and unwilling to ensure the health, wellbeing and prosperity of its own people.
Of course if you are not a democrat then maybe you can find a way to regard it as legimate

Is our so called "democracy" any better?

Yes it is unless you are mad.

Some guy got beaten up in Garda custody not so long ago. Ive also heard some Gardai were rude and nasty to some young people exercising their right to assemble freely by the canal and drink cans of dutch gold as part of their struggle for democracy and freedom.

The Garda Ombudsman will be on the case in no time I'm sure

Clearly were in no position to lecture the fine men and women of the Burmese secret police.

Yes, yes we are.

Like I said, the neo con/neo imperialists need to learn to respect the UN and the right to self determination of the Burmese people.

They are by calling on the junta to recognise the democratic choice of the Burmese people in 1990

Sand

The postneocon satire you're trying to pull falls apart when I point out that no-one has called for the US to invade and take over the gasfields.

Im pretty sure its not satire - its the gist of the arguments against intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Why would you confuse them with satire?

As it is people are calling for states to deliberately attempt to destabilise the sovereign government of the Burmese people, and to intefere in their internal affairs. This is shockingly arrogant - who are we in our hubris to assume that our way of government is any better than theirs? How would we react if Burma attempted to denounce, destabilise and intefere in the affairs of our country?

You read the bit about the flowers, right? A spectacle, to attract attention. Maybe you have a better idea for what should be done? Some sort of armed conflict to resolve this the old-fashioned way?

Nah, I reckon the flowers are the way to go. Demonstrations of international solidarity with the people of Darfur have already gone a long way to resolving the situation there. Clearly, it can work in Burma too.

You mentioned respecting the UN. Do you think there is any advantage in giving the UN more authority somehow, for situations like this. Or perhaps more of a rotation of countries on the Security Council instead of the winners of WWII?

Yes, definitly. The UN's highest principle is to protect sovereign governments. Given the clear threat to the Burmese government from the warmongers and demagogues, the UN requires absolute authority to prevent any effort to destabilise Burma's government.

The security council needs to be reformed too. The US, France and the UK are clearly unacceptable as they have each gone against the guiding principles of the UN in modern times - who can forget the disgraceful NATO aggression against the Balkans? In clear violation of the UN security council.

We need new points of view, new fresh voices that arent afraid to speak up for the rights of sovereign governments to deal with their own internal affairs however they wish - we need to see Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma on the security council straight away. Russia and China arent perfect, but they do hold to UN principles to some degree and would be acceptable in the short term.

Mick86

Sand wrote:

we need to see Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma on the security council straight away. Russia and China arent perfect, but they do hold to UN principles to some degree and would be acceptable in the short term.

Now I know you're taking the p!ss.

Chechnya, Tibet, the Falun Gong, Tianeman Square. Ringing any bells here? The Russians have killed at least 60,000 civilians in Chechnya and China runs what are in effect death camps for dissidents. And that's just the stuff we hear about.

edanto

Sand wrote:

No, I dont think so. That was basically the gist of the argument against intervention as I recall it. People seemed to be quite serious when presenting it.

You seem to be referring to a specific intervnetion. Are you referring to the US-Iraq conflict?

Sand

You seem to be referring to a specific intervnetion. Are you referring to the US-Iraq conflict?

No, I've always understood that the case for respecting the right to self determination of another country is principled - i.e. not case specific.

edanto

Sand wrote:

As it is people are calling for states to deliberately attempt to destabilise the sovereign government of the Burmese people, and to intefere in their internal affairs. This is shockingly arrogant - who are we in our hubris to assume that our way of government is any better than theirs? How would we react if Burma attempted to denounce, destabilise and intefere in the affairs of our country?

So, your definition of 'sovereign government' is 'the people that are in charge at the moment'.

And they shouldn't be criticised because of the fear that we might be wrong? Is that really all you've come in to the thread to say?

It's hard to see the point you're making with all the sarcasm. Could you be more specific. Are you suggesting
(1) We should just say nothing and let things progress as they will
(2) Something else

And if it's (2), could you be explicit.

karen3212

But the Burmese government is not the legitimate government of Burma, so the UN soverignty thing doesn't apply, or does it? Anyway bombing the place from the air could kill far more people than the Junta kills in the same time.

I am watching the Non-violence lectures on youtube at the moment, from UCBerkeley, perhaps I'll learn something about solving conflicts without violence.

lostexpectation

again sand nobody advocated intervening (militarily or formenting politic revolt) in the country so I don't know who your argueing with.

although I think your are right about the soverign country thing, its the same with sudan and zimbabwe...

Sand

So, your definition of 'sovereign government' is 'the people that are in charge at the moment'

That is the only definition thats accepted. The UN offers membership to the crowd in charge, not to the people who others might think should be in charge.

It's hard to see the point you're making with all the sarcasm. Could you be more specific. Are you suggesting
(1) We should just say nothing and let things progress as they will
(2) Something else

Im playing devil's advocate. I have already endured the same arguments [ sovereign government rights are sacred, "who are we to..." moralising, "theyd do it if they wanted it done" nonsense, the UN is the authority here yadayada]. I have listend to people denounce the destabilisation of sovereign governments. Im am solidly of the belief that national sovereignty should have limits, that the basic human rights

of a people should come before the international rights of the regime that rules over them.

As I said before, the non-interventionist arguments are always presented as being principled. "We are slave of international law, in order that we may be free". Few [though some do, several bravely rush for a "Yeah, well what about..." tangent ] defend the regimes in question, but interfering in another countries internal affairs is roundly criticised.

Now, suddenly everyone is calling for the deliberate destabilisation and ostracisation of a sovereign government, with an eye to regime change, because they dont meet our standards. Surely then all the criticism of the US ostracisation and deliberate attempts to destabilise Cuba [because they dont meet their standards] for example are okay, because the Cuban regime is also an oppressive dictatorship?

Im a little surprised at the sudden conversion to neo imperialism. Is there oil in Burma?

As for what should be done - every *realistically* possible effort should be made to destabilise the Burmese regime. That possibly includes supporting financially and otherwise any resistance movements that arent as bad or worse as the current regime. It needs to be recognised that this is a powerful cabal of military leaders who have immense power and wealth inside Burma, with no serious internal rivals. There is no indication of dissent in the army's lower ranks, they seem as willing to shoot and beat monks as ever. More so actually.

Why would the generals voluntarily give this up? They will have to be forced, one way or the other. Any representive Burmese government will sieze back the their illgotten gains and they know that. They will fight tooth and nail to ensure that representive Burmese government doesnt come to pass.

The symbolic international shows of solidarity are more about us, than about the Burmese. They dont accomplish anything useful to change the reality in Burma. But they do make us feel better about ourselves. They make us think were doing *something*. I doubt that someone whose being tortured in Burma right now is really concerned about international solidarity that doesnt end the torture for example - for all the solidarity, we are not getting tortured, he or she is. If we cant do something useful, I dont see the point of pretending.

The people of Darfur have seen international figures arriving and leaving, lots of promises and no security. Lots of international demonstrations of international solidarity with them. The only change there is that the situation has deteriorated to the point where the camps are possibly more dangerous than the government backed militias outside them, which have fractured into smaller and smaller warring groups. But at least there wasnt an illegal attempt at intervention that would have undermined the sovereignty of Sudan or the authority of the UN. That the important thing. Right?

But the Burmese government is not the legitimate government of Burma, so the UN soverignty thing doesn't apply, or does it?

The UN is fairly pragmatic in its favour - it accepts whatever group of people who hold power in a country as its government, regardless of how they achieved that power. This is realistic, and not terribly wrong in and of itself. Realpolitick and all that.

The problem is that when recognised as the government by the UN, they suddenly become the sovereign government and as such are protected from any external efforts to remove them by international law, which from what I've heard was handed down to man by God though Moses on the mountain top. Sometimes the UN looks the other way - the NATO intervention in the Balkans was illegal - but the Secretary General admitted it was the correct thing to do regardless. Since then, thats been reversed entirely.

liberty 2007

mike65 wrote:

Glad someone had the wit to mention 1980. While China might appear more exposed than USSR, its a simple fact of economics that China is too big to boycott. The whole base of low-to-middle manufacturing is now focused on that country and if we wanted to indulge in a boycott of same we could'nt. No-one is set up to replace Chinas' vast capacity and business would keep buying from that country.

Mike.

I know I'm going off the thread a bit, but this sounds like we are all banking with the one bank just because they're offering us the best deal without realising the implications of this.

MoominPapa

Sand wrote:

Im playing devil's advocate.

Oh right, now I get it:rolleyes:

I was going to reply to the rest of your post but I think this bit is enough to show you haven't really got a clue, have you?

Sand wrote:

The people of Darfur have seen international figures arriving and leaving, lots of promises and no security. Lots of international demonstrations of international solidarity with them. The only change there is that the situation has deteriorated to the point where the camps are possibly more dangerous than the government backed militias outside them, which have fractured into smaller and smaller warring groups. But at least there wasnt an illegal attempt at intervention that would have undermined the sovereignty of Sudan or the authority of the UN. That the important thing. Right?

The African Union has 7000 troops stations in Darfur, 10 of who were recently killed. Also the UN Security Council has approved the deployment of 26000 Peace Keepers to work along side the AU troops. So WTF are you on about?

oscarBravo

MoominPapa wrote:

...you haven't really got a clue, have you?

One more crack like that will earn you a month's ban.

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

That is the only definition thats accepted. The UN offers membership to the crowd in charge, not to the people who others might think should be in charge.



Im playing devil's advocate. I have already endured the same arguments [ sovereign government rights are sacred, "who are we to..." moralising, "theyd do it if they wanted it done" nonsense, the UN is the authority here yadayada]. I have listend to people denounce the destabilisation of sovereign governments. Im am solidly of the belief that national sovereignty should have limits, that the basic human rights

of a people should come before the international rights of the regime that rules over them.

As I said before, the non-interventionist arguments are always presented as being principled. "We are slave of international law, in order that we may be free". Few [though some do, several bravely rush for a "Yeah, well what about..." tangent ] defend the regimes in question, but interfering in another countries internal affairs is roundly criticised.

Now, suddenly everyone is calling for the deliberate destabilisation and ostracisation of a sovereign government, with an eye to regime change, because they dont meet our standards. Surely then all the criticism of the US ostracisation and deliberate attempts to destabilise Cuba [because they dont meet their standards] for example are okay, because the Cuban regime is also an oppressive dictatorship?

who is calling for intervention?, i see nobody on this thread doing so and most public and political discussion in the area of intervention is considering it but holding back because they don't want to make the situation worse, whether it be the british or the chinese, so again who is you are trying win the arguement with?


I dont think the people calling for the trade embargoe on cuba to stop are quite the same people calling for econmic sanctions (a trade embargoe) on burma...

also there's military intervention, (covert or overt) subversion of politics and then these economic sanctions supposedly aimed at the leadership... all very different, I wouldn't call refusing to trade with a nation neo-imperalism, or calling for total to stop working in the county such either?

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

The people of Darfur have seen international figures arriving and leaving, lots of promises and no security. Lots of international demonstrations of international solidarity with them. The only change there is that the situation has deteriorated to the point where the camps are possibly more dangerous than the government backed militias outside them, which have fractured into smaller and smaller warring groups. But at least there wasnt an illegal attempt at intervention that would have undermined the sovereignty of Sudan or the authority of the UN. That the important thing. Right?

yes that is right, they troops are there under the agreement of the sudanese government otherwise it would be invasion, its close to it as it is...,hitler broke the sovereignty for good few countries before allies decided to take him on, (although the various militia have been going over into chad too) and breaking sovereignty, you have to stop this sarcasm sand it doesn't suit you and we don't understand what your position is.

Sand

The African Union has 7000 troops stations in Darfur, 10 of who were recently killed. Also the UN Security Council has approved the deployment of 26000 Peace Keepers to work along side the AU troops. So WTF are you on about?

Possibly this, or this?. For starters.

And I quote from the second

A United Nations source describes the peacekeeping mission as "a lovely concept" but he wonders where all the troops and the money are going to come from, and how long it is going to take.

Now remember - 4 years to get to this point. 4 fricking years. How long for the force to be brought together, funded, deployed? Another 4 years? The UN force [ if it ever does get deployed - the Sudanese have a track record of agreeing to a high level deal, then objecting on technical details] had bring enough shovels to dig the graves of victims who could have been saved if their rights had been more important than the sovereignty of the regime that was killing them.

yes that is right, they troops are there under the agreement of the sudanese government otherwise it would be invasion, its close to it as it is...,

An invasion? Its a defence of peoples basic human rights - to not be oppressed and terrorised by their own government.

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

Possibly

An invasion? Its a defence of peoples basic human rights - to not be oppressed and terrorised by their own government.

but you can't interfere in sovereign government, I thought thats what you've being trying to say.

george clooney isn't on this board if you want to play devil advocate with him of f go you meanwhile discuss things properly with the people who are here

Sand

george clooney isn't on this board if you want to play devil advocate with him of f go you meanwhile discuss things properly with the people who are here

Why? Its nice to once in a while demonstrate to the rent-a-mob protestors how desperately insane their views are. I've only ever seen one person ever accept they were wrong in an discussion over the internet and that was on a technical matter - best way to demonstrate how wrong people are is to show them what their views imply on a matter they apparently care about. The sudden concern for Burma and the calls for measures to be take to destabilise their government to aid the democratic movement there is amusing compared to the predictable denouncement of any meddling in Cuba for example.

I was at my most sarcastic when I described their views as principaled. They are anything but.