A succession of UN special envoys have achieved nothing.
Although former President George W Bush appointed Michael Green as his special Burma policy coordinator, President Obama has yet to nominate anyone for the job.
With a special envoy installed at the State Department, the US can get down to business, focusing on a basic quid pro quo: the release of all political prisoners for a lifting of economic sanctions. Playing the villains’ game will probably then open up the beginning of a new chapter for Burma.
This article appeared in the March-April issue of the Irrawaddy magazine.
Carry on preaching. Oh, and don't forget to continue in the same patronizing vein. It's great.
plan B Wrote:
22/04/2009
Ko Moe Aung,
You do represent the view of a lot of others in this forum. Please do not shame them by using terms that will make them unwilling to call you one of their own. Defeat your purpose. I will advise you to read the 10 principles that I posted which you have rabidly ridiculed. Especially 3,5,7, 9 and 10.
Moe Aung Wrote:
21/04/2009
plan B,
Yes, preacher, write a book, why don't you? If Gene Sharp's done it, you can do better. Reserve a signed copy for me.
I'd stick to plan B if I were you. It stands for "bowing to authority" - you yourself exhorted us to respect authority like good Burmese people.
Innuendos from me? Never! I actually said "diarrhoeal" not just "long-winded outflow" - straight from the hip.
The last thing I want is for the editors to stop posting your outpourings. The more you open your mouth the better we see through you. I wouldn't be having half the fun without you as a sparring partner.
plan B Wrote:
19/04/2009
OK, now everything is spelled out clearly—the accusation is "long-winded" and "preachy." All innuendos, albeit backhanded.
Where is the beef? As far as you or "the learner" goes? Can't counter well, so ask the editor of Irrawaddy to stop posting?
If that's the attitude of the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, now I am really looking forward to them in charge of a transformation to true democracy where they will benefit the presently suffering citizenry.
Remember, you don't have to read. The info is posted for those who might be seeking a practical way to help immediately. Pending the changes needed others have talked about for the last 20 years.
The learner,
Will it make it more acceptable if I use another pseudonym to post the same info? Talk about dishonesty.
Moe Aung Wrote:
16/04/2009
The learner,
Couldn't agree more. Guy or gal, if they want to preach or give us a didactic lecture, this is neither a pulpit nor a lectern. It's a ruddy forum for comment and debate, not a channel for long-winded outflow that no-one can be bothered to read.
plan B Wrote:
16/04/2009
2) Follow up personally from time to time to ensure untoward results are not happening due to your contribution. A simple trust but verify approach to all projects you have started.
The benefit of your endeavor will only be limited by your zeal and ingenuity. Traveling to and from Burma, even though not encouraged by most Western governments (i.e., USA and Britain) is not prohibited, and therefore will not pose any problem to all the suggestions that have been presented so far.
Burmese people are by nature as well as religious upbringing kind, long suffering, very fateful. In spite of their own suffering, the Burmese who are even a little better off tend to help the less fortunate. With the contribution made, this characteristic can be sustained a while.
plan B Wrote:
16/04/2009
How to "Support the most vulnerable and the middle class of Burma 101" (2-step approach)
Object: To immediately provide beneficial opportunities in terms of healthcare to the most vulnerable (i.e., children) as well as provide and more importantly demonstrate to the future generation that there is hope, and thus will assure their continuing economic toiling and affect changes gradually.
1) Target the contribution you have now decided to make materially or otherwise, however nominal it might be, to organizations or individuals, especially local ones, that support orphanages, clinics, etc. This should be a long-term commitment.
Evidently to benefit fully the tended. This will have two effects. The first being the physical benefit, the second, far more important, is the psychological boost that the intended might have that will remind him/her of the existence of humanity beyond, larger than oneself. That realization will hopefully nurture his/her own. Therefore becoming less vulnerable to self destructive sentiments and will hopefully contribute in a positive manner that will eventually change others as well for the better. That is the essence of the bottom-up approach.
(to be continued)
the learner Wrote:
15/04/2009
One article, too many comments from one guy!
I can see two articles instead of one on this page. Although the writing might be good, I didn't even bother to read all the writing, but just skimmed through.
Anyway, my suggestion is that if someone wants to write a real long comment, then the magazine should check and create as a separate article (opinion).
Moe Aung Wrote:
14/04/2009
Plan B,
"Talk is cheap."
And yet your posts remind me of the human wave tactic of the Chinese Army.
".. terms that show disrespect, which by the way are not Burmese-like. The foundation of which is respect for elders."
What's that got to do with bowing and scraping to the junta or calling a spade a spade?
"One of the elements of the sanctions is not to travel to Burma."
If all this time you are addressing foreigners and potential visitors/do-gooders, then we are talking at cross purposes. And we have been talking politics, in case you are still in denial. Besides, foreigners are not barred by any of their own governments from visiting Burma. Sanctions only blacklist junta members, their families and cronies visiting the West. So misrepresenting facts is just a little bit unbecoming.
"Where is the beef?" When you try to seize the moral high ground, act holier than thou, all reasonable, moderate, liberal though patronizing, and above all keep pushing in our face a “novel solution.”
plan B Wrote:
13/04/2009
I thank you and salute your effort even if you will begin point "1".
These are consistent with the 4th Noble Truth if you are a Buddhist.
Consistent with Matthew 25: 41-46 for those who are followers of Christ.
Everything said has been carried out and practiced successfully.
I shall not dignify any comments that are not accompanied by alternate solutions that are well spelled out.
Talk plainly, explain simply and contribute.
Don't just complain, ridicule dissenting opinions and confuse well-intentioned potential contributers by the tone and the tenacity of labeling other as: Naive, Junta advocate, appeaser, having illusions, dreamer, fools and other terms that show disrespect, which by the way are not Burmese-like. The foundation of which is respect for elders.
plan B Wrote:
13/04/2009
5) Please please and please stay out of politics unless your contribution is intended to be the visit itself and not beyond.
Everything become less clear when politics is involved. Also a danger inside Burma. Remember you are there to help, not muddy the water. That's the job of the politicians and armchair critics.
6) Talk about your experience the positives and negatives with solid recommendation on how to accentuate the former and diminish the latter when you are back to your own country.
Another important aspect of human nature is the tendency to exaggerate or remember the bad but take all good experiences for granted. Find like-minded people and multiply the good that will be started by yourself.
7) Be convinced that things can be better but not necessarily as others see them. Important to understand so that your unique conviction and the resulting planned contribution will remain pure and sustain itself without unwanted angst, grief, guilt, anger, greed and all other self-serving sentiments wearing out your needed help.
plan B Wrote:
13/04/2009
Continued from previous:
3) Form a personal plan to benefit the citizenry from the ground up. This is important because if the change is not from the ground up, a repeat of 1988 will ensure where the good minded opposition completely forgot the ground up benefit and get bogged down relying on outside help (i.e., sanctions.)to topple the government. One of the element of the sanctions is not to travel to Burma.
4) Plan to contribute directly to benefit the citizenry. This is the simplest ground up approach.
Google, irrawaddy.org and common sense will help you ID less self serving INGOs. In your travels as a tourist, you will immediately see and find monks and monasteries that are quietly and sacrificially contributing to the well-being of the most vulnerable. If you inquire deeper you will find individual or organization in Burma who do the same. Your choices will only be limited by your time and available resources.
plan B Wrote:
13/04/2009
Practical things to do to help the Burmese Citizenry 101
1) Must visit Burma. Obviously to find out first hand the reality from your own point of view instead of taking in hand-me-down ideas that most of the participants in the forum are doing. Make sure during your visit you seek objective answers from the street, other than the spoon-fed news from either the government or otherwise.
Suggestion: Local business owners will be a good source of info. Once you befriend them.
2) Form a personal opinion from your take over time instead of getting influenced by brainwashing rhetoric from either side. It is always good to form your opinions objectively, even if in the end they might be identical to one side or the other.
There are 2 obviously rabid sides. One clinging on to the past 20 years of policies based on 1988 and the other bent on maintaining the present order. Ironically the former is contributing to the success of the latter by wanting to continue the past 20 years to another 20 years.
plan B Wrote:
12/04/2009
7) Alternatives/plan inspired by anger, hatred, revenge, desire for control will defeat the main purpose and therefore must be avoided.
8) Always be ready to physically participate in the well being of the most vulnerable sacrificially.
9) Do not ever let politics get in the way of any immediate opportunity to help the most vulnerable.
10) Always be mindful of ideas that might even seem to others to be self serving.
Please fee free to add more if appropriate.
No more irresponsible name calling against opinions that one disagrees with.
No more expressions of sentiments against this present junta or the litany of well known same complaints without stating how to remedy, unless it is truly unique or new.
This will hopefully help to self examine whether one is a talker or doer.
After all, one can not deny the real old adage that states: Talk is cheap.
Is still as true as it was when first uttered by the very first real doer.
I will humbly add this: Where is the beef?
To those armchair critics.
plan B Wrote:
12/04/2009
How to help the Citizenry of Burma 101. (10 principles)
Object: To realistically help the citizenry more effectively and immediately.
1) Must encourage each and every one who is interested. Those advocating ideas that are different must also include realistic way to implement them personally.
2) If an idea put forth is unclear query must be directed accordingly towards it's author/advocate without being dismissive or presumptuously labelling the author in terms that suggest he/she has less knowledge about the subject than the querier.
3) Criticize the ideas put forth constructively. If the ideas are deemed unrealistic or faulty, this must be explained in detail and viable alternatives must be offered.
5) Theses alternative advocated must clearly reflect the benefits to the intended.
6) The cost of the ideas put forth must not be at the expense of farther suffering of the citizenry.
(4 more to follow)
Moe Aung Wrote:
12/04/2009
plan B,
"It is ironic that you will enlist the same source "the army" that cause such problems you and the likes complained about."
Only if you fail to see the internal contradictions and class division between the senior officers and the rank and file. Ordinary soldiers are sons of ordinary peasant folk treated little better than civilians simply in return for a livelihood.
Don't get hopelessly confused between your own laudable efforts in improving the health of our people with your ceaseless politicking in favour of appeasement.
Just one glaring example regarding the generals' own priorities: Burma sits on vast natural gas resources and yet it's all flogged off to the neighbors for cash to line their own pockets and their own defense while even Yangon blinks in the dark like a medieval city.
"How many people were killed during the Bolshevik revolution? What did the revolution bring? Lenin,Stalin."
How many have been killed by your dear generals so far? We do have Than Shwe for Stalin.
plan B Wrote:
11/04/2009
Ko Moe Aung
Do you really think with thanaka and flowers I might be able to benefit the citizenry even better?
I should try that next time.
Meanwhile, Straptomycin, Isoniazid, rafampin, ethambuthol, Vermox, etc. are my way of as you describe "appeasement."
Any way of getting these to the needy will get my bonus thanaka. I will take up the flower part later when I have a chance to distribute the malarial-related drugs.
How many people were killed during the Bolshevik revolution? What did the revolution bring? Lenin, Stalin.
Think carefully what you wish for, especially if the price you pay is off the back of the citizenry.
Plan C = Immediate more suffering of the citizenry with doubtful long-term beneficial result.
It is ironic that you will enlist the same source "the army" that cause such problems you and the likes complained about.
Plan C = Unrealistic dream that clings on to old unworkable premises. Embodied by present opposition groups whose leaders are as self- serving as the junta.
Moe Aung Wrote:
10/04/2009
plan B,
Plan B = appeasement done up in thanaka and flowers
Plan C = common program to overthrow the generals by people power; the “three sons”— students, monks and soldiers—coming together.
Win the army over to the people's side. What are generals without an army? What are officers without troops? Pull the rug from under them.
"An insurrection is a struggle not so much against the army than for the army."
Trotsky's dictum, the architect of the victory of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
Thura,
Constructive engagement has also been done to death for the last two decades, if you haven't noticed, unless you are also one of those “pretending to be asleep.” You'd simply be “internal elements” as opposed to “external elements” to be given the same old treatment—manipulated fully to their own advantage. Your generals have honed their skills and methods to an art form. So dream on and good luck, hopefully disillusionment not staring in your face too soon.
plan B Wrote:
10/04/2009
This is what MgMyanmar wants to see happen and his doubts:
1) Restoration of democracy in Burma
2) Time frame involved (the road map completely neglected)
3) Present dictatorship is the "root cause of Burma's falling economy"
4) Than Shwe will be above the law (as if he presently is not) legally, very much doubt "he really want to give up the privilege?"
People, between points A-Z, there are 24 letters. Even the shortest distance between A-B will require a straight line travel.
What should he do meanwhile, instead of just griping about all the well-known litany of complaints against this government?
Will he try to be less cynical in this already near hopeless situation by concentrating on the positives to benefit the citizenry individually?
Complain, but please do not ridicule others who have a different take on the same situation that you are cynically dismissing.
Be thankful for people like Thura who are hopeful.
Form your own plan instead of just making disparaging remarks on others’ ideas.
Thura Wrote:
09/04/2009
Who is dreaming?
(1) One who believes that the opposition led by the NLD can beat the generals and overturn the military control, OR
(2) One who believes that working together with the military (hybrid democracy, Indonesia-style democracy, or whatever you call) will eventually lead to a better country.
Both may be dreaming. However, (1) has dreamed for 20 years without seeing any tangible result. Then, (2) has just started to dream. In my opinion, (2) is far more realistic than (1).
MgMyanmar Wrote:
09/04/2009
As I said before, I would like to know the plan. If the current policies do not take us to the restoration of democracy in Burma, what is the best policy?
Are we going achieve democracy if we accept the 2008 constitution and 2010 election? In what degree? Is it a long-term plan to restore acceptable democracy in Burma? If so, what is the timeframe? By the way, there is no road map after 2010.
The 2008 constitution only guarantees that the so-called civilian government can't do a thing without the military commander-in-chief’s approval (that doesn't mean the entire military). He is legally above the law and higher than anyone else. Does he really want to give up the privilege?
The root cause of Burma’s falling economy is the dictatorship. Remember, one of the worse dictators is ruling Burma and will continue if we can't remove him and his corrupted system.
The writer pointed out that we "need a more pragmatic and strategic approach when it comes to playing with the villains." Stop dreaming.
MyochitThyNYC Wrote:
09/04/2009
Thura,
Burma is already behind Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh and the poor African countries.
Moe Aung Wrote:
08/04/2009
Thura,
The "within and without divide" is going to be an issue also in the future that needs sorting out with great patience and understanding but rightly regarded as a family matter rather similar to the ethnic divide and not as between irreconcilable groups. Time drags on and vested interests evolve and attitudes can harden to no-one's benefit.
The phenomenon of myriad groupings in a free environment is typically Burmese - all chiefs and no Indians. Some will simply lose interest like the proverbial soda bottle and many are bound for the dustbin of history in due course.
We must not lose sight of the struggle within the country and avoid being distracted by sham elections and internecine warfare. The task at hand is to build and consolidate the people power leadership which must grow some real teeth in order to make a breakthrough come the fire next time.
Thura Wrote:
08/04/2009
MgMyanmar, I am not dreaming for 100 percent democracy to come to Burma in the coming couple of decades. I will be more than happy if Burma becomes like Vietnam in the coming 10 years.
On the other hand, I am afraid Burma will be behind even Cambodia and Laos among Asean countries if the current stalemate continues.
By the way, many so-called political activists abroad will benefit if the current stalemate continues. I live in Japan, and I am more than confident in saying that well over 50 percent of so-called activists or asylum seekers in Japan are pretending to do politics to get a legal status to live in Japan. Whenever I see them, I feel so sorry for those activists in Burma who are actually sacrificing for the people.
Lee Du Wrote:
08/04/2009
Advanced technological countries are only interested in looking at products selling on the international market. The reality is that Russia, China, India and other countries that oppose sanctions won't agree with the US policy menu toward Burma because those countries need Burma as a market country. This is the borderline. Nothing can proceed unless the military has the will to make a change.
plan B Wrote:
08/04/2009
With a one word analysis, MgMyanmar has managed to divide this forum’s participants into two camps: pro-junta (anyone against the present non-working policies and who disagrees with MgMyanmar) and the rest.
People, do not be dismissive of each other's opinions by labeling them as this or that.
Okkar may be doke-kark [trouble], but sometimes that is the price you pay for free speech.
MgMyanmar Wrote:
06/04/2009
Reality—it is the word I always heard from regime supporters.
Let’s verify what will be the (real) reality after the 2010 election with the 2008 constitution. Some of the pro-regime people and opportunists will hold office across the country. What can they really do under the 2008 constitution? Can they amend the 2008 constitution to be more democratic? The answer is nothing and no. That is the reality.
So tell me, pro-regime and opportunist commentators, if you guys have other answers. I would like to know how you guys plan to change things around after 2010.
If your answer is right, you can get my vote. Otherwise, do not dare to put more comments based on your illusions.
Kyansitthar Wrote:
04/04/2009
Sandar, your comment certainly sounds weak and smacks of a “defeatist.”
Don't you know there are two kinds of people in Burma? Freedom and democracy- seeking people and privileged junta cronies.
Your characterization of pro-democracy people as jealousy-filled, hateful and egoistic does not add up and is way off the mark.
Daw Suu and Min Ko Naing led the opposition and had the endorsement of the people, since day one, lest you don't know yet.
We know what we are doing since 1988 and have a clear perspective of what's going on in Burma until today also.
Burma's agony lingers until today because of people like you, wavering and spineless, if not colluding with Than Shwe and his thugs.
We don't need support or sympathy from opportunists, betting on the winning horse only.
Trust me, we will rule the day against Than Shwe sooner than you think and you will rue the way you wrote this comment, when truth prevails in Burma.
Moe Aung Wrote:
03/04/2009
Thura, thanks for spelling it out, but no matter how many ways you put it, it's basically because many people have sadly in desperation come to believe that “if you can't beat them, join them” is the only option left. Like I've said elsewhere, hope is the one thing more durable than stamina. Some of us could do with growing a spine, too, just as People Power must grow some real teeth.
You are right in maintaining that the military must play a crucial role—in overthrowing the generals. We've got to win them over.
e.r.,MyoChitThuNYC, keep up the good work, thanks. Burma definitely needs people like you making their own valuable contribution in this particular arena, too.
They have their own foot soldiers, as you can't help noticing. They certainly know it's important to win the battle of ideas. Every little helps.
sandar Wrote:
03/04/2009
“This ability to comment gave the junta an opportunity to flood the comment sections with pro-junta and anti-NLD comments to confuse the readers and eventually be sympathetic to the SPDC (the junta's classic divide/conquer tactics).”
This reflects the mentality, way of thinking and way of analyzing of the opposition in general. No further word to add why we did not still achieve reconciliation between military and civil.
The systematic accusation of the opposition side to distinguish people of Myanmar pro-junta and pro-opposition makes me really sick.
Now, because of this kind of accusation, people are separated into two parts – pro-junta and pro-opposition. It clearly shows that opposition does not represent the people of Myanmar as they want to pretend.
This is the main reason why my support for the opposition wanes. The jealousy, hate and ego have covered the heart of the opposition to see the reality of the events. What a pity for them.
e.r. Wrote:
03/04/2009
Just one more remark to supplement my previous intervention. It's really sad to notice that even one of the most sordid regimes in history still has cheerleaders. This fact just shows that however tragic a reality can be, you will always find apologists or negationists. Human nature is really disconcerting.
e.r. Wrote:
03/04/2009
Mr. MyoChitThuNYC raises a very serious issue. I tried to underline it from the beginning. Instead of being an opportunity for the voiceless, this forum is becoming a loudspeaker for those who already have all the voice and all the power. In this micro-world, the primitive propaganda machine of the dictatorship is finding another way to fool and deceive, through some zealous supporters (living abroad, obviously). Irrawaddy readers are smart and used to these tactics and truth always prevails over manipulation, more if so grotesque and caricatural. But it's still a real issue, because the constant hijiacking of the debate is undermining the credibility of this section and driving away a lot of possible interesting and useful contributions. It's just a problem of method, freedom of speech is sacred, also for those who never respect it.
Thura Wrote:
03/04/2009
Moe Aung, the junta is one of the notorious regimes in the world. We all know how bad the generals are.
I think the followings are two main differences between your stance and mine:
(1) Whether to continue to fight against the junta or to engage with them
(2) Whether or not to allow the junta to play a significant role in politics
Ideally, I want all these generals to disappear from this world. However, unfortunately, they have already proved their unity, strength, and tactfulness in the wrong direction. At the same time, we have all seen how ineffective the NLD was in the past 20 years (partly due to the attacks by the junta and party due to their own issues).
So, a practical solution is to engage with the junta while allowing them to play a significant role in politics. This constitution will not last forever. At some point, there will be a chance to overturn the military rule/influence. Meanwhile, we need to energize and educate the people. We also need new leaders.
Moe Aung Wrote:
03/04/2009
Thura, Nuremberg style trials in 1990, the military as bystanders in politics, caretaker according to your compadre Sandar—are we living on different planets?
I agree the NLD must change. So must the junta. Flexibility can't be a one-way street. Your constitutional question is like the proverbial cowherd's. It's common knowledge (except to those who are pretending to be asleep) that the constitution is so totally rigged, where do you even start?
Moe Aung Wrote:
03/04/2009
A long game with a steep learning curve:
Initial waves of enthusiasm during a major upheaval ebb away as things drag on and the optimism born of mass action and solidarity begins to look premature. Another false dawn. Hope is the one thing that's more durable than stamina in the long run.
The Communists before 1955 propounded a plan for “victory in two years,” only to become the first group to learn the lesson the hard way (next U Nu, ABSDF), though they certainly have stamina to their credit. Ethnic rebellions have also come a long way and wisely shifted the paradigm from independence to a genuine federal republic; no lack of courage or stamina against impossible odds for any one group to succeed in their struggles, fragmented and uncoordinated most of the time. Their main weakness— inability to overcome their distrust of both Burman and other groups and form a workable inclusive united front against the common enemy.
Is the new generation condemned to repeat the mistakes of their fathers?
Moe Aung Wrote:
03/04/2009
Sandar, thanks for the lecture. How can we forget the “caretaker” Ne Win and what came after, within just two years' breathing space of U Nu's return to office? I didn't realize they are still in the caretaker business. I was always under the impression that they are in the undertakers’ business. Must be a long, long way back to the barracks via the cemeteries.
MyoChitThuNYC Wrote:
03/04/2009
It looks like people who comment on this article and many other articles in The Irrawaddy magazine are junta apologists or Tatmadaw members or people who are fed up with the NLD. This ability to comment gave the junta an opportunity to flood the comment sections with pro-junta and anti-NLD comments to confuse the readers and eventually be sympathetic to the SPDC (the junta's classic divide/conquer tactics).
sandar Wrote:
02/04/2009
Democracy means people. Democracy means popular government—pluralism.
Democracy does not mean “give and take.” Democracy is a process of construction/building.
In Myanmar’s case, the international community should not consider systematically that supporting the opposition (NLD) is helping Myanmar into democratization.
Now that there are concrete propositions from the military government, the international community should respond to it positively.
Elections do not mean democracy but it is a start.
And please do not forget that the military government says always they are the caretakers. They are not a government to which we can complain about “human rights abuses”
The NLD is not Myanmar. In the future, Myanmar will produce many more politicians and new elites, and they will be the ones who will shape the state of Myanmar.
If the NLD is not ready now, they will be ready when confidence is placed in them.
Moe Aung Wrote:
02/04/2009
It's fascinating to see how Sandar is the spokesperson of both ordinary people and the junta at the same time. She from Mars?
Thura Wrote:
02/04/2009
Supporting materials which indicate the NLD was not flexible in the past:
Just a month after the 1990 election, during an interview with a foreign journalist, U Kyi Maung, the then chairman of the NLD, made a reference to holding a Nuremberg-type trial in Yangon after the NLD came to power (Asiaweek, 13 July 1990). Although U Kyi Maung denied this later, he did suggest that some individuals such as Major General Khin Nyunt might reasonably feel themselves pretty insecure (Asiaweek, 22 June 1990).
At that time, the military's stance was as a bystander in politics. Lack of flexibility and thoughtfulness on the side of the NLD was one of the factors that change the military's stance from a bystander to a key player in politics. I have to say that the NLD is one of the problems of Burma (not only the military). The NLD must change.
Thura Wrote:
02/04/2009
Let me raise one basic question here: Are the NLD and Daw Suu flexible enough to compromise and work together with the military?
In the 1990s, they were not. In recent years, they hinted at some flexibility, but it is still pretty much unclear as to how much they became flexible. For example, the junta wrote the constitution, and NLD did not accept it. Then, why shouldn't they propose the changes without just saying “no” or "want to talk?" No one knows which points NLD/Daw Suu can accept and which points they want to negotiate.
In my opinion, if the NLD's stance is clear and realistic, the international community will put more efforts into revising the constitution. If not, they will shift their focus on the 2010 election, which they see is a more practical step forward.
Myint Thein Wrote:
02/04/2009
I don't disagree with many of the sentiments in this thoughtful piece. But the writer says that "a basic quid pro quo" is "the release of all political prisoners for a lifting of economic sanctions." I'm not sure this is such a difficult thing to achieve post-elections. It’s more or less asking to go back to where we were in 1997 but under the new constitution. Not quite what the NLD had hoped.
The regime (or the "new government") might well decide to release all or most political prisoners, in return for a lifting of most sanctions. If that's really the bottom line, then we are not that far away. But I'm not really sure it solves very much.
My feeling is that sanctions are not a stick, and aid is not a carrot. We are living in an “Alice in Wonderland” situation. Sanctions help the status quo by creating or cementing a command economy based on a few extractive industries. Aid can help strengthen alternative players.
Zaw Min Wrote:
02/04/2009
US President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton—do something, as nothing so far has worked. A US special envoy for Myanmar seems to be a good start. If the junta does not accept it, it will show the hand of the junta that is comfortable only with any special envoy that it can manipulate.
A US special envoy for Myanmar is definitely an envoy that is beyond the manipulative range of the junta. I hope the US tries it out and sees how it turns out. Force the junta to show their hand instead of allowing them to shut the door while accusing others of keeping it shut.
Moe Aung Wrote:
02/04/2009
..Most of the opposition groups have been weakened by systematic attacks by the very villains they describe as “dumb.”
Too right. It's a major fallacy to think the generals are stupid. We tend to overlook the stark reality that their stupidity is selective and all too human. They are way smarter than most when it comes to what they want and how to go about it. And stupid when it comes to something that they take no real interest in and is simply not a priority.
Just one current example: they've managed to outwit and trick many moderate and reasonable people, both Burmese and foreign, into aiding and abetting them, into believing and arguing that working with those in power is the only sensible way out. Brilliant psyops.
They have the advantage of cumulative experience from year dot of fighting the opposition both above and underground. Their skills and methods are honed to an art form despite occasional setbacks, and they have managed to see off both “internal and external elements.” Beware.
Moe Aung Wrote:
02/04/2009
More than any other player in the game, it's China the US must get on side. It has the best leverage on the generals. So a carrot and stick approach applies to our great neighbor too. The long and porous border we share is of real strategic importance. One example: New Year 1968.
Having China as one of its major trading partners puts the US in pole position, if China is to continue to enjoy her current trade surplus. Real politik is a double-edged sword that could cut either way. It can do a lot of good. Just depends how you wield it.
Still, self-reliance is really the name of the game. The opposition must transform itself from being passive and reactive to taking the initiative and preparing for all likely scenarios before the events unfold. We should learn our lessons from the last fire to be ready for the next one round the corner.
Kyi May Kaung (Ph.D.) Wrote:
02/04/2009
As I pointed out when I debated Derek Tonkin on sanctions on the BBC program “Hardtalk” during the Saffron Revolution, policy is not binary, on and off like a switch.
It's a continuum like a line. From middle school math, we know there are an infinite number of points on a line, between sanctions (themselves all different sorts) and "constructive engagement" also on different levels. In between are many different "policy mixes," like different products a factory produces.
That's why people get stuck -- because they think policy is only one thing X or the other Y.
Think of Nixon and China and the start of ping-pong diplomacy and how much China has changed now, especially economically, to the point where China now holds the bulk of US Treasury Bills and it's "Chimerica" in an economics sense.
I'm tired of this "remove the Burmese sanctions debate." They won't get removed soon if the junta continues this way.
sandar Wrote:
01/04/2009
Regarding the political prisoners, they will be released when their time will come. The NLD will have its place in Myanmar politics when they will be ready. There is no urgent action needed for them.
The US should lift the sanctions and normalize the relationship with Myanmar, that’s all the US can do. If they do not want to do it now, it will happen sooner or later.
sandar Wrote:
01/04/2009
The US is not stupid. The US should look at the status of the opposition they are supporting. The opposition does not possess a clear and concise direction, it has lost its objectives, has failed to bring the Myanmar intellectuals on its side. Even if the NLD decides to contest the elections, it is not sure whether the NLD will win.
The international community (mostly the US) should reconsider its position regarding the opposition, if it still represents the people of Myanmar. Myanmar is not Iraq. Myanmar is not Indonesia. Myanmar never allowed foreign countries to influence in decision making or policy making on internal affairs.
No country can influence Myanmar. If the international community or the US wants to help Myanmar, they should lift the economic sanctions and normalize relations with Myanmar. Regarding the political prisoners, they will be released when their time will come. The NLD will have its place in Myanmar politics when they are ready.
sandar Wrote:
01/04/2009
In 2004, the ordinary people advised the opposition to attend the National Convention and try to improve the proposed constitution. The opposition did not listen to the people.
In 2008, the ordinary people advised the opposition to accept the constitution in return for the release of political prisoners. The opposition did not listen to the people.
Now we are urging the opposition to contest the elections—the opposition does not want to listen to the people.
The economic sanctions will be lifted automatically once the opposition contests the 2010 elections, because Myanmar is not a threat to the regional security or international security. Myanmar poses no problem for the international community.
Yes, the US can do it, but it’s a little less interesting for the SPDC now when the constitution and the time frame for 2010 elections are in place legally.
The international community will inevitably lift the economic sanctions (at least gradually) when the new government is installed after 2010.
COMMENTS (49)
E-MAIL
PRINT
