Despite questions about the timing of his Nobel Peace Prize award, US President Obama went to Oslo and accepted the honor. As expected in his acceptance speech, the US president defended his earlier decision to order an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and the continuation of his war against the al Qaeda terrorist movement.
“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies,” he said. “Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.”
Then he added: “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.”
In his speech, Obama mentioned Burma as one of the countries where there is systematic abuse of human rights by a brutal and corrupt military regime. He paid tribute to opposition leader and fellow Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi for her commitment to democratic reform.
Obama’s administration has changed the course of the official US policy on Burma, adopting an approach combining engagement with the repressive regime while maintaining sanctions against its leaders and cronies.
Two high-ranking US officials visited Burma in November, but no progress has been made so far. Burma’s paramount leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe doesn’t blink.
In his Oslo speech, Obama said: “Sanctions without outreach—and condemnation without discussion—can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”
He also warned of consequences. “When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma—there must be consequences,” he said.
Defending his policy of engaging rogue regimes, Obama said: “Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy—but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.”
Fine. We know that peace could not be attained without a fight. Suu Kyi’s father, Gen Aung San, understood that independence from British colonialists and Japanese occupiers could not be achieved without armed struggle. Burma’s ethnic minorities took up arms against military leaders to fight for equal rights and autonomy.
Since 1988, Burma’s urban nonviolent movement has made world headlines. But despite the world's admiration, non-violence failed because of the regime's brutal suppression of peaceful protests. The regime paid no heed to world opinion.
It's bitterly ironic that when students and activists in 1988 took up arms against the regime in the jungle they were named “terrorists.” International donors refused to help them for fear of being seen to finance armed struggle.
Suu Kyi’s repeated calls to open meaningful political dialogue has fallen on deaf ears. Monks and activists who marched peacefully on the streets of Burma's cities or who involved themselves in the nonviolent struggle are now behind bars.
Thus, part of Obama’s speech can be demonstratively applied to Burma—a nonviolent movement could not have halted Burmese armies. Negotiations cannot convince Burmese feudal warlords and thugs to lay down their arms.
An audience with His Maj? How tempting! Tell us more about this Johnny-come-lately, the savior of our nation. Arthurian or more Alice in Wonderland? I'm all ears since you are hogging the forum. I thought I was bad enough doing that.
Myanmar Patriot 4 UMPF Wrote:
30/12/2009
"The economy first as in China with no sign of political reform yet, not even lip service, or perestroika first as in Russia with the Old West robber baron capitalism? Or the tiger economies of the Pacific rim as good models to follow as many have recommended?"
There's certainly no lack of choice. Even a benevolent and wise monarch will do, thank you very much.You can bring the horse to water but you can't make it drink." So, Moe Aung, do you have to be a horse rather than a human with intellect? Also remember Burmese/Myanmars are not horses; we are intelligent; that's how our ancestors built up our once great nation with our own unique civilisation. Of course, we were far behind in technology, particularly in weaponery; that's why we were subjugated by the English. Your views are quite jaundiced. If only you really know about our king His Majesty King Shwebomin II, you will change your thinking. You can change.
Moe Aung Wrote:
28/12/2009
Toby,
Whilst I agree with most of what you had to say, stability in Burma is like the holy grail. Trade maybe. Armed struggle can only be ruled out at your peril when all peaceful options have been exhausted and proved futile or short-lived time and again. You are not dealing with any other military regime here; it is Burmese - totally intransigent and defies logic.
Chance would be a fine thing for real economic development, not just further enrichment and strengthening of the military ruling class, and it just might lead to political reform in time. The economy first as in China with no sign of political reform yet, not even lip service, or perestroika first as in Russia with the Old West robber baron capitalism? Or the tiger economies of the Pacific rim as good models to follow as many have recommended?
There's certainly no lack of choice. Even a benevolent and wise monarch will do, thank you very much. You can bring the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Toby Wrote:
26/12/2009
Plan B, I've got no idea what you said. In fact, I struggle to follow most of the comments here. Anyone else?
Moe Aung Wrote:
25/12/2009
"More please, Sir",says plan B like Oliver Twist for "massive aid,"cap in hand. The man loves to be dependent on the West. Only a 'Marshall Plan' will do.
I agree with Soe Thane there's just no political will to do what's really necessary, so the West simply contents itself with diplomatic measures and sanctions for the sake of image and political correctness.
Free Man drives it home when he says,"All we have is ourselves (armed resistance forces and democratic forces) and the people." Stop looking to the West like a knight in shining armour;it's a cruel illusion.
Guess when they'll come in in a more concrete way. Once the people rise up again from desperation,the army rank and file join the uprising, and a parallel government declared by the People Power Movement. Recognition followed by arms and funds can then be realistically expected from the international community, particularly if it looks like having a fighting chance of winning. That's when they'll try and influence it. Classic.
plan B Wrote:
24/12/2009
Toby,
Careful with your rational thinking that a logical mind's eye might have easily seen.
Here we are, every one is cheering for the next round of "sanctions" and even "armed involvement".
These are the same Yahoo who tout "human rights" and "democracy" as justifications.
Since when are those two factors successfully implemented in an Asian government without massive aid?
Aung Aung Wrote:
22/12/2009
The Obama administration has ready a powerful economic weapon if talks with Burma fail to achieve democratic reforms: pressuring banks to avoid doing business with the junta.
Targeting international banks could effectively tie up the large amounts of money junta get from selling natural gas. "We will reserve the option of tightening sanctions on the regime and its supporters to respond to events in Burma," said the US’s top diplomat for East Asia
"What the Burmese government values is not its commerce with the outside world but the financial proceeds of that commerce," Tom Malinowski said.
The US cannot easily block the lucrative natural gas deals Myanmar does with its neighbors and others. But the measure would let foreign banks know the US has worries about their association with Burmese money and their contact with US financial institutions until those worries are cleared up, according to the advocacy director for the US Campaign for Burma.
Nat Ka Lay Wrote:
21/12/2009
The junta understands only accountables and physical harms.
So, remove them physically. The junta are criminals and so it's no terorism to combat them. Even George Washington was once dubbed a terorrist when he tried for US independence.
Kyaik-ka-san Wrote:
20/12/2009
True, the SPDC is not Hitler but much inferior in terms of governance and management. Hitler built up Germany as a developed nation comprehensively to face the Allies. Only because of its unjust cause it finally deserved a suicidal fate.
In contrary, the SPDC is renowned as being worthless. Two examples: convert "rice bowl of Asia" to “rampant malnutrition” or one of the world's "hunger hotspots.”
Ranked 178th, 3rd from the bottom, Burma is the most corrupted country. Hitler would strongly protest against those for comparing him with garbage SPDC.
Toby Wrote:
19/12/2009
Armed struggle is not the answer at all! It would ravage the country and set the economy miles back. The biggest problem facing the vast majority of people in Myanmar is poverty. Armed struggle is not the quickest way to alleviate this.
Democracy is not an end in itself; it's a protection for the things that really matter, and when you're poor, at the top of the list is money (i.e. food, shelter, education, health, etc.)
The West isn't going to support a violent campaign in Myanmar unless it can be very quick and relatively painless. And there is no indication at all that this would be the case.
The West likes trade. They like stability. A solution that offers this is what they want.
There is a lot of focus on Karen state at the expense of the rest of the population (which is less convenient to access for people outside of the country). Really, what has violence got the Karen? There is no model there to be followed. Unless you're a daydreamer -- and that isn't fair on others.
Sai Wansai Wrote:
19/12/2009
The will of the people has been demonstrated, time and again, in 1990 nation-wide election, the saffron revolution and through many mass uprisings in the past decades.
Each time the aspirations of the people were made known, or rear its head, the Burmese military regime moved in and crushed it mercilessly.
Thousand died and many more have been put behind bars, until today.
The international stakeholders cannot say that the people of Burma have not tried to free themselves from this reign of terror. But are only no match to this deeply entrenched military dictatorship and its seemingly intact line of succession, even though this might not happen in smooth transition, as General Saw Maung and General Ne Win fall from grace to be replace with General Than Shwe.
The people of Germany had to be rescued by Allied forces militarily from Hitler's tyrannical rule. And in the same vein, the people of Burma is in dire need of international help to get rid of this oppressive, inhumane regime.
Kyaik-ka-san Wrote:
18/12/2009
Obama’s remark--“there must be consequences”--is also the world’s opinion. Yes, consequences are resulting, but slowly. SPDC has to account for its crimes. It is the Law of Dhamma. How can Than Shwe and cronies be exempted?
Situation: (1) They are isolated, live in cave hiding from public & Ven. Monks.
(2) Army’s guns without bullets to prevent killing them.
(3) Killing Monks, sexual violence as tool, forced labor, trafficking children & women for child soldiers and business of ranking officials, and assisting drug kingpins.
(4) Repression in 2007, torturing prisoners, massacre in Depayin, and 130,000 people killed due to lacking R2P during Nargis.
(5) Surviving is critical as national economy, education, health, agricultural, industry sectors all are completely collapsed due to incapacity.
Cash send back by Seamen and Laborers be cut-off and fabricated foreign co. eliminated, the shaky SPDC will go to hell instantly without UN/ICC’s investigation that demanded all over the world.
Free Man Wrote:
18/12/2009
One can be assured that there will not be any consequences when Obama has drawn the conclusion that his policy towards Burma failed. The internaltional community will only continue doing what they have done in the past 20 years. It must be remembered that when the Jewish people fled the Nazi onslaught during WWII, no countries wanted to give them refuge, although these very countries claimed to fight for democracy, freedom, justice and human rights and rallied the world community around these principles.
All we have is ourselves (armed resistance forces and democratic forces) and the people.
Let us be realistic and stop being romantic.
Nat Ka Lay Wrote:
18/12/2009
First of all, the law should not be spat upon because it is an essence of human equality to justify cause-and-effect even though it could not give justice in some cases. Particularly when money and power interfered.
Regarding Obama's speech, talking somehow looks like the art politicians perform to entertain the people for their most agreed desires. It implants wishful thinking in the mind of listeners. In reality, our world has never run out of brutalities, tortures,and injustices; leave alone Burma and Sudan. Forget getting rid of this government. Super powers even did not try to stop the weapons reaching this murderous government. It is ironic that some real actions will come out without benefiting the country first.
Myint Maung Wrote:
17/12/2009
Well, what if US's softly approach towards Than Shwe's brutal regime failed? Will there be "consequences" for the junta as Obama said?
Given the fact that the option of militarily confronting Than Shwe's army by the international community is off the table, sanction is the only tool left - meaning we are back to square one!
Do we have another 40 years to prove that "might" is the only "right" tool to make the junta leave the scene?
Myanmar Patriot 4 UMPF Wrote:
17/12/2009
SPDC is not Hitler, nor Al Queda, nor Taliban. Obama is educated in law, not in history;he knows nothing about Burmese history. He connot even to comprehend the implications of Panglong. Clement Attlee, exactly twice the age of AungSan,32 at the time of his vist to London, smiled after the deed was done. Old fox!
Problem with many Western politicians, particularly in America and England is that najority are trained in law, not in science and engineering, or in other disciplines; they know how to make the most of the legal system and the laws that they themselves have made. 45 minute WMD would never have happned if they had scientific and engineering degrees. In recent Iraq inquiry, MI6 chief believed what an Iraqui minicab dravier said:"Saddam Hussein could deliver the WMD to British bases in Cyprus in 45 minutes." This is public knowledge. So Irrawaddy need not worry about publishing our comment. [email protected]
UNITED MYANMAR PATRIOTIC FRONT
Above party politics.
Bum Tsaw Wrote:
17/12/2009
I totally agree with you. But I doubt America and the West's support for freedom and ethinic equality in Burma. Given the facts in the past, their supports have been no more than nodding. Why don't they provide us weapons and money to enhance our armed struggle? Obama's words should come to in reality with supports of sophisticated weapons and funding. But no such supports would come unless America' interests exist in Burma. Prove your true support. No more nodding and beautiful words.
Soe Thane Wrote:
16/12/2009
I'm not sure "international donors" refused to help the students at the border in 1988 "for fear of being seen to finance armed struggle". The same "international donors" were financing armed struggles in Afghanistan and many other places besides. They refused because they didn't care very much.
So how to pretend to care while not really doing anything? How to seem like your taking a tough moral stand without spending any real money? How to stand up against a military dictatorship while not minding if decade after decade there is no change?
Answer: support a non-violent "Gandhi-inspired" pro-democracy campaign led by a charismatic and photogenic lady leader, give her prizes, make her the queen of political correctness, impose meaningless sanctions that only impoverish ordinary people, and shake hands with visiting exiled politicians.
The Burmese people have been led down the garden path.
The quicker they realize this the quicker they can start turning to real solutions.
timothy Wrote:
16/12/2009
I totally agree with Aung Zaw and Mr Obama. Armed struggle is increasingly become a necessity in Burma campaign. EU/ USA and international organisations should realise that armed units are essential to deal with brutal regime of Burma.
UN climate control conference is currently convening in Copenhagen with global peoples exerting pressure out side the conference building to influence the decision by global leaders.
NLD will get the respectful negotiation position if Moulmein is surrounded by the newly formed armed forces of people. United, we will win. EU/USA and international donors must start recognize the armed struggles of Burma. Armed solution is not good but we need it now.
Myint Thein,Dallas Wrote:
16/12/2009
The deadline for President Obama's engagement policy with Iran is either December 2009 or January 2010. The US engagement policy with Burma also has a dead-line. And when these dead-lines expire, "consequences" becomes US policy.
Burma has extensive military dealings with North Korea. UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea, can also be used as "back-door" UN Security Council sanctions against the military junta in Burma.
It is the Burmese expatriates, not ASSK, who imposed American sanctions. We will never negotiate with Than Shwe who mass-murdered Buddhist Monks. But we are willing to meet General Maung Aye in Singapore for a three hour meeting to cut a political settlement in Burma.
COMMENTS (20)
E-MAIL
PRINT
