Burma - explanation please!

[damnhippie]

i have a limited understanding of the situation but i want to know more. sounds like the military are taking control of the place - which worries me. urban, please, help. i'm sure some here has a better grasp of what's going on.

thanks!

 

[DotCommunist]

i have a limited understanding of the situation but i want to know more. sounds like the military are taking control of the place - which worries me. urban, please, help. i'm sure some here has a better grasp of what's going on.

thanks!

let me give you a potted summary before more knowlegable heads get here

The military are already in charge, have been since a military coup when I was a young'un

The last time protesters got this big it ended in a brutal suppression with thousands killed. (1988)


over to more knowlegable heads

 

[no-no]

Burma has been run by the monks for the last 20 years, they abolished cash and put the kids in charge, it's been the very image of nirvana. Now Lo Pan the erstwhile ruler of Myanmar is on the march with his evil henchmen of hate. He hates kids and animals, he's not very nice.

Thats about it....

 

[Dhimmi]

As DC points out it's already a military dictatorship. This current crisis is very similar to that of 1988.

The govt likes to limit just about everything, including access to fuel. They recently announced big increases in fuel prices, doubled petrol and diesel, gas went up by 500%, which has been the catalyst for the peoples discontent to develop into protests led by Buddhist monks who are held in high esteem by most of the population.

The monks are of the Theravada school which means they're also gather support from other nations where this is the dominant school, namely Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos. Even disrespecting monks is taken as incredibly poor form both socially and religiously, so reports of injuries will rightly infuriate millions.

 

[peacepete]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi)

 

[soulman]

Can the watching masses look forward to self immolation?

 

[Dhimmi]

Unlikely, that's been pretty roundly condemned and how could they afford the fuel?

 

[soulman]

Revolution's no fun any more

 

[story]

Last night, two hundred monks from six monasteries where beaten while they slept, taken from their beds, and transported in trucks to lord-knows-where.


ETA this was reported on the 8 AM Radio Four news.

 

[newbie]

Burma has been run by the monks for the last 20 years, they abolished cash and put the kids in charge, it's been the very image of nirvana. Now Lo Pan the erstwhile ruler of Myanmar is on the march with his evil henchmen of hate. He hates kids and animals, he's not very nice.

Thats about it....

I'm glad you think the biggest prison camp society on earth is funny.

 

[e19896]

let me give you a potted summary before more knowlegable heads get here

The military are already in charge, have been since a military coup when I was a young'un

The last time protesters got this big it ended in a brutal suppression with thousands killed. (1988)


over to more knowlegable heads

some of us are doing a artical for indymedia and dot-c is about right in his sum up the bbc are being rather good at there coverage as are c4 but never trust the mainstrem media to much do check indy we guess sat is when it will be there but shit is moveing fast befor i come out r4 had reports of people being shot

Thousands of protesters are back on the streets of Burma's main city Rangoon after overnight raids in which monks were reportedly beaten and arrested.

Police are reported to have fired shots at demonstrators. Witnesses said at least one person collapsed.

Witnesses said soldiers stormed six monasteries overnight, smashing windows and doors and beat the sleeping monks.  [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7015544.stm"]link[/URL]

 

[story]

Also, the UN is meeting in New York this week - a good opportunity for them to condemn the Generals' actions.

You'd think.

But no. China and Russia blocked a unified condemnation by claiming it was an internal matter. When France rebuked Russia, Russia replied by saying that the next time there are riots in France, Russia will call on the UN to cndemn the French government.

And round and round we go again. What is the point of the UN?????


The US has to be seen to be condemning the Burmese governments actions, cos they are so keen on imposing democracy on everyone willynilly, even going to war for it. So they can't be seen to be doing nothing. But they won't actually do anything, since there is no oil in Burma. China uses Burmese Gas, so does not want to antagonise the Generals.

A few years ago, one of the 12 Generals who rule Burma tried to start some gentle reforming negotiations. He was thrown out (and I think arrested?) by the other Generals, and several other members of his family were also arrested.

 

[DotCommunist]

Also, the UN is meeting in New York this week - a good opportunity for them to condemn the Generals' actions.

You'd think.

But no. China and Russia blocked a unified condemnation by claiming it was an internal matter. When France rebuked Russia, Russia replied by saying that the next time there are riots in France, Russia will call on the UN to cndemn the French government.

And round and round we go again. What is the point of the UN?????


The US has to be seen to be condemning the Burmese governments actions, cos they are so keen on imposing democracy on everyone willynilly, even going to war for it. So they can't be seen to be doing nothing. But they won't actually do anything, since there is no oil in Burma. China uses Burmese Gas, so does not want to antagonise the Generals.

A few years ago, one of the 12 Generals who rule Burma tried to start some gentle reforming negotiations. He was thrown out (and I think arrested?) by the other Generals, and several other members of his family were also arrested.

After the Rwandan genocide I realised that the UN is fucking useless.

 

[newbie]

what do you want the UN to do? invade?????

have you ever read about the Korean war? have you noticed what's been happening in Iraq?

the UN is not simply an arm of western control, set up to impose our vision on other peoples, it doesn't have a world policeman role, and that is, imo, right. Dafur, Zimbabwe, Burma are horrible but Russia is (and always has been) right to resist any attempt to push interference beyond words and sanctions.

btw the US has a formal sanction/non-investment policy against Burma while France is one of the biggest investment props for the regime. Global real-politik isn't made up of simple sound bites.

 

[purves grundy]

what do you want the UN to do? invade?????

Although illegal, that would be fantastic.

 

[chymaera]

As DC points out it's already a military dictatorship. This current crisis is very similar to that of 1988.

Whilst the crisis is similar, modern communication technology means the "government" can't hide what is going on this time, despite their efforts to shut communications down.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The UN isn't useless per se, it's only as good as the sum of it's parts. Unfortunately they all have vested interests which make them, well, useless.

 

[zoltan]

UN is a talking shop - thats it.

It does have the power to do things IF everyone is up for it - and thats the problem - with the PRC leering at Burma from over the Border ( as it does with the DPRK ) no one will dare spook the Chinese and actually demand action.

After all, you dont want to upset your biggest market do you ?

 

[purves grundy]

Nothing was ever going to come of last night's meeting; small victory it was held at all. Today's meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers looks a more likely source of pressure.

 

[dennisr]

I'm glad you think the biggest prison camp society on earth is funny.

Indeed, some more info:

Burma has one of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, including the systematic use of rape and torture, forced labour (including child labour) and violent national oppression (of the Karen and other peoples). While the military absorbs 40% of the state budget, spending on health care is minimal and, in a country that once had the highest literacy rate, education standards have plummeted through lack of government funds.

The level of poverty and hunger means millions of families having no more than one meal a day. Once known as Asia’s rice bowl, Burma cannot sustain its own people. One third of the population are malnourished or physically underdeveloped.

Yet the top twelve military officers who form the junta live in luxury in the newly-built capital city – Naypyidaw - carved out of the jungle, 320 kilometres north of Rangoon. Much of the generals’ income derives from bribery, corruption and drug trafficking, especially of heroin. Anuj Chopra, who writes for the (London) Sunday Telegraph, commented, the new capital “offers a secure bolt-hole should the ongoing protests escalate in Rangoon…They are running away from their own people”.

 

[Spion]

After the Rwandan genocide I realised that the UN is fucking useless.

It's been worse than useless from the start. Up to 800,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1947/48 in large part as a result of the UN's partition plan

 

[gnoriac]

Not much to add except that apart from the obvious condemnation of China and Russia, there are other countries that could be doing more, particularly Japan and Singapore, both major investors in the prison camp. Singapore (sorry, I can't source this) supplied the generals with armaments to crush the 1988 protests.

Oh and no-no, if there's a poll for 'Thickest Poster In 2007' at Xmas, you're assured of my vote.

 

[nino_savatte]

After the Rwandan genocide I realised that the UN is fucking useless.

Unless it rubber stamps wars for oil on behalf of the USA.

 

[CyberRose]

Although illegal, that would be fantastic.

The "UN" cannot invade anywhere as there is no "UN army". UN missions are undertaken by indivdual states, or a collective of states, on behalf of, and with the permission of, the UN.

Unfortunately, or fortunatley, it is the responsibility of the Security Council to decide whether military intervention in a conflict is acceptable. This means the permanent members - UK, US, France, Russia, China, who all have a veto - can prevent action should they disagree. If one of the 5 do not want action taken against Burma, then no action can be sanctioned (which is how America can stop any action UN against Israel, Russia can stop any UN action against Serbia, China can stop any UN action against Sudan, etc, etc)

 

[nino_savatte]

The Korean War was prosecuted as a "UN" war.

 

[Belushi]

The Korean War was prosecuted as a "UN" war.

I may have got this wrong but I think I remember reading that the other Security Council members waited until the Soviet delegation flounced out of a meeting over something or other and then passed the resolution authorising the Yanks and Allies to go in under UN auspices.

 

[nino_savatte]

I may have got this wrong but I think I remember reading that the other Security Council members waited until the Soviet delegation flounced out of a meeting over something or other and then passed the resolution authorising the Yanks and Allies to go in under UN auspices.

That's exactly what happened. The US knew that the Soviets would leave the meeting and pushed for a "UN" war on North Korea.

 

[CyberRose]

I may have got this wrong but I think I remember reading that the other Security Council members waited until the Soviet delegation flounced out of a meeting over something or other and then passed the resolution authorising the Yanks and Allies to go in under UN auspices.

The only time the UN was able to act iirc during the Cold War because the Russians were missing, all the other times US and Russia just vetoed each other.

But a "UN war" is still fought by individual nations, not by "the UN".

The UN is not like NATO, which has its own command and planning installations (and iirc standing troops?). A NATO war is fought by NATO, a UN war is fought by individual nations (unless of course NATO is doing the fighting!)

The UN cannot invade a country like NATO can...

 

[purves grundy]

The "UN" cannot invade anywhere as there is no "UN army". UN missions are undertaken by indivdual states, or a collective of states, on behalf of, and with the permission of, the UN.

Unfortunately, or fortunatley, it is the responsibility of the Security Council to decide whether military intervention in a conflict is acceptable. This means the permanent members - UK, US, France, Russia, China, who all have a veto - can prevent action should they disagree. If one of the 5 do not want action taken against Burma, then no action can be sanctioned (which is how America can stop any action UN against Israel, Russia can stop any UN action against Serbia, China can stop any UN action against Sudan, etc, etc)

Yes, I know. Also we have to remember the criteria by which SC members judge whether to take action or not. Those countries trying to get a resolution passed on Burma earlier this year concentrated on its threat to regional stability. When a draft resolution on Burma was tabled earlier this year, the USA and UK tried to argue that ethnic conflicts spilling over into neighbouring countries, massive drug and people trafficking, and the spread of AIDS added up to this. This was fairly easy for the Chinese and Russians to dismiss.

The Burma issue shows the limits of international law as it now stands, and also highlights the the way the key powers choose which wars they can and can't fight when they can't get permission.

 

[damnhippie]

cheers folks.

just been reading up on the generals who comprised the junta...scary, scary stuff, & hard to believe these people are heads of state.