An abrasive commentary about conditions in Burma recently came to my attention. Written by Melody Kemp, who describes herself as “a raging granny who lives in Laos”, it laments international indifference to “Burma’s generals [who] go on killing, raping, torturing and maiming”
Kemp concludes that:
Peace activists and others often feel queasy about supporting an armed struggle, particularly in Burma where women bear arms as a matter of necessity, and in continuity of historical lineage.
Those sitting sipping coffee in Western cities talking theoretically about peace and war, have little concept of what it is like to simply get up and face hell each day. But it’s even more disconcerting to know that really no one gives a toss. The war in Burma rates lower in movie star attraction than Tibet. There are no Branjelina’s flying into Rangoon, no Richard Geres kissing Than Shwe. George Soros is a singular example, funding pro Burmese activities, the flagship of which is Irrawaddy magazine.
It seems that Asia is a good place to visit, but not a good place to really care about.
Kemp’s missive highlights “a list of gruesome horrors” and attacks many around their world for their “nonchalance”. The argument particularly targets peace activists. She writes that:
In Australia the majority of peace activism has been conflated with and focused on, anti nuclear issues, which neatly sidesteps the reality of war and death in most of the poor nations of the world; places like Burma.
Their focus is a statement of Western fears, not an acceptance of the daily reality of our Asian neighbours, who do not have memories for events long ago in another land. Every day, they simply flee death, cloaked in shells, bullets, bayonets, mines, knives, disease and starvation.
Polemic aside - is this criticism fair? What would be an alternative approach?
Or, more importantly, are Burma’s tragedies really more peripheral to “Westerners’ visions” than the many other long, hot wars that fester in so many places around the world? Does Burma deserve special treatment, attention or concern? If so, on what grounds? Is there a way forward for the disparate forces of “Burma activism”? Are there ways to get the world really interested in Burma’s civil wars? What do you think is the best thing to do or is nothing the best option? Does academic scholarship have anything to add?
25 responses so far ↓
1 aiontay // Jun 28, 2007 at 10:01 am
I was kind of waiting for Jon Fernquest to write something about Burma activists who don’t have a sufficiently nuanced approach towards Burma, because if he had, I’d be inclined, for once, to agree.
I’m not a peace activist, so sidiing with armed struggle has never been a major sticking point with me, but is she seriously suggesting that Australia and the US adopt that as policy? I’d think Bush’s excelllent adventure in Iraq might be grounds for caution there.
I’m also unclear if her support for ethnic minorities like the Karens goes as far as supporting an independent Karen State. I personally wouldn’t mind seeing that, but I can see why other individuals might think that is a bad idea.
Finally I don’t know about Brangelia, but the Angelina half of that duo has visited Karenni refugee camps along the Thai/Burmese border. At least that is what the Irrawaddy reported.
2 Grasshopper // Jun 28, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Take a human-human relationship analogy. Imagine if a hard working farmer (Burma) tried to talk to a perhaps superficial celebrity or vice versa (Australia); who would otherwise share few common interests at this particular point in time.
What would a farmer working 15 hours a day in the field, sowing crops, milking cows and building fences have to say to someone who spends time socializing in the relative luxury of cosmopolitanism?
Their respective self determination is quite different and it is overly arrogant for myself as westerner to condemn Burmese people to pity. It would be much the same as the celebrity judging the farmer to be a simpleton.
The victory of liberalism has imposed itself on the international system and it is now for Burmese to determine themselves within that framework; or reject it as the Junta is presently doing. If Burma wishes to participate in the international system then Burmese must reject the Junta somehow.
Therefore, this Melody Kemp is trying to fuse the otherwise contradictory words of empathy, ‘facing hell?’ and politics. Of course on a human level we here can empathize with socio-economic deficiency (because that’s here in our very own suburbs!) but volatile political situations are not our forte and nor should they be. Example is of course the greatest influence.
Is she just visiting too? Maybe Mother Melody has just seen the real world and is now projecting her former ignorance into a diatribe against coffee house discussions??
3 Tara // Jun 28, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Angelina has also visited Chin refugees in India.
I find it difficult to sort out exactly what she’s calling for here, as well – if she’s criticizing peace activists who push for non-violent tactics in Burma, or peace activists who don’t even notice Burma and call for peace in other countries. I’ll agree to Aiontay’s point about activists needing a more nuanced approach to Burma. But the idea of armed struggle isn’t something I have a problem with either, and I can’t say that I’ve ever met a “Burma” activist of any nationality who thought that the armed groups should stick to non-violent tactics. Although, I have been frustrated by consistent portrayal of cease-fires as positive, when they are typically anything but for the civilians caught in the middle.
I personally would prefer to see change in a different direction. Rather than western activists taking more notice of Burma, (or any other humanitarian distaster), how about we make it so that the fate of Burmese people isn’t tied to the attentions of people half a world away? It seems the public can only budge western governments to act ethically so far, and that is really, really, not very far at all. But so much effort is focused on raising awareness in Western countries. I would like to see more of the millions spent on advocacy efforts targeted towards the people in some of Burma’s neighboring countries, since they are the ones with the most potential to influence some kind of change with the way things currently work.
4 jonfernquest // Jun 28, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“Those sitting sipping coffee in Western cities talking theoretically about peace and war, have little concept of what it is like to simply get up and face hell each day.”
Well, I have more grey hairs on my head from actually living in the place, supporting a family in the place, dealing with my mother-in-law’s terminal illness in the place, etc, etc…and have ranted and raved occasionally about the horrible situation in the place, but all of this grandma’s hysterics, and calling the place “hell” is hysterics:
“Every day, they simply flee death, cloaked in shells, bullets, bayonets, mines, knives, disease and starvation.”
Plus absurdities like this:
“…in Burma where women bear arms as a matter of necessity, and in continuity of historical lineage.”
I doubt if funding a myriad of ethnic insurgencies (check out the list of acronyms in Martin Smith’s or Bertil Lintner’s books) or direct military intervention like the Iraq fiasco under Bremer (where imperial hubris was disabused of the notion that other cultures are little puppets to be molded in one’s own neocon image) will work.
For reality, check out Larry Jagan (BBC) on Chinese presence in Burma:
http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/burmamyanmar/burma_and_chinas_cold_embracec.php#article
And read the award winning book “China shakes the world”:
http://www.chforum.org/scenarios/new/china4.html
She’s right sadly about people being indifferent to the place, but that probably dates to before she was born.
5 jonfernquest // Jun 28, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Someone should really do a PhD dissertation on China-Burma relations over the last few decades.
I know that Maung Aung Myoe at National University of Singapore is doing work in this area:
http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/publication_details.asp?pubtypeid=WP&pubid=647
China’s presence in Burma is hardly new, as evidenced by the Anna Allot short story translation: The Python by NYI PU LAY (1988)
“Mandalay Burmese resent that their city, the former royal capital and a symbol of Burmese independence, is becoming a satellite town of Yunnan Province in China. Although it is never explicitly mentioned in the story that U Myo Khin, the house buyer, is Chinese (he is described as a recent arrival in Mandalay), it is made clear by the mention of his green ring (jade), his red car (good luck for the Chinese), his yellow skin, his heavy accent, and his struggle to read Burmese.”
http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/inked-over-ripped%20-out.htm
6 Grasshopper // Jun 28, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Tara:
I personally would prefer to see change in a different direction. Rather than western activists taking more notice of Burma, (or any other humanitarian distaster), how about we make it so that the fate of Burmese people isn’t tied to the attentions of people half a world away?
Are you saying that presently the fate of Burmese people is in the hands of people half a world away?!
What I wrote above in #2 is quite conservative, but untill the world is less divided with borders (especially borders increasingly significant in seperating economically developing nations from developed), our opinions and the opinions of Western governments do not count an iota. The only opinions that count in this matter are those of the citizens of Myanmar.
7 jonfernquest // Jun 28, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“Paul Collier, the director of the Center for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University. … It was Collier who … pioneered a new and unsentimental approach to the study of civil wars, demonstrating that most rebels in sub-Saharan Africa are not heroic freedom fighters but self-interested brigands……There are, he suggests, four traps into which really poor countries tend to fall. The first is civil war. Nearly three-quarters of the people in the bottom billion … have recently been through, or are still in the midst of, a civil war. Such wars usually drag on for years and have economically disastrous consequences. … Unfortunately, … the poorer a country becomes, the more likely it is to succumb to civil war… And once you’ve had one civil war, you’re likely to have more…”
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/sachs-vs-easter.html
China’s probably providing in a way for Burma, what the west cannot:
“Fear of ‘neo-colonialism’ has made
European politicians wary of military intervention,
but security is the precondition for development
and often it cannot be provided internally. Africa
currently has many post-conflict situations. These
are inherently fragile. Despite the attention given
to political solutions, neither democratic
constitutions nor post-conflict elections reduce
the risk of renewed conflict. In the long term,
economic growth cumulates to make the society
safer, but during the first decade of peace an
external military presence or guarantee is the only
reliable option.”
E D I T O R I A L : R E T H I N K I N G A S S I S TA N C E
F O R A F R I C A Paul Collier
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/research/africa.htm
8 aiontay // Jun 28, 2007 at 10:32 pm
The problem is, the opinions of the citizens of Burma have been ignored by the regime running the place, so their fate isn’t in their own hands.
9 Tara // Jun 29, 2007 at 5:41 am
Grasshopper – are you unaware of the Burmese opposition movement? Do you think that change has not happened only because people inside the country haven’t expressed enough displeasure? Come on.
My comment is a reference to the way that the world currently deals with human rights abuses committed by ’sovereign’ nations. Theoretically, the UN and member governments are charged with upholding international human rights treaties and laws. The Burmese government has signed on to many of these laws, and they are violating them. However, getting any government to act through the UN – the appropriate body for such action – requires a ridiculous amount of public pressure. Since the US mainly, and other Western governments, have a great deal of influence in the UN, as well as political and economic clout generally, the US public is often the first target for advocacy and awareness raising efforts. The Burmese activists know this, and activists from other parts of the world know this. When people are unable to influence their own government, and they suffer grevious human rights abuses, they turn to the public in the West to pressure their governments to act through whatever means they have available.
My point is, that this is a bad system. The people of Burma, of whom there are many intelligent, articulate, and dedicated activists travelling the world and advocating with foreign politicians, should have more direct recourse within international bodies.
You are right that it is the opinions of the people of Burma that matter. However, the people of Burma are expressing their opinion – they are trying very hard for their voices to be heard, but, they are put in a position of feeling like their voices must be heard by Westerners for it to count.
This is the way the situation is – not my personal statement on the value of Burmese opinions. International enforcement or action on human rights law to protect citizens persecuted by their own government requires public pressure. Governments of the world, especially the US, will not act on anything not in their express interest without significant pressure from their constituencies. Burmese calling for some kind of help from outside Burma have to deal with this reality. Do you presume that the opinions of Burmese within the country have any influence over the actions of a military dictatorship?
Your comment about the world being divided by borders is correct. Currently, there is no real, effective way to deal with these kinds of human rights abuses that break international conventions and laws. This is what I’m saying needs to change. Citizens of a nation need a mechanism to hold their governments accountable within the international arena when they break international laws, without Westerners acting as intermediaries.
10 Grasshopper // Jun 29, 2007 at 11:51 am
Tara; I do not presume the Burmese opposition movement (oh yes, and George Soros) has much influence over the military junta! Quite the opposite. Yes there are mass human rights violations in Burma, but look at the nations, or at least the permanent 5 nations of the security council that you are looking to be moral benchmarks! As you are aware, the US, China and Russia are seemingly only disposed to upholding the charter that they wrote when it looks good for them.. and as Fernquest highlights, the English and French maybe hesitant to act with their colonial histories…
Also, what is to say that the UN Charter for Human Rights is right for a South East Asian nation? From my memory there were no SEA nations consulted when writing it! Furthermore, it would be a human rights abuse if a multinational force went to Burma for the sole purpose of stopping human rights abuses. I think its article 15(or 18? at least its a #teen) where there is a right to ’self determination’? Maybe it too is another doctrine of liberal imperialism?
It is a bad system, it has been a bad system for a very long time and the only way for that too change is for Burmese people to stop it. That means the horrible situation within Burma will get worse to the point where the threshold of the average persons tolerance can be broken. Whilst I empathize with those activists highlighting the situation in Burma, their actions are surely in vain (some sort of ‘yeah! lets do something!!’ San Francisco clique) if the aim is to really change something.
11 mike // Jun 29, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Firstly I must apologise for giving a perhaps pedantic comment. But just to clarify the status of human rights and fix up some mistakes in Grasshopper’s comment:
There is no such thing as the UN Charter for Human Rights – there is the UN charter, and the Universal Declaration for human rights – quite different documents.
The claim that “no SEA nations consulted when writing it!” is kinda true, though in the later codification of the declaration SEA nations were consulted, and they did agree by making it law in many of their countries. The Philipinesand Thailand continue to play a big role in human rights at the UN. When one claims human rights are not an Asian thing they are jumping into bed with Singapore PM Lee, and other leaders like Suharto, and Marcos. Human are humans, and they all deserve their rights equally, Asian humans are not any different. Further, China and India were deeply involved in teh drafting, and he first human rights ‘action’ at the UN was my India against South Africa, showing a long history of Asia’s participation in human rights.
The right to self determination (common article one of the ICCPR, ICESCR and not a teen) is primarily for decolonizing nations. The multinational force issue would fall under the UN Charter and ‘threats in international peace and security” – which didn’t get up because China, Sth Africa, and Russia don’t see Burma’s problems this way.
12 Mike // Jun 29, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Firstly I must apologise for giving a perhaps pedantic comment. But just to clarify the status of human rights and fix up some mistakes in Grasshopper’s comment:
There is no such thing as the UN Charter for Human Rights – there is the UN charter, and the Univesal Declaration for human rights – quite different documents.
The claim that “no SEA nations consulted when writing it!” is kinda true, though a number of SEA nations quickly agreed to it when the writing was finished, and they did agree by making the later treaties on it law in many of their countries. When one claims human rights is not an Asian thing they are jumping into bed with Singapore PM Lee, and other leaders like Suharto, and Marcos. Human are humans, and they all deserve their rights equally, Asian humans are not any different. Further, China and India were deeply involved in the drafting, and he first human rights ‘action’ at the UN was by India against South Africa, showing a long history of Asia’s participation in human rights. This idea of Asia having different rights is a myth.
The right to self determination (common article one of the ICCPR, ICESCR and not a teen) is primarily for decolonizing nations. It would be a stretch to apply it to the Karen or Shan etc., but perhaps possible, though the UN will not recognize these claims because it doesn’t fit their definition of the ‘peoples’ right.
The multinational force issue would fall under the UN Charter and ‘threats in international peace and security” and is not primarily human rights related – anyway this idea didn’t get up because China, Sth Africa, and Russia don’t see Burma’s problems this way.
13 Grasshopper // Jun 29, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Mike, just interested to know whether you believe ’self-determination’ can be considered by the UN to be an ongoing process or is ’self determination’ only until the geography has a state? Wouldn’t the Junta argue that they are still suffering the effects of decolonization?
Also thanks for clarifying the other points. However I am not arguing that SEA ‘has different rights’; I am just questioning whether some nations would even recognize or have different interpretation of ‘human rights’ when global integration is not a national concern. And I was mistaken in referring to self-determination as apart of the declaration (or as I said, Charter) and got confused with article 15 which is everyone has the right to a nationality. As you say, humans are humans!
14 Tara // Jun 29, 2007 at 7:10 pm
That wasn’t pedantic at all Mike, I agree completely. Grasshopper, the notion that Burmese people will be able to change the situation once it becomes ‘intolerable’ is no less presumptuous than the pontifications of peace activists criticized in the original article. It’s a judgement made at a distance in relative safety. You are not the one dealing with the realities of civil war, oppression, and ethnic cleansing, so what right do you have to make any statement about what they can and cannot tolerate?
15 Grasshopper // Jun 29, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Tara, are you the one suggesting there needs to be change? I am commenting on how there can be change. Also you assume I have not dealt with the realities of civil war and oppression. While I am safe now I do understand how people react to pain.
16 Grasshopper // Jun 29, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Your comment angers me Tara. You should go to an authority in wherever you originate from and lobby for whatever hypothesis strikes you next! Wow, all power to you!
I am being vindictive, please don’t grant me the honour of a response!
17 amberwaves // Jun 29, 2007 at 10:00 pm
This touches on a sore spot with me. Burma’s generals get slammed, all the time, and rightfully so.
What about Laos, though, from where Ms Kemp is ostensibly writing? Can there be a more secretive ruling elite in Southeast Asia? Dissenters — at least they usually emerge some time from Burma’s prisons. The few who rear their heads in Laos basically disappear, more or less forever.
And that’s not even touching on the Hmong, or corruption.
Of course, it’s a pretty sweet life for expats and tourists in Laos, generally. Why queer the deal?
18 Richard // Jun 30, 2007 at 12:53 am
Let me attempt to make a separate point.
I for one am and have always been 100% aware that while I sit in my comfortable American city, sipping my cup of coffee as I am right now, I can never truly appreciate the realities of what’s going on in Burma. And while I agree with Tara that some of the larger Burma organizations that only work to bring awareness of the situation do very little that is actually productive on the ground OR internationally (understatement of the day), I feel the realities of American (and perhaps Western) Culture make it a necessity. Just look at the Iraq war. It has literally been years since I have had or even heard a conversation about Iraq in my town, meanwhile all hell is breaking loose, we go on like everything is normal, even though many don’t feel that way, culture seems to dictate that it’s something you don’t talk about.
I have tried on many occasions to bring awareness of what’s going on in Burma at my college (I’m about 10 years older than most college students by the way) and you should see the blank look on their faces. Just trying to talk about Burma, Suu Kyi, abuses and oppression leaves many so uninterested it is impossible to discuss any larger opposition movement not to mention discuss ineffective policy. Even those close to me who know my level of involvement have a measured tolerance for hearing about it.
And as far as there being a difference of opinion on how international policy needs to change, that has always been the case and will not change. But at least we can agree there needs to be a change. Since we are the only one’s who seem to care, why can’t we unite behind that?
19 Grasshopper // Jun 30, 2007 at 11:04 am
hear hear
20 Tara // Jun 30, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I am saying their needs to be change, Grasshopper. I do not think we actually disagree on how the current state of affairs limits outsiders influence over events in Burma – regardless of whether this is a good or bad thing. What I originally said was that I wish there could be change in how this whole system works, that in the absence of change, advocacy efforts could be more focused towards working around this system such that Burmese people have more say and influence than they do now seem too. I have no hypothesis for how to save Burma. I do not personally think the standard awareness raising and letter writing campaigns are effective. I think most action taken by or in the West to date has more to do with token efforts and conscience assuaging. However, I bristle at the statement that change will come from within when the oppression becomes ‘intolerable’. I have heard this before and I think that while action is often ‘conscience-assuaging’, this statement is merely an attempt to assuage one’s conscience in the face of non-action. Whether you intend as such or not, this is how it sounds, and it has been said by many a person with absolutely no experience with conflict and oppression, and a lot of experience with entitlement. I am not accusing you of such, I don’t know you. But it just kind of makes you sound like a Libertarian or Republican.
Personally, I think every government and international governing body currently in existence sucks, and I don’t expect that any of them actually place the principles they espouse in high regard.
21 jeru // Jun 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Anyone who wonder how much abuse from its tyrannical rulers people in Myanmar or Laos can take pnly have to look no farther than North Korea.
I have asked this question before: “What ever happened to the fierce warrior Burmese blood who historically fought the Thais toe-to-toe for glory or territory?”
But surely the situation cannot go on indefinitely.
22 jeru // Jun 30, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Anyone who wonder how much abuse from its tyrannical rulers people in Myanmar or Laos can take pnly have to look no farther than North Korea.
I have asked this question before: “What ever happened to the fierce warrior Burmese blood who historically fought the Thais toe-to-toe for glory or territory?”
But surely the Myanmar situation will explode to violence when the peoples’ anger boil over.
23 aiontay // Jun 30, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Jeru,
That fierce warrior blood was displayed, in many cases quite literally in 1988 to cite just one instance. Most of my Kachin friends have been imprisoned, shot at, or both. Inside Burma, regular individuals routinely take actions, that if they were caught would result in rather unpleasant consequences.
The problem is swords and even war elephants aren’t much good against machine guns. And while you personally might be willing to go up against those machine guns what about your children, grandparents, parents etc in the aftermath?
24 Mike // Jul 2, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Grasshopper, slow response to # 13. The definition of self determination is an evolving one. Though it was originally given in a ICJ ruling, the UN have allowed countires like Bangladesh, then the states of Yugoslavia to get self determination when they didn’t really fit the criteria. Economic self determination is highly debated but a definite no-no in human rights (though there are special rapportuers for structural adjustment programs).
And sure, states can have their own definition of certain rights (like what is immoral in freedom of speech), but they can’t really choose is something is or isn’t a human right
25 New Mandala » Steinberg letter on Burma in context // Jul 2, 2007 at 11:38 pm
[...] Washington Post carries a letter from David I. Steinberg that is relevant to the recent New Mandala conversation about “engagement” with Burma. Readers who maintain interests in United States [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.