Many New Mandala readers have written to ask about ways they can show their solidarity for the current wave of protests in Burma and help exert pressure on both the Burmese and Chinese governments.
An electronic petition is now circulating widely. Its goal is 1 million signatures. It has been organised by the activist collective Avaaz.org. They are also providing information on upcoming protests in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Norway, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Information on those protests and the petition is available here.
The message that accompanies the petition is:
Dear friends,
Burma’s generals have brought their brutal iron hand down on peaceful monks and protesters — but in response, a massive global outcry is gathering pace. The roar of global public opinion is being heard in hundreds of protests outside Chinese and Burmese embassies, people round the world wearing the monks’ color red, and on the internet–where our petition has exploded to over 200,000 signers in just 72 hours.
People power can win this. Burma’s powerful sponsor China can halt the crackdown, if it believes that its international reputation and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing depend on it. To convince the Chinese government and other key countries, Avaaz is launching a major global and Asian ad campaign on Wednesday, including full page ads in the Financial Times and other newspapers, that will deliver our message and the number of signers. We need 1 million voices to be the global roar that will get China’s attention. If every one of us forwards this email to just 20 friends, we’ll reach our target in the next 72 hours.
Please sign the petition – if you haven’t already – and forward this email to everyone you care about.
The pressure is working – already, there are signs of splits in the Burmese Army, as some soldiers refuse to attack their own people. The brutal top General, Than Shwe, has reportedly moved his family out of the country – he must fear his rule may crumble.
The Burmese people are showing incredible courage in the face of horror. We’re broadcasting updates on our effort over the radio into Burma itself – telling the people that growing numbers of us stand with them. Let’s do everything we can to help them – we have hours, not days, to do it. Please sign the petition and forward this email to at least 20 friends right now. Scroll down our petition page for details of times and events to join in the massive wave of demonstrations happening around the world at Burmese and Chinese embassies.
With hope and determination,
Ricken, Paul, Pascal, Graziela, Galit, Ben, Milena and the whole Avaaz Team
27 responses so far ↓
1 Free Burma! // Oct 2, 2007 at 5:37 am
Free Burma!
International Bloggers’ Day for Burma on the 4th of October
International bloggers are preparing an action to support the peaceful revolution in Burma. We want to set a sign for freedom and show our sympathy for these people who are fighting their cruel regime without weapons. These Bloggers are planning to refrain from posting to their blogs on October 4 and just put up one Banner then, underlined with the words „Free Burma!“.
http://www.free-burma.org
2 Ex-Ajarn // Oct 2, 2007 at 8:35 pm
And what effect is expected on the people from Burma of 1 million signatures on an online petition expected to have?
If it makes one feel like one is “doing something” to help the people who are being oppressed by a horrible regime by clicking on a link, than by all means go ahead, but it will have no effect. The dictators already know they are hated worldwide, but don’t really care.
I don’t know the actual extent of the oppression but, so far we haven’t seen the “expected” huge influx of people here on the Thai-Burmese border fleeing the oppression, at least not here on the area bordering the Karen States.
3 Grasshopper // Oct 2, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Ex-Ajarn, it makes us Western people feel better about our damning inherited history that largely doesn’t bother us when we don’t see it. Shouldn’t New Mandala be giving $30 a month to World Vision ?!
On SBS World News tonight there was footage of the ‘huge influx’ of Burmese who had fled to the Thai border from Mandalay (or so I believe). However, most of the people were in ‘refugee camps’ and looked like they had been there for a while longer than a week. There was also an interview with David Steinberg who gave calming answers to anxious oh my god type questions. All of us fretting over our friends in that place called Myanmar we never knew existed till a week ago should feel better now. Theres hacky sacks to lightly tap! (rather than ‘kick’.. such a violent word) Post-materialism! I can afford it!
4 beth // Oct 3, 2007 at 1:55 am
Ex-A, I too asked the same question at first but after I followed the link , I learn a few things. The petition site is a job well done for this kind of thing really. It’s not just to sign the petition, you see a few suggestions, eg. write to your elected official, email companies operating in Myanmar (addresses listed), give comments/suggestions etc. Joining the protests at different spots around the world on Oct 6 may not be your cup of tea, it’s not mine, but I think at this stage raising the awareness helps. I’m now going to write to my friend who forwarded the petition to me a few days ago, and I kind of dismissed it. In my mind, I did say, hey what do you know, displaced ones are everywhere in Chiangmai, my hometown. I hear their accent, I meet their eyes… Now, I look forward to catching up with that ‘tree hugging’ friend of mine this Saturday, on a different function though. We’ll talk Myanmar for sure. But that’s just me.
5 Ex-Ajarn // Oct 3, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Sad thing is, I can’t think of anything the average person can do that would be more effective.
6 tara // Oct 3, 2007 at 8:29 pm
support the Burmeese monks! applaud their bravery to stand up to their oppressive government!
7 col. jeru // Oct 3, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Just as Ex-Ajarn dejectedly noted, just what can an average person do that would be more effective (against this abominable Myanmar junta)?
Guerrilla tactics would be good. We can heckle and throw eggs at these Myanmar junta folks and their relatives . . . or the Myanmar Embassy people when we encounter them at the streets of Bangkok or Sydney or Singapore. Tobe effective of course requires dedicated groups who keep track of the movements of these Myanmar junta ogres and just keep throwing rotten eggs at them at sight every time all the time.
FREEDOM FOR BURMA!
8 Grasshopper // Oct 4, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Col. Jeru, what good would antagonizing the Junta do when they already do not care what we think of them? Surely the only international approach can be engagement to a point where the Junta’s guard is let down enough to be broken? Won’t all international sanction based policy emerging as a result of the protests maintain underdevelopment for ordinary people because their ‘leaders’ (despite how illegitimate they may be) will be more inclined to be secretive? Surely without more disarming engagement this process for Burmese citizens will take many more decades of sporadically teasing protests and unnecessary bloodshed.
We’ll engage with Israel, we’ll engage with the United States and its lobbyists, we’ll engage with China and its immoral distribution, we’ll engage with Malaysia’s new rich and all these other upholders and uncaring, inadvertent supporters of developing world corruption but we will not engage with Burma because their corruption is too true and obvious for our TV watching public. If we in Australia could make a choice for the people of Burma-Myanmar; between persistent pain, fear, disease, underdevelopment and a refugee crisis or admitting that dealing with people who are obviously corrupt will allow the people of Burma-Myanmar to become a TV watching public themselves – what do you think we would choose?
Also, that the name Burma is used instead of Myanmar by seemingly everyone – has anyone bothered to ask protesters what they would prefer?
9 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Oct 4, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Re: Grasshopper>
Through the new science of Rhetorical Chronometrics, I have regressed your comment to it’s semantic roots (circa 1938 A.D.) Behold!
Chamberlain // Oct 4, 1938 at 1:59 pm
Mr. Churchill , what good would antagonizing the Germans do when they already do not care what we think of them? Surely the only international approach can be engagement to a point where Hitler’s guard is let down enough to be broken? Won’t all international sanction based policy emerging as a result of the protests maintain underdevelopment for ordinary people because their ‘leaders’ (despite how illegitimate they may be) will be more inclined to be secretive? Surely without more disarming engagement this process for Czech citizens will take many more decades of sporadically teasing protests and unnecessary bloodshed.
We’ll engage with the Soviets, we’ll engage with France and her lobbyists, we’ll engage with Japan and its immoral distribution, we’ll engage with Spain’s new rich and all these other upholders and uncaring, inadvertent supporters of developing world corruption but we will not engage with Germany because their corruption is too true and obvious for our radio listening public. If we in Great Britian could make a choice for the people of the Sudetenland; between persistent pain, fear, disease, underdevelopment and a refugee crisis or admitting that dealing with people who are obviously corrupt will allow the people of Germany’s various Reichsprotektorat to become a radio listening public themselves – what do you think we would choose?
Also, that the name Germany is used instead of the Großdeutsches Reich by seemingly everyone – has anyone bothered to ask protesters what they would prefer?
Meshuga.
10 Ex-Ajarn // Oct 4, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I am not exactly sure what Lleij Samuel Schwartz’s point is. If he/she is suggesting military action to bring down the current regime in Burma, ok, than at least we would be debating a potential solution to the problem. Long before this current “crisis” brought this to the world’s attention, I was at a meeting where a representative of the Thai government was being grilled by a representative of an EU country about why Thailand has not forced the Burmese Government to change policies. The Thai representative asked, how can you use outside pressure to force a regime that has chosen to be isolationist to change?
Just like the EU representative, it is easier to blame someone else than come up with a solution to a situation where there are no easy answers. We can blame Thailand, China, India, America, or the British for having once colonized the country. But what good does the blaming do?
I am working on the border with refugees from Burma trying to deal with the reality of the situation, but feel completely powerless to change the fundamental problems. Bringing the world’s attention to the problem surely can’t hurt, but these attempts to force the regime, which does not care about the welfare of its own people or its image internationally, to change, or better yet abdicate, are unlikely to have an substantial effect.
On a side note, why are so any supporters of the Thai dictatorship keeping silent on this issue on this website?
11 Grasshopper // Oct 4, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Danke Schwartz,
Are you suggesting we invade ? Didn’t realise the Kachin(Czech’s?) or the Mon(Poles?) were so close to our territorial interests. My mistake – each human is as valuable as every other human and whether they know it or not, they’re liberals too! When do we go in? Mama has knitted me some nice cotton undergarments for the tropics. You and Col. Jeruchai (or Churchill?!?!?!) are more than welcome to place an order for your own!
Sincerely,
Neville
12 jonfernquest // Oct 4, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Unlike Germany before World War II the military junta in Burma is only a threat to its own people.
Over the last 45 years since 1962 Burma’s government has become progressively more oppressive initially through ***complete and utter isolation*** with the world under the “Burmese Way to Socialism”
After 1988 under an military regime: 1. supported by economic relations with Asian neighbors: China, Thailand, Singapore, and India, but 2. sanctioned by the West.
This is a deadlock, stalemate combination.
Asian support has made the Western sanctions not only ineffective (a personal friend of mine while I was living in Yangon managed a Korean textile mill that surreptitiously exported to the US by changing labels, for instance)
But has also aggravated the situation, insofar as ***the military regime now listens to absolutely nothing the West says*** and often ***perversely and actively tries to do the exact opposite*** while continuing to receive support from Asian governments.
Thailand for instance accounts for 40% percent of Burma’s exports in the form of natural gas received through pipelines.
Several months ago a Zimbabwe representative was voted into a prominent human rights position at the UN leaving a lot of westerners like former US UN ambassador Bolton dumbfounded.
The same “bug off” logic applies here too.
Demands by Barbara Bush for the junta to step down are laughable because they are seen as taunts and a very good reason not to step by the junta.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=asA.vV51Sg.k&refer=japan
Which leads me to question whether Barbara Bush is really a true believer or if it is just a PR campaign ploy meant for internal consumption.
13 Col. Jeru // Oct 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Lleij Samuel Schwartz \’s science of Rhetorical Chronometrics is very educational (Grasshopper may disagree of course). If Chamberlain\’s 1938 speech merely annoyed Churchill and encouraged Nazi intransigence, what was the point of Grasshopper\’s 2007 reprint, plagiarism forgiven of course?
I still prefer to antagonize rotten eggs thrown at those more rotten Burmese junta generals.
Now my turn at a rhetorical question to New Mandala: Would a Burmese oppressed nationalist be justified with fighting junta terror with terror? Would you now consider any Burmese who will not merely oppose, but bomb Burmese military targets (collateral damage, et al), a hero rather than a terrorist?
14 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Oct 5, 2007 at 3:21 pm
re: Ex-Ajaran, et. al>
Let’s be clear here, if Grasshopper were talking about Cuba, Belarus (remember them?), Venezuela, or any other authoritarian government who just happens not to follow “the other path” (as Hernando de Soto puts it, then I would agree with him/her; however, were are talking about a government that engages in genocide, which puts it in the infamous club that Sudan, and North Korea belong to. To suggest that we “engage ” with them in the same way is moral relativism and cowardice of the highest degree.
I disagree with jonfernquest that the Burmese are only a threat to their own people. Most wargames suggest that the Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours. Now while the Thais, with their “major non-NATO ally” status with the US could beat back the Burmese, they still would be left with their only urban center ravished and their infrastructure ruined. The price would be too awful to pay, and you can be sure that both the Burmese and Thai juntas are aware of this. This fact, in concert with the lucrative business done, explains the Thai government’s stance toward Burma more than anything else.
My grandmother told me of a time when the nations of the world came together and founded an institution that would insure that genocide would NEVER AGAIN threaten the people of the world. This institution was quickly taken over tinpot dictators and decadent sheiks, who have emasculated this institution into a whimpering, globalized nanny-state that only serves their interests.
As jonfernquest states, the stalemate must end. I do not relish the thought of war, but I cannot ignore the cries of the Burmese people as well. Yet, as Grasshopper said, it all comes down to “our territorial interests.”
Un mundo pazzesco.
15 jonfernquest // Oct 5, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“Most wargames suggest that the Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours.”
Which wargames are those?
16 Grasshopper // Oct 5, 2007 at 9:35 pm
…engages in genocide, which puts it in the infamous club that Sudan, and North Korea belong to. To suggest that we “engage ” with them in the same way is moral relativism and cowardice of the highest degree.
Amigo, first of all – North Korea is engaging in genocide?! How is engaging with Burma moral relativism exactly? Relative to what? (Aside from corruption of course). I think your government just achieved a fairly significant result with the DPRK actually. They ‘courageously’ invaded Iraq too didn’t they?! Also, you say Burma when it would be the Burmans committing this supposed genocide – ??
Or maybe its that my words are laced with not wanting to be blamed for my hereditary position. I suppose that is cowardice, but I am not in Burma right now for a moral suasion of molotov politics against oppression. I am in Australia and its all quite lovely and beige. I am being a coward for simply existing where it is safe? Ah. Gotcha! Too many Rambo movies for you!
Burmese army could blitzkrieg into Bangkok in a mere 2 hours. Now while the Thais, with their “major non-NATO ally” status with the US could beat back the Burmese….
Only by firebombing them as seen previously in South East Asia (or Dresden to continue on with this WW2 theme…) I’ve seen the US military is quite stretched. Two hours to Bangkok?! Wow. Surely you mean that the Junta would have troops into Bangkok 300 at a time. Wouldn’t all other Myanmar aircraft would be used for transporting family of the Junta’s upper echelons to Vientiane?
My grandmother told me of a time when the nations of the world came together and founded an institution that would insure that genocide would NEVER AGAIN threaten the people of the world…..
I think my grandmother was more concerned with the washing. Different places in the world though. John Fernquest, your fellow Gringo says that it must end. I think that’s true too. However, I think it must be the people in Burma-Myanmar who end it. This way, they don’t owe you Gringos any money or status, they are free in the international system (of course, there will need to be IMF loans – but that is just economics, not principle). Does your grandmother remember before WW2? Maybe a ‘World Government’ would have been a much more achievable result if your country did not assume the role for everyone else by being able to ‘beat us all up.’ Fear – the best method for moral arbitration!
*lights the remaining half of a tasty Cuban*
17 Col. Jeru // Oct 6, 2007 at 12:28 am
The question gentlemen is – When is the point reached when “state terror and killings by the Myanmar junta of its own people” is no longer just “internal affairs”? Do we judge by the hundreds of thousands of body counts . . (remember Rwanda and Darfur and Yugoslavia) or just realization that the oppressors will kill to silence the oppressed would be enough?
I believe my neighbor’s struggle to be free of his oppressor deserve my succor . . .
18 Grasshopper // Oct 6, 2007 at 1:40 am
Col. Jeruchai – Do you really believe your ethical position for Burma when you do not apply the same ethical code to your arguments about Thailand?
The international community should have surely invaded Thailand with Thaksin’s cut throat drug policy right?
Surely you get paid for this sort of comedy Colonel Jeruchai!
19 Col. Jeru // Oct 6, 2007 at 2:30 am
Grasshopper I guess your reading and reprinting Chamberlain eloquent “let-us-not-get-involved” speech (stealthily altered for awe and to impress was it?) is ethically satisfying to your 3-monkeys attitude about Burmese atrocities and Thaksin’s extra-judicial rampage. (with my belated congratulations for research efforts btw).
Thaksin’s extra-judicial crimes during his anti-drugs are indeed Thailand’s internal affairs and in due course Thaksin will have to make a public accounting to the Thai people of his maestro-role in this horrific affair. (Grasshopper I did not recall suggesting international invasion of Thailand on account of Thaksin’s “The U.N. is not my father” outburst did I?)
But the oppressed Burmese people will need some outside help and urgently too! Moral and/or material succor (weapons too I dare suggest) to those who oppose the Myanmar junta is what is needed (rather than multi-billion dollar investments by Thailand et al spearheaded by Thaksin during his regime that would only perpetuate the junta longer).
It is a tragedy, not comedy, that is going on at Burma Grasshopper!
20 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Oct 6, 2007 at 4:14 am
Re: jonfernquest> I’m talking about the stuff coming out of the U.S. Army War College and Globalsecurity.org.
21 Grasshopper // Oct 6, 2007 at 10:39 am
Dearest Colonel,
Grasshopper I guess your reading and reprinting Chamberlain eloquent “let-us-not-get-involved” speech (stealthily altered for awe and to impress was it?) is ethically satisfying to your 3-monkeys attitude about Burmese atrocities and Thaksin’s extra-judicial rampage. (with my belated congratulations for research efforts btw).
So ‘let’s not get involved’ speeches are a byproduct of Neville Chamberlain? This is the only argument that your coming back with. Neville Chamberlain, bit of an idiot – didn’t want to go to war. Thats it. Farenough. I’m a bit of an idiot too, so I can see where you make the comparison; but you do not present me with any argument that intervention is a morally acceptable course of action over non-intervention. It allows me to respond with another moral comparison (which could be seen on bad political talk shows) and ask: was it morally acceptable for the US invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein, bit of an idiot etc… No weapons of mass destruction in Burma, but similarly there was a tyrannical regime in Iraq that the international community was prepared to put up with till some ‘bad intelligence’. Maybe you need to invent some bad intelligence (figuratively of course) for Burma and this would give you and Barbara (George already had his turn) grounds for regime change!
Perhaps an overemphasis on the Junta’s export of illicit substances rammed infront of Westerners eyes will do?!! No need to address social problems in the Western buyers market which facilitates this process of course! But will our governments credit our drug addicts allowing them to pursue imperialistic ‘humane’ foreign policy?! Of course not! The Western drug addict would be the unsung savior of the monks! Beautiful irony.
Thaksin’s extra-judicial crimes during his anti-drugs are indeed Thailand’s internal affairs and in due course Thaksin will have to make a public accounting to the Thai people of his maestro-role in this horrific affair. (Grasshopper I did not recall suggesting international invasion of Thailand on account of Thaksin’s “The U.N. is not my father” outburst did I?)
No you did not call for an invasion, but now you do cede that Thaksin’s anti-drugs policy were Thailand’s internal affairs – where several thousand salesmen and women were put to death because Thaksin couldn’t really manage social problems. Well isn’t maiming several thousand monks similarly Myanmar’s ‘internal affairs?’ Not very nice, especially if you don’t place much importance on the autonomy of the nation state . However, Colonel you place a great importance on autonomy when it suits the Thai junta’s relationship with the international system. I do too! But I reason this value with all other states.
But the oppressed Burmese people will need some outside help and urgently too! Moral and/or material succor (weapons too I dare suggest) to those who oppose the Myanmar junta is what is needed (rather than multi-billion dollar investments by Thailand et al spearheaded by Thaksin during his regime that would only perpetuate the junta longer).
It is a tragedy, not comedy, that is going on at Burma Grasshopper!
The international system is not a moral system. Nor should it be used in this way, because as Derrida (and probably others before him) said ‘Violence begins with articulation’. Violence is an outcome of emotional reaction. In developed societies, emotional reactions should be kept to limited domestic issues (like how short the tennis court grass is.) This way, international peace and order is maintained. Comedy and tragedy are quite similar in the end.
22 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Oct 6, 2007 at 4:00 pm
The browser keeps eating my comments! I’ll try again
Re: Grasshopper>
Ummm…what rock have you been living under? Do a Google search for “North Korea and Prison Camp 22″.
The point is recognizing the legitimacy of a nation-state that engages in genocide, is in itself moral relativism. Such a state can claim no rights or sovergnity from the international community, and to recognize it as such means that you tacitly accept it’s actions. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.
As for recent events in the Korean peninsula, I believe you are confusing the US with South Korea; and as for Iraq, the fact that a free and independant Kurdistan doesn’t exist is just another example in a long and shameful history of the US betraying its indigenous allies (c.f. the Hmong).
You’re not a coward for where you live, you’re a coward if you are not willing to call what the Burmese junta is doing genocide for reasons of “realpolitik”. [Again, do a search for "Burma+genocide" if you don't believe me.]
As for the Tatmadaw blitzkrieg, ok…maybe 2 hours is a bit of hyperbole; however, the Burmese army is in a much higher state of mobilization than the Thai army and could inflict heavy damage before the Thais could fully muster all of their forces for a counter attack, and as you said, the US military is streached pretty thin. The Tatmadaw currently have 30 divisions of infantry at their disposal (about 300,000 men) compared to the Thai’s 7 divisions (about 70,000 men) Now, only 4 divisions make up the Thai First Army, which is tasked with the mission to protect the central region and Bangkok. You do the math. (The Thais count on maintaining air superiority, the Burmese have about 64 fighters to the Thais’ 60, so it would be an interesting match.)
John Fernquest, your fellow Gringo says that it must end. I think that’s true too.
I’m not White. And there’s a lot to be said in your assuming that I am.
However, I think it must be the people in Burma-Myanmar who end it. This way, they don’t owe you Gringos any money or status, they are free in the international system (of course, there will need to be IMF loans – but that is just economics, not principle). Does your grandmother remember before WW2? Maybe a ‘World Government’ would have been a much more achievable result if your country did not assume the role for everyone else by being able to ‘beat us all up.’ Fear – the best method for moral arbitration!
I agree, so there’s hope for us yet! ^_^
23 Grasshopper // Oct 8, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Schwartz: Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
North Koreans killing Koreans in Camp 22 fulfills none of this criteria. Certainly individuals who have ties with other individuals are killed there for religious and political reasons but not groups of people enough to warrant the term ‘genocide’.
I am not willing to call what has recently occurred (ie. the detainments and killings over protests) in Burma-Myanmar genocide because it does not fulfill the hotly contested definition of the word. (I used the UN one from the CPPCG because its what is used by member nations..) This is not simply being semantically correct and its similarly not condoning the actions of the Junta. That genocide is a word that should not be used in conjunction with this situation does not lessen the impact of who died and those unjustly imprisoned as a result of the recent protests.
That ‘genocide’ is being used in relation to the recent protests highlights desensitization and the break down of discourse in our media because it means that people are simply looking for impact words to really drive home an atrocity when it should not be necessary. It says a lot for us in the beige that words like: political killings, murder, massacre, slaughter, butchering, which I think are more appropriate, might not be enough to rouse peoples attentions.
Genocide should be used in relation to other instances in Burma-Myanmar but they have not been highlighted on mainstream media at all. So if the act of genocide revokes sovereignty, and if genocide is being committed by Burmans against the Karen peoples – why hasn’t the UN used this to move against the Junta previously? These questions are not asked by journalists faulting China and Russia for vetoing potential Security Council resolutions. Instead, there is some obsequious agenda alluded about their respective intentions, rather than pragmatic, direct questioning to them which consequently dilutes the issue in an international context. Yet I haven’t come across anything in the British media that dared go after the esteemed Salisbury (or would it be Cranbourne) family for having significant shares in Premier Oil who maintain their drilling off Burma-Myanmar and consequently prop up the Junta.
Furthermore, I am not confusing the US and South Korea. Please see your recent engagement in multilateral diplomatic efforts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7025930.stm. For me, multilateral + U.S. = success!
P/S ‘gringo’ in Spanish means foreign. It does not mean ‘white’. I used the term to tie in with the Cuban theme of my facetiousness because you said you would agree if my arguments were about Cuba, no?
24 Col. Jeru // Oct 8, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Mr. Grasshopper do you sincerely believe there are other alternatives, other than the Chamberlain speech you favor, that would discourage the Myanmar junta from further maiming, torturing and killing its dissidents (and Myanmar appear to be clearly divided between the 49.5 million dissident-citizens and the 0.5 million fascist junta soldiers)?
“The international system is not a moral system.” I dispute that Grasshopper. Because any international policy not grounded on sound ethical principles immediately loses legitimacy. Oh . . I don’t doubt that immoral international policies occurred past, present and future once international politics are factored in.
But humanitarian intervention by the United Nations is clearly called for in the case of the illegitimate Myanmar junta because of its past and present atrocities of death, torture, intimidation and deprivation against its own people.
25 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Oct 9, 2007 at 12:29 am
Re: Grasshopper>
I disagree with you that the North Korean death camps don’t fit your definition of genocide/democide. The reports of systematic abortion and medical experimentation should be evidence enough; however, we don’t have enough information on the numbers imprisoned to debate whether or not the body count meets your approval to warrant being labeled genocide.
I ask you, how many people must be killed before it is considered “genocide” in your books? That’s not a rhetorical question, I really am curious.
As far as the Burmese genocide, I was refering to the Karen and other ethnic minorities. As for why the UN hasn’t intervened, I refer you to my previous comments.
Concerning the word “gringo,” yes, semantically, like the Thai word “farang“, it carries the denotation of “foreigner”; however, pragmatically both you and I know that it refers to Whites, usually Anglo-Americans. (Pragmatics: the subfield of Linguistics that studies speaker sense. [Intercultural Pragmatics is my academic speciality]) So, my comment stands. I should feel slightly offended, but I find it hilarious due to the fact that many people who do not know my (multi-)ethnic background, assume I’m hispanic/latino in origin.
Peace is a wonderful thing; it should be the goal of all civilizations, but at what price peace?
26 Grasshopper // Oct 9, 2007 at 12:39 am
Yes, dear Colonel I do believe there are alternatives to UN military engagement!
Here are some without putting a great deal of effort in:
a) the Junta is engaged with to a point where their position is undermined by the enormous adaptation of technological and communicative modernity.
b) people such as Major Win, return and divide the military
c) the Junta is offered asylum aboard a Qantas mystery flight (that just happens to be destined for the Hague..)
Realistically of course there is an alternative to confrontation. It has to happen for the morals to be learned and not simply acknowledged. That is not a system because as seen throughout history, these confrontations happen because nobody reads history books and so to make up for it, they must create one which can be related to with legitimacy.
Also, surely policy is written of an observed system and not what is great or bad about the particulars. A cohesive system cannot be moral because then it ceases to be emotionless and orderly. This is an ethical principle, but not a moral one.
Maybe I appear cold blooded here. I believe with emotion that humanitarian intervention is called for everywhere – not just the everywhere that happens to be most publicized that day – and the sooner we start acting like brothers and sisters maybe we can get somewhere. In my experience, I have simply observed that brothers and sisters do not agree on who gets what without a paternal system that shows no bias. I believe the only way to enact positive social change is through example. We outside Burma do not set a good example with our own hypocritical systems of governance that ironically proclaim to be capable of ‘humanitarian’ efforts. Sure there can be some economic and infrastructure development which we can assist, but I argue that this is not going to turn problems into lesser social problems. This post was about ways to show solidarity with the monks?; well how about ‘listening’ for starters?
27 Grasshopper // Oct 9, 2007 at 1:09 am
I ask you, how many people must be killed before it is considered “genocide” in your books? That’s not a rhetorical question, I really am curious.
I would say its not a specific number, but a conscious decision and action to do away with an entire demographic of a society.
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.