I would say its not a specific number, but a conscious decision and action to do away with an entire demographic of a society.

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?

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?

“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.

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?

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! ^_^

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.

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!

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!