Over at The Irrawaddy, Dave Mathieson has a nice review of two new pieces of research that deal, in their own ways, with the “balkanization” of Burma. If the issue interests you in the slightest I would suggest you check out this piece from Human Right Watch’s Man in Chiang Mai. He provides a helpful and cogent summary of the situation in Burma’s far-flung corners, and gives readers much food for thought in a punchy conclusion.
“Balkanization” and Burma’s tragedies
May 2nd, 2008 by Nicholas Farrelly · 4 Comments
Tags: Burma
4 responses so far ↓
1 jonfernquest // May 2, 2008 at 2:58 am
The books reviewed are all fine books that provide needed background information….but
“The political landscape described by the authors benefits unscrupulous investors, and its picture of chaos, low-intensity war and desperate poverty suits the plunderers, which is why Burma’s covetous neighbors—China, Thailand and India—and many investors from Russia and Singapore like what they see.”
“Unscrupulous, plunderers suited by extreme poverty, covetous neighbors”?
Right, it’s best not to do business with a poor country and turn all their people into even poorer migrant labourer slaves in other countries (cf. earlier shrimp report) ?!?!?
Economic sanctions causes textile mills to close down, causes females to seek employment elsewhere, brothels, migrant labourers, etc, etc..
If Asia itself has largely ended poverty, it has done so through its own economic policies and wisdom, not through paternalistic tutoring by by the US government, George Soros, or Australian human rights “experts.”
It is democratic politics in Thailand, Malaysia, China, that says do business with Burma, even in the face of bullying by the American government to act against this democratic outcome.
It will be a nice day indeed when writing on Burma is done solely by rigorous analysts like the authors of these reports, rather than the severely challenged human rights “experts” who really need the reports.
2 aiontay // May 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“Unscrupulous, plunderers suited by extreme poverty”? Sounds like a pretty good description of the curremt regime, doesn’t it?
Yeah, the US is pretty paternalisitic, but geez my family has know that since at least 1837, if not earlier. So what else is new?
Who actually controls the economy in Burma? It’s the “Maha Bandoola insects”, not George Soros.
3 Stephen // May 2, 2008 at 2:27 pm
“It is democratic politics in Thailand, Malaysia, China, that says do business with Burma“, Democratic politics? Are these the same democratic politics that say human rights arguments are neo-colonial attempts to undermine peace and prosperity and threaten the “non-disintegration of the Union, non-disintegration of national solidarity and perpetuation of sovereignty” and that claim Asian values prefer submissive populations and unaccountable paternalistic rulers? Or perhaps it’s elite politics that say do business with Burma. As (Philipino) Waldon Bello so eloquently put it, “‘When I first came across Lee’s list of supposed Asian values, I saw values that were not so much specific to Asian culture but good British upper class Tory values dear to threatened elites everywhere.” When “writing on Burma is done solely by rigorous analysts like the authors of these reports” and human rights activists and local (non-elite) people have been effectively silenced it will be a sad day for the Asian poor who, despite the claim that “Asia itself has largely ended poverty” nevertheless still exist in their hundreds of millions. I should tell that family on my street who get by on what they can scavenge and sell from the rubbish bin not to worry since their poverty has “largely” ended.
4 jonfernquest // May 2, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Monitoring human rights and pressing for changes is a valuable activity but it doesn’t put food on the table.
Arrogantly consigning whole countries and regions to a category of economic parasites, is clueless and racist.
The problem with many human rights advocates is that they think they are the only show in town.
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.