They’ve done it just with swords and slingshots before, and word is some monks have been collecting slingshots again in case of another confrontation. That’s where they could do with some help in acquiring arms to level the playing field , or ideally at this juncture a split in the army leading to open rebellion. And they need good leaders who will not shy away pleading non-violence from such a confrontation, not of their own making, because they will fight win or lose. It’s in their nature, leaders or no. Some are bound to call it foolish adventurism that can only end in defeat, but how do we stop them, I mean the junta, from carrying on regardless violating human rights and cracking down at will?

There was talk of some kind of power-sharing with Khin Nyunt at the time, and that sealed his fate. Some people including Westerners still talk about KN making a comeback as he seemed like a Burmese de Klerk. Well, good luck to them. Nobody wants unnecessary bloodshed except psychos.

Nonetheless with your clear statements identifying the military government as the crux of the problem (warlordism writ large) and stressing the need to understand that “dialogue” has its limitations (when its not an excuse for avoiding something stronger or admitting failure) and that stronger forms of pressure and physical resistance can be well understandable, I do strongly agree.

It’s a forlorn hope on the part of those totally committed to non-violence regardless of whom or what they are dealing with that more dialogue would get us somewhere after so many failed attempts or non-attempts. You are after all expecting the leopard to change its spots.

Sorry for being such a spoil sport but haven’t we tried dialogue to death?
I’m not against more dialogue as such, make it effective by all means, only please don’t close off other options and deny yourselves the right to resist. There’ll be little sympathy for wringing your hands in despair ad nauseum.

I couldn’t agree more regarding outside do-gooders and dissident groups abroad who would have Rangoon bombed or invaded since they themselves are out of harm’s way. I can’t imagine them not having friends and families on whom the bombs would rain down in the event. It struck me however that Naypyidaw could be an attractive and effective target as a one off surgical strike for most Burmese including much of the army. Yes, a spark can start a wildfire, and at the risk of repeating myself the people will fight their own battles.

Totila, another palace coup, another hardliner coming to power will make any gains made by “constructive engagement” diluted or null and void. It’s heartening over the recent decades that separatist goals have been put on the backburner by most minority groups despite some experts talking up the prospect of civil war post-junta, as if it hadn’t been going on for the last 60 years!

I’ve mentioned in another thread the real risk of the hard learned lessons of the civil war, particularly the heavy cost of fragmentation and disunity in challenging the military dictatorship, being lost to the younger generations that gave grown up with bitterness and resentment in refugee camps along the border as in Palestine. Separatist ambitions can be rekindled to the detriment of the more realistic and pragmatic goal of self-determination in a federal union which has gained currency in recent times.

Cambodia’s Pol Pot regime was brought down by Vietnam, not the US. You have conveniently forgotten the South Korean people’s own struggle culminating in the Resistance of June 1987 which proved to be the beginning of the end for totalitarian rule. Again in Indonesia in 1998, it was internal contradictions in the ruling junta and popular struggle and protest that brought down Suharto. Eurocentric thinking is a common affliction in a Western dominated world, both East and West.

I don’t wish to repeat the importance of Burma’s neighbours in refusing to isolate the junta. If there is the political will the generals can import any amount of goods, services and technology for the public, not just to enrich themselves, their families and their cronies. There just isn’t. They have always gone abroad to receive medical treatment for themselves and for their families, not to mention shopping. The ridiculous prices of old used cars and cell phones in Burma are good examples of man-made distortions and aberrations. It’s not because of isolation, it’s because of the generals. So here I repeat it’s the generals that keep the country down, not outsiders despite their cockups and cackhanded approach.

“Most of us would agree that constructive engagement by ASEAN has only played into the hands of the junta so far,…. [the junta may be here for a long time to come because of China, may be a fact we just have to accept]

But so long as the class relationship between the rulers and the ruled remains unchanged, and given the manifest intransigence on the part of the junta, a consensus of constructive engagement will prove more beneficial to the junta in recognising its legitimacy and contributing to its coffers.” [...and they are likely to be there for a long time, whether we like it or not, geopolitics....]

Moe Aung, there is no real analysis here. There is no comparison with other historical situations and trajectories in other states. With feasible futures and historical trajectories for Burma.

Do you think that other states have not had dictators or authoritarian rulers? The Olympics South Korea 1988 was a big factor in getting rid of the oppressive regime there and this consisted of a major engagement with the outside world.

Since 1962 Burma has hardly made the first step. First, from a policy of isolation that originated within the country, the Burmese Way to Socialism, but also from the country’s strategic unimportance compared to Vietnam. Since 1988 isolation has been a product of western countries not willing to engage with it in any way. There has often not even been an American ambassador, though I was once in the French class at Pyinthi Kyaung on Pyi Lan given by the American ambassador’s wife. I guess that was a form of engagement.

You cannot just say someone has committed a “fallacy.” You must prove it with evidence and argument.

Moe Aung: “…although I freely acknowledge that for some of us economic prosperity may be the end all and be all.”

Prosperity buys medicine, hospitals, and skilled doctors so that your family members do not die like dogs. One critical juncture in my life came when I decided to move my mother in law from a government hospital that couldn’t even diagnose kidney failure and cancer to a private hospital, which eventually consumed every last penny.

The fact that so many people suffer in hospitals is because the economy is not connected up with the outside world, so medicine and knowledge, know how, doesn’t come in. At this stage of the game, the junta is irrelevant. After 40 years it still can’t be displaced and China will ensure that, geopolitically. Tough fact of life.

Admittedly a favourable international situation is desirable for domestic struggles to succeed, and on occasion intervention may be a catalyst to trigger change for better or for worse. A decisive and more important factor however is the domestic situation itself when it’s ripe for change. This in turn depends on the balance of forces which here in the case of Burma is overwhelmingly in favour of the regime at this juncture. Just how do you negotiate or reconcile with someone holding a gun to your head?

Don’s and your frustration with the status quo I’m bound to say is merely a fraction of what the peoples of Burma feel. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that the balance cannot change in due course despite such impossible odds. Experts may yet be taken by surprise once again.

Most of us would agree that constructive engagement by ASEAN has only played into the hands of the junta so far, and of course it is a symbiotic relationship between the ruling elites. Granted there is some trickle-down to the populace in terms of economic benefit. Sanctions by the same token deprive the people of this benefit but both the regime and the states concerned also miss out on markets and profits. One group of states throws a lifeline to the regime and another takes a moral stand. Not a complete disaster methinks and both have their use.

But so long as the class relationship between the rulers and the ruled remains unchanged, and given the manifest intransigence on the part of the junta, a consensus of constructive engagement will prove more beneficial to the junta in recognising its legitimacy and contributing to its coffers. India’s change of policy towards Burma competing with China for their mutual neighbour’s resources and strategic and military cooperation is a case in point.

Totalitarian rule and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive, and have little effect on the class nature of society. We only need to look at China where Communist totalitarian rule can implement capitalist policy so effectively enjoying the absence of checks and balances. Even Singapore is a de facto one-party state. So the risk of this dichotomy between democracy and human rights on one hand and economic development on the other should not be overlooked, although I freely acknowledge that for some of us economic prosperity may be the end all and be all.