On the idiocy of Burma’s generals I think that we need to look beyond the simple fact of their continuance in power. True, they have played the Suu Kyi card so continually, so predictably and so effectively over the past 15+ years that it appears as though they’ve figured out how to manipulate their “obtuse, gullible or incompetent” diplomatic adversaries. However, the considerable tension within the country in the form of ‘everyday resistance’ by ordinary folk and low morality, dissent and desertion from within the Tatmadaw points to their incompetence in pursuing those aims which they themselves have defined (i.e. national unity and Tatmadaw unity, economic development and the military’s long-term political dominance). If they actually fed their frontline soldiers and tried to address the livelihood concerns of rural people, they could likely go a long way in reducing internal opposition to military rule. However, in their arrogance and unwillingness to listen and respond to criticism (even from within the armed forces) they have demonstrated their idiocy and ensured that prosperity will never come about for the majority of people in the country and widespread support for the military will never occur. Thus, their long-term staying power will remain shaky.

Single-minded pursuit of power, cunning, scheming and plotting, and staying ahead of the game with a strong survival instinct are the main characteristics on top of their principal asset – control of the military. Perhaps it’s the other way round – perhaps it’s their diplomatic adversaries that have proved rather obtuse, gullible or incompetent. It really is a no-brainer.

Despite the value of Kurlantzick pointing out that maybe the generals aren’t as stupid as they seem there are problems with some of the other points his analysis argues for. Namely, that Burma is becoming a totalitarian state and that there is a personality cult around Than Shwe.

These two concepts are linked in several articles Kurlantzick has put out (for example — http://tiny.cc/uZc1X or http://tiny.cc/cNOR0). Thus in he writes in the Boston Globe Sep 30 2007: ” Than Shwe has also begun dominating state-controlled television, which portrays him as a godlike figure blessing pagodas around the country. He has increased support for the Union Solidarity and Development Association, or USDA, a state-sponsored youth group reminiscent of Mussolini’s fascist youth organizations.” In the Washington Post of April 23 2006 he wrote: “Ten years ago, Burma was an authoritarian nation, but it lacked the strange personality cult of totalitarian states such as North Korea and Turkmenistan. At the time, Than Shwe was just one of three generals heading the ruling Burmese junta[.] …Than Shwe, 73, has pushed out rivals and consolidated power. Despite his shellacked hair, wide jowls and thick glasses, he has turned himself into an object of Dear Leader-like adoration.”

It might be debatable as to whether or not Burma is a totalitarian state. But TV coverage is not dominated by Than Shwe as an individual nor is there any personality cult around him. Sure, he and other Tatmadaw leaders are show “giving instructions” for irrigation projects, physic nut plantations and the like, as well as making donations to religious institutions. And Than Shwe’s picture hangs in the post office, but that is not a personality cult. And if a real sense of ideology, perhaps related to a personalization of leadership, is part of what makes up a totalitarian state, then Burma is not one. In fact, as unpopular as it may be to say it, the best know (and not undeserved) personality cult in Burma is that of the opposition leader.

The point being that the coverage of Burma is too often shallow and more intent of perpetuating a simplistic view of complex events. This is equally true in discussions of Burma’s foreign relations as it is in domestic politics.

And while they aren’t bright, they do have a criminal cunning. If you want good account of what I think they’re like, read the section on Ceausescu in chapter “Transylvanian Voices” in Roberrt Kaplan’s book “Balkan Ghosts”.

We can doubt it.

As for the “survival skills” again… it’s dictator 101 if I may say.

Kim Jong Ill seems much smarter.. This little guy understood very well that… building the bomb was the best life insurance and bargaining tool… even against the direct interests of China…

Now this is serious business and stamina (and “vista”).

On a pure rational level, he did the right thing. The smart thing to do. Exactly like Iran by the way (the discussion about bomb or not bomb is surreal… From a deterrence point of view, the bomb is the only way to go… the denegations of the mollahs are laughable. If they are rational, they need the bomb, absolutly not to wipe out Israel, but just to protect their regime).

But the burmese generals ?

Those guys are here because China needs them… here. And they are much more obedient…

We can argue though : it might be the… ultimate proof of political intelligence…