So, today I learned that Noam Chomsky has come out and endorsed the moral case for an armed uprising against the Burmese military government. And The Irrawaddy’s Kyaw Zwa Moe has added tentatively that:
Armed struggles have had an impact on Burmese politics in the past—positively and negatively.
If an armed uprising could be sustained—one which focused on the freedom of people—it could put pressure on the junta to some extent. It might even move the country’s political scenario into a more positive, productive path. If there is a moral justification for an armed uprising of suffering people as Chomsky said, the question is now: Is it time for a new armed uprising?
A number of regular New Mandala commentators, and here I am thinking of the Tom Blemings and Jack Slades of the world, have long made plain their public support for making war in Burma. Has the idea of a popular uprising, backed by force of arms, now come out for its moment in the July sun? Armed uprising; freedom of people; positive, productive path – what do readers think? Is speculation on this scenario unreasonable? Or is there something to be gained by asking “what if”?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Grasshopper // Jul 16, 2008 at 11:40 am
What do you mean come out for it’s moment in the Sun? The Sun and this moment must have been paused in some sort of pre-nuclear fallout flashback for the last 15 years? What if (first name basis) Noam was given more power? With ‘Chomsky policy’ there’d be moments in the Sun all the time and instead of denying his own hypocrisy, — sitting at MIT, writing books on the terrible actions of his country whilst profiting from them with his name on the front cover of his books, much larger than the title, in the regular Tom Clancy vogue — the Earth could still maintain a celestial course. Clearly the best thing that’s ever happened to Noam Chomsky is the USA being the global bully. He can be the rest of the English speaking world’s whistleblower. *Giant impact bold font* —Chomsky— came to a realisation!!! Grovel before his ominous intellect!! Believe utilitarianism is just!!!
As always, I think it’s up to many people in Burma, not just minority, or so-called minority liberation groups – to commit to an uprising. And to commit to it without the aid of foreign mercenaries paid with ‘virtue’. I’d support that, but I think we have to take non-intervention seriously because of the actions of our forefathers. Of course, it’s a difficult position to defend morally, because the West will be accused no consistency when we demand it from developing nations as though we are not developing ourselves.. ie – not helping when the chips are down, and meddling when there were fewer problems in the 50’s, but I believe more strongly, that the act of national self-determination to be of greater importance to Burma’s future sustained success because it would come without subservience or reliance on anyone but those in Burma. Then, perhaps, the blame would stop, there’d be fewer victims and we can all be a happy liberal family. But, even if people start suggesting to people in Burma that their time has come, we’ll be waiting a long time for enough ridiculously expensive fuel to seep into the molotov cocktails located in the average citizens pscyche.
2 Stephen // Jul 17, 2008 at 12:41 pm
That’s it, armed struggle in Burma. What a novel idea. Why has no one in the country ever thought of this option before?
3 Moe Aung // Jul 18, 2008 at 8:02 am
Are we for or against armed struggle? Are we for or against violence? At least the history of the West in this regard is nothing if not consistent. They have consistently applied double standards based on time-honoured self- interest. If they don’t have a hand in it, they will once things begin to look like going the ‘wrong’ way i’e. not to their advantage or decidedly against their world order.
As for the Burmese including the nationalities, it’s never been ruled out, and it has in practice been a continuation of politics by other means or rather the consequences of denial by the state of a political solution. Desperate times call for desperate measures and people have been driven to utter desperation often enough it’s hardly surprising the civil war is as old as modern independent Burma. If we see another armed uprising in urban areas or a renewed and reinvigorated civil war, then the causation of renewed violence rests with the state and the people will only be exercising their right to resist.
Westerners should realise it’s people like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Naomi Klein who contribute to their projected image of a free and fair society that also has a place however limited for a few dissenting voices and for those who do not put narrow national interests above all else taking it for granted it’s synonymous with the interests of the whole of mankind.
4 Grasshopper // Jul 18, 2008 at 11:12 am
Michael Moore and Naomi Klein are hacks that have diluted the blood supply of bleeding hearts. Noam Chomsky is a public intellectual that lives in a time when the Western public is diluted with anti-market markets. He can’t do anything but blow his whistle on a large scale in an overly marketed fashion which, again, dilutes everything, preventing real change because he is someone who people talk about over lattes – briefly expressing guilt about their economy costing lives abroad. Other than his large frame of reference, nothing really seperates him from the countless other academics who also stand for reason.
They are not dissenting voices because they are mainstream, Moe Aung – they are a part of the problem. As soon as you have discussed your work on a breakfast TV show, you are finished. As I found recently, when I used the word deforestation I had been sucked into it, even though I usually reject terms like ‘terrorism’ or ‘globalisation’. I’m clearly still in it’s clutches because I am ranting about it.
The West’s self interest is exactly that, and exactly why we should not involve ourselves with Myanmar because it is against our self interest — that is if we are truly liberal, which we are not and why we have our consistent u-turns you mention.
Burma should have it’s own consistent self-interest that we Westerners cum-liberals can follow too don’t you think? I don’t see how anyone sitting at a desk and chair in MIT being interviewed by an American history student can start having a greater vested interest in Burma/Myanmar than the comfort of their immediate surroundings.
I don’t and that’s why I’m sitting at a desk and chair with a laptop, and not out in the Karen jungles being a soldier of ‘virtue.’ Maybe real Karen soldiers are not actually there at all, making this post calling for an uprising necessary!
Lattes with Noam. I’d buy that book and read it on an island in the Mergui archipellago while listening to the world service as the more just, equitable society takes root in the fires of revolution!
5 Hla Oo // Jul 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Armed struggle? Some armchair warrior from America is calling for armed rebellion against that huge Army whose existence has been simply because of that nasty civil war raging since 1948. He might have watched latest Rambo movie too many times!
We poor Burmese have been fighting wars for how long, we don’t even remember now. First, three Anglo-Burmese Wars, then many rebellions against British, then against Japanese Imperial Army during Second World War, and now long-going civil war against communists and ethnic rebellions.
My great-grand father, my grand father, then my father, and I, men of all four successive generations, fought all in theses brutal wars and the only reason my son is not fighting a war now is he was born in Australia. Violence will cause more violence and that vicious cycle will never end if we still want more blood of Burmese.
6 Moe Aung // Jul 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm
You said it yourself, Grasshopper. Calling oneself a liberal, or anything else for that matter, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. And American self-interest has always veered between parochialism/protectionism/isolationism and interventionism/free trade imperialism. Just like their history of liberal reforms and conservative backlash in cycles.
Mainstream you said and yet in the same breath it’s over with the breakfast show. Armchair generals and revolutionaries you see plenty of particularly in the Internet era, but Chomsky is important if you agree that analysis and ideas are important, checks and balances are important. What you or I think of him and the rest is a matter of opinion.
Our dear leaders anywhere in the world don’t pick up a rifle themselves, or their offspring by and large for that matter, but send the sons and daughters of ordinary people to fight their wars like Messrs Bush and Blair. And the consequences of the wars are socialised whereas the rewards may be reaped only by the few. If the people win through in a just war against oppression or foreign occupation then we are all likely to benefit.
I sympathise with Hla Oo but you have to lay the lion’s share of the blame for the civil war since independence at the door of the Socialist government of U Nu and their counterparts in the military who later grabbed power for themselves in the name of the Union. I couldn’t be more emphatic that violence/terrorism on the part of the state is no way to solve legitimate political grievances. As someone said before, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and we’ll all be blind and toothless in the end.
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.