Burma analyst Andrew Selth has a very useful essay on Aung San Suu Kyi’s current predicament and the John Yettaw aquatic intrusion. He makes the point that, in Burma, “given the choice between conspiracy and cock-up, it is usually safer to opt for the cock-up”. His insights are well worth reading in full. And Selth has even thrown in a bonus picture from high up in Traders Hotel (here on WikiMapia) to sweeten the deal.
Andrew Selth on conspiracies and cock-ups
May 26th, 2009 by Nicholas Farrelly · 11 Comments
Tags: Aung San Suu Kyi · Burma · Than Shwe
11 responses so far ↓
1 Susie Wong // May 26, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Aung San Suu Kyi’s father collaborated with Japan in bringing independence of Burma from the British colonial power. Aung San Suu Kyi herself studied at Kyoto University. I think we need to understand those links to her problem. Looking at the problem of democracy issue alone will make us miss the main point of Burma’s national security concern. I hope to see experts in Burma’s affair come up with the work that could combine all three levels of analysis: international, state, and individual, because the geo-strategic of Burma to the Indian Ocean is extremely important with what is going on in South Asia at the moment.
Improved understanding of Burma’s political crisis depends in part on Great Powers’ more probing analysis of the post 9/11 strategic landscape. I don’t think it is wise to impose economic sanctions when one doesn’t even understand the current strategic issue of the Asia Pacific. Just like any other countries, Burma cannot afford to risk her national security. The situation in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan demands Great Powers to make a correct move. Democratization cannot come at the expense of national security.
2 antipadshist // May 26, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I agree !
here is some reference to prove that :
“In Burma, China’s Presence Grows“
US, UK and other Western countries were silly to impose those scantions. it only benefited China, as well as India and Thailand. I have suspected that China supports Burma against West, but today reading this article I’ve just realized how big the influence is –
province of China !
perhaps Thailand soon will also become such (or already is ?)
3 tom // May 27, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sorry I don’t see what you’re getting at here. How does this affect “her problem”? I’d be interested to hear how you define her problem.
I agree about China’s influence in Myanmar though. Western governments have played into their hands, to a degree. I wouldn’t go as far to say “province of China” though – they might play a large role financially in some areas, but you only have to go to Mandalay to find the average Burmese person’s resentment to China’s presence there (although they’re happy to ride around on motorbikes imported from China, as the article pointed out). China’s cultural impact is still pretty small, relatively, I believe.
4 Susie Wong // May 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Myanmar, a dominant country in Southeast Asia with her rich heritage, maneuvers its foreign policy best served her national interests. The special relationship between Burma and China contributes to the stability of the Asia-Pacific, similar to the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States that has been contributing to the international stability of the world at large.
China’s power transition with its shifts in capabilities as its emergence on to the world stage has disrupted and frustrated the Hegemonic Challengers’ strategic objectives. In other words, while the Hegemon (the U.S.) is in relative decline in its wealth (the current U.S. economic troubles), and its military preoccupies in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; China’s capability shifts and power transition, has made the Hegemonic Challengers hesitate in its timing of war.
History has taught us over and over that the collective of small states can never be able to resist Great Powers conquest. During the World War II, the swift conquest of Southeast Asia by Japan was indisputable. The emergence of China is not only critical to the security of Southeast Asia, but paramount to the international stability of the Pacific and the Atlantic because only Great Powers can resist Great Powers.
5 tom // May 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I would say most governments maneuvre their foreign policy to best serve their national interests. It’s their job, really. It’s just that Myanmar’s “government” generally doesn’t act on behalf of the nation but rather in their own best interests – holding onto power and its associated benefits.
In fact, Myanmar’s foreign policy has actually been against the country’s national interests, in my opinion, as it has further isolated it from the West, and made it increasingly reliant on Asian neighbours alone.
Admittedly, there are certainly elements of the military that see themselves as the protectors of a country – one that is not just there to be used and abused.
Protecting from what, I’m not so sure. The risk of a partial breakup of the country is real, I suppose, given the wishes of the insurgent groups and the minority groups they represent. There have been times in the past, post-independence, when this has been a real possibility, even likely.
But how real is the threat of foreign invasion? (Dr Selth has produced an interesting article on this.) I don’t think that such a threat exists today, so I don’t see your comment – “The emergence of China is … critical to the security of Southeast Asia” – as being particularly relevant to Myanmar, even if it is to some other countries.
Also, you said Japan’s conquest of Southeast Asia was indisputable. That’s true. But it wasn’t taking over a collective of small states, rather the remnants of two colonial empires (British and French) with the help of local elements, at least in Myanmar and Malaysia (I’m not so sure about other countries).
All this is a bit off topic I guess but there you go.
6 antipadshist // May 27, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@tom #3
well, you may disagree of course. but that is merely your own opinion, I guess outsider’s – right?
the quote provided was of LOCAL people – what they think and feel, based on their own personal experience living in their country. which I think you would agree is different.
7 tom // May 27, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Yeah, point taken, the opinion of foreigners is often very different from the way locals see things (I do live in Myanmar but I guess “outsider” still applies). That’s one of the main reasons why forums like New Mandala are important.
And, I think we actually agree on more than it appears. I don’t necessarily agree with sanctions and you are right that these have played into China’s hands.
8 Stephen // May 29, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Apparently, the conspiracy theories have not died down. In an article yesterday in The Irrawaddy, David Paquette states that “Speculation that Yettaw had in fact been allowed to enter Suu Kyi’s home by security personnel has been fueled by a statement from a Rangoon taxi driver”
9 antipadshist // May 30, 2009 at 10:16 am
Thailand is “enabler” of Burmese junta.
read also curious article :
somehow I always get the feeling that something is quite fishy there with Aung San Suu Kyi, or not as simple as Western media presents it.
another point is: Obama would better first take care of his own soldiers RAPING (not only women but men and kids too), torturing and killing people in Iraq before trtying to lecture someone else on “human rights”.
meanwhile Thais have already taken care of their own HR abuse cases, and I guess have a clean consience in lecturing Burmese junta: Court clears military in Tak Bai case
10 antipadshist // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:20 am
Kavi on nation today :
well, of course it is Kavi’s own opinion and he is well known for his such “opinions”. however the issue is pretty obvious – surely both Thailand and China are involved in Burma and rival for influence there.
11 Stephen // Jun 8, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Regarding international media attention on the Yettaw incident/Su Kyi trial, a recent commentary by the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) is relevant. And coming as it did last week, before the recent exodus of over 3,000 Karen refugees to Thailand over the past few days, the commentary’s argument seems apt.
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.