New Mandala

17 responses so far ↓

• 1 Stephen. // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:56 pm

  Bertil Lintner is probably the most informed critic of engagement with the SPDC and his point about incentives (in the form of material and social benefits) given by the senior leadership to ensure support within the Tatmadaw is quite relevant. This is similar to a point made by Nicholas in a previous post that “Command loyalty and solidarity remains a hallmark of the Burmese military system.”

  However, I still feel that it is important to recognise that these incentives are not being satisfactorily obtained at the lowest ranks of the military. I also think it is important to pay attention to dissent, corruption and diversity within the Tatmadaw and the civil bureaucracy; not because it signals any impending mutiny by a group of Young Turks (I don’t think it does), but because it highlights the opportunities and space that exist (however limited) to address human rights concerns at a local level within the current system.

• 2 Jotman // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:51 am

  “….There are no Young Turks lurking in the wings.”

  I thought Bertil Lintner’s next sentence was important:

  “Still, Burma’s only hope for the future is that some officers, young or old, will change their minds.”

  I explain why in this post:

  http://jotman.blogspot.com/2009/11/perestroika-for-burma.html

• 3 Susie Wong // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  I think the Obama administration’s new policy of engagement with Myanmar will help achieve democratic reform in the long run.

  1. International trade will reduce the dominant of the State. It will instead create the Market force inside Myanmar. When the standard of living across the country gets better due to the free flow of goods, the State then doesn’t have to be repressive.

  2. Regime change in Myanmar does not serve any strategic interests for the U.S. We must consider what action and inaction for this particular situations. Majority of countries in Southeast rule by the military or one political party. There is no reason for the U.S. to single out Myanmar. On the contrary, engagement with Myanmar serve the U.S. strategic interests in South and Southeast Asia region. More importantly, the presence of American companies will create jobs for Myanmar and American people.

  It’s time for change! It’s time for hope!

• 4 Hla Oo // Nov 5, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  As usual, notoriously-biased Bertil Lintner is wrong again about the Burmese Army. Not really surprising from a man who has married into a Shan rebel family and who has also made a very comfortable living out of writing anti-Burmese propaganda thinly disguised as front-line reporting.

  There are so many self-proclaimed Democracy Soldiers and Officers currently serving in the Burmese Armed Forces. They have grown up during Ne Win’s rule and bitterly experienced first-hand the outdated socialism and the brutal dictatorship.

  They have decisively rejected left-wing ideology and strongly believed in open-market economy. They have also harbored latent but very strong opinion against the current dictatorship.

  If there will be a democratic solution that will calm their genuine fears about the messy breakup of Union and the survival of their race and religion they will accept it and then march back into the barracks.

• 5 aiontay // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  Some people have more faith in the Market than I do. I think Moe Aung has correctly pointed out the regime has used international trade for its own advantage. The root reason Burma is not part of the international economic system is not due to sanctions, but this little thing called the Burmese Way to Socialism.

  So all these Democracy Soldiers and Officers were ensuring the survival of their race and religion when they were shooting monks a couple of years ago?

• 6 planB // Nov 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  aiontay
  Will do well to sequentially list the result of west useless active or passive interference in Myanmar and the present result will be more understandable yet absolutely intolerable.
  BWTS under BSPP is a result of west passive promotion or protection of Ne Win when anti RED was en vogue and Burma was defined by “the best Heroine” in the world. Ne Win make sure that the price of heroine never reach bottom because the result will be Junkies in the street of all major capitals in the tune of Billions of Medical,rehab and law enforcement expense. His anti communist stance also afforded him as regular in the Court Of St James. Famous and admired for his womanizing and betting in Royal Derbies.
  Fast forward to SPDC, the most vilified, threaten and sanctioned de facto government for the past 2 decades. Whose threaten survival from day #1 with Volunteer Mercenary, R2P, ICC and all slews of boycotts from CEO of every imaginable companies who will not know where Burma is or will not be able to Pick out Daw Aung San Suu Kyi form a line up even if she is the only female!
  SPDC ruthlessly developed the present GAS cash cow albeit at the expense of the citizenry, holding on to power.
  West passive promotion of Ne WIn therefore the BWTS.
  West active failed persecution of SPDC therefore RMTD and now BWTD.

• 7 planB // Nov 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  Susie Wong
  As much as I share your enthusiasm and ideal SPDC need to be approach with a “trust but verify” principles.
  SPDC knowing this might be their real last chance before the absolute “Hammering” by the west that will follow should know their N. Korea like fate. Not glamorous nor advantageous in any way.
  The west has show very little care for the citizenry with the past 20+ years unapologetic acts.
  Next round if DASSK is absent they will be as glad to see Myanmar absolutely isolated with China as it do or die master.
  A grim prospect.
  The west has not seem Burma beyond a Banana Republic of Drug aka Heroine.

• 8 Charles F. // Nov 6, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  Susie Wong,

  I don’t think that’s a Burmese beedie you’re toking on.
  Amazing that people outside of the U.S. see Obama as some sort of miracle worker who will bring peace and prosperity to the masses, albeit in socialist form.

  The U.S. engagement with Burma isn’t being done to stop the genocide of the ethnic groups. It’s being pushed by American business interests, eager to get a piece of the action. Look at the business people who supported Jim Webb in his senatorial run and you’ll see why he was so eager to suck up to the generals.
  The old adage, “Follow the money” was never truer.

• 9 planB // Nov 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  Charles F.
  So it is Ok for US to sanction some dictator for years carelessly, causing more harm to the citizenry with a N Korea like future in the making.
  But Not OK to possibly inject economic activity even at trickle down level will benefit the most vulnerable.
  ARe you concerned about US profit or SPDC ongoing abuses or the businesses making profit presently.
  These are not all mutual exclusive.
  AT the end of the day what will count right now is getting the benefit to lessen the sufferings of the most vulnerable 2º to failed approach.
  Even sucking to the General to effect these result is better at present than status quo.

• 10 Charles F. // Nov 6, 2009 at 5:13 pm

  Plan B,

  I would be the first to say that the U.S. sanctions against Burma were poorly thought out and executed.

  The correct approach would have been three pronged:

  1) Sanction the junta

  2) sabotage the economy

  3) Arm, equip and train the various ethnic groups.

  Injury to the populace would be short lived, as the SPDC would collapse.

  The U.S. was afraid of “Balkanizing” Burma, so #2 and 3 were never seriously implemented.

  It’s much too late for #3. Even if the various ethnic groups put aside their many differences, there aren’t enough of them under arms to make the slightest difference.
  Case in point is the KNLA – pushed up against the border, running low on arms and munitions with no place to buy more, harassed by the corrupt Thai govt and military.

  Ten years ago the U.S. could have made the difference. But now, not so much.

• 11 planB // Nov 7, 2009 at 3:20 am

  Charles F
  2)Sabotage the economy:
  WHat do you think the past US policy has been?
  Is there evidence historical or otherwise that make your point a credible solution beyond “I can do it so what”?
  Cuba, N. Korea as an example or future for Myanmar doesn’t sound right. Especially “NEVER” challenge thw west militarily. Do you know Myanmar is the most sanction Asian country next only to N KOrea?
  Do you know that restraint of commerce=declaration of war against a country in almost all western constitutions?
  “Injury to the populace would be short lived, as the SPDC would collapse.”
  SPDC presently an absolutely wanting entity for governing is acting under the sincere believe, that they are “the patriots” and is willing to go to “the bitter end”.
  Even Mr Litner here make a similar point albeit with facts, detail left out in his favor.
  You risk being accused of trivializing the “more suffering” that the citizenry has to endure.
  “Ten years ago the U.S. could have made the difference. But now, not so much.”
  A kind of negate your own all 3 points doesn’t it?
  SPDC may be a garden variety dictator but Myanmar is unique and need to be recognized and treated a such.

• 12 Totila // Nov 7, 2009 at 12:14 pm

  Sanctions debates (over a country now awash in fossil fuels and with opaque finances not saying where those billions go), engagement theatrics (very possibly again a “triumph of hope over experience”) and emotional ad hominem attacks on Mr. Lintner, probably the best-informed and most objective observer in the region…

  By all means talk to the SPDC and look for ways out of the morass, but seriously try to account for what most of the players’ non-altruistic agendas are. And if your only end result is—slightly kinder sergeants conducting borderland search and destroy sweeps; more competitive comparison shopping possibilities for armaments and luxury items (for the Tatmadaw and associated business cronies) plus shifting of the textile sweat factories back from Thailand (where Burma’s rich history of labor protection will work miracles) then what is the point?

• 13 planB // Nov 7, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  There is a general misconception about Myanmar that those from the west who has never even visited will assume with their western views of the world.
  Taking Turnell Viacary accusation of SPDC hoarding of the GAS wealth for example.
  1) Not counting $ spent on building Naypyidaw conveniently dismiss that as megalomaniac, astrological motivated act.
  2) Admitting Myanmar spent 35% of the GNP but not recognizing where the $ come from.
  3) Dismissing outright the infrastructure cost of Myanmar under SPDC as not part of capital expenditure because these are deemed self serving.
  These are but common tactic that Turnell and Vicary used and believed by most who zeal to vilify SPDC self serving interest over shadow common sense.
  Visit the country and proof to yourself.
  Yes SPDC is hoarding $ from one sided deal with Thailand and China for it own future.
  no SPDC is not the Turnell Vicary portrayal of sich evil entity ;
  “The ruling regime has little understanding of the dynamics of a market economy, and mistakes the building of roads, bridges, dams and other physical infrastructure as constituting ‘economic development’ in themselves. Burma’s state is almost wholly predatory, and is not so much parasitic of its host as all- consuming. If in other countries ruling regimes behave occasionally as racketeers in skimming a ‘cut’ from prosperous business, then Burma’s is more like a looter – destroying what it can neither create nor understand.”
  when does an economist dismiss so readily an infrastructure spending as irrelevant?
  The academic arrogance is so glaring.
  These are the same lies that is repeatedly used as truth.
  Visit the country and make up your own mind.
  As for the 3 points listed explain the west contributed to the Paranoia and Xenophobia that the SPDC is exhibiting ?
  Litner is no more expert than Turnell and Vicary until proven otherwise.

• 14 planB // Nov 8, 2009 at 11:51 am

  You be the JUDGE>
  There is a fundamental lack of “discretion’ in both Mr Litner and Turnell Vicary that nobody address for the past decades.
  Fact:
  1)Mr Litner is well known “Black listed” journalist among notorious SPDC list of banned western journalist.
  As such how can one not RECLUSE oneself from passing opinion on SPDC in anyway without appearing prejudicial? Let alone a (-) one?
  Mr Litner will know well he will be a suspect of being prejudice against SPDC BUrma expert or not.
  2) Mr Lintner got the “Burma Expert” compare to: (for example) Professor Michael Aung-Thwin.
  The only difference is Mr Litner is absolutely anti SPDC while Professor M. Aung-Thwin has the academic courage to give an alternate view that did not completely vilify SPDC even though he is proven not to be pro SPDC but rather pro Burmese people.
  The debates on engagement has come to a low point where:
  Anti SPDC is automatically defined as “expert” pro democracy’ and such without even a honest review.
  Any thing less than a complete anti SPDC is deemed unworthy of any legitimate consideration?

• 15 planB // Nov 9, 2009 at 4:23 am

  As I remember well in my “Communication 101″ class:
  1) Do not be prejudicial for any reason.
  a) Trust but Verify.
  2) Define the objective of each and every endeavor.
  3) Listen and see the message beyond the messenger.
  4) Never cut off any possible channel.
  Does it appear that Mr Litner article on Myanmar ever promote that basic aspects. As compared to Professor M Aung-Thwin or Derek Tonkin?
  How about Turnell Vicary as opposed to Andrew Selth

  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6479/is_3_30/ai_n31178685/

• 16 Hla Oo // Nov 9, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  Extremely polarized campaign, democracy for Burma now is. Discipline-flourishing-democracy claiming SPDC led extreme-nationalist army on one side and the ever-growing activist industry prospering in the West (some on Soros’s money, most on the American and some European tax payers’ money) with ASSK as their beacon of shining-light on the other.

  Even the academics are now divided as pro-engagement or pro-sanctions. Don’t mention journalists, they are also bitterly polarized. Extreme anti-Burman activist like Lintner or the rest who sympathized with the Burmese majority, not with rebellious rabble on the border, and are still trying to find the middle ground.

  Even the Australian govt doesn’t seem to be on the clear ground. They claimed to be pro-engagement with aids and so-called human rights trainings, at the same time followed the US lead by prohibiting the official contacts and financial dealings with the generals and their immediate families.

  In the meantime the long-suffering people of Burma are eating only lousy Nga-pi(cheap fish-paste) and rice, waiting for the fruits of democracy they have been promised by ASSK’s own father General Aung San since English left Burma in 1948 of last century, and miserably scratching their balls wondering what the bloody hell is going on?

• 17 planB // Nov 9, 2009 at 2:53 pm

  Hla Oo
  The very fact that using “Democracy” as the west understood must not even be in the present lexicon of the west approach.
  As the most vulnerable can not even afford reasonable quality Nga-Pi the furthest thing in their mind is “Democracy”.
  If you or any one care to define “Democracy” within the context of Myanmar’s future you will know that the west present approach is far from effecting that end.
  Egg on by article such as Litner who should know better about ‘a time for —” .
  AT best create apathy at worst induce why try attitude.

Leave a Comment