New Mandala readers who are not familiar with the work of the Transnational Institute’s Tom Kramer will find his relatively recent article on Burma’s ceasefires rewards a close reading. I have noticed that Tom also writes about Afghanistan. I can’t judge his Afghan analysis (I tip my hat to anyone who does field research there!) but I find his long-term focus on Burma ensures that he has something particularly punchy to say about mainland Southeast Asia. On the ceasefire front Tom’s policy prescription is a thought-provoking one:
Instead of isolating and demonising the cease-fire groups, the international community should engage with them involve them in discussions about political change in the country. Ethnic conflict must be resolved in order to bring about a lasting political solution in Burma. If ethnic minority needs and goals are not addressed peace and democracy are extremely unlikely to be achieved in Burma.
Will this ever happen? Or is it already underway?
3 responses so far ↓
1 planB // Nov 25, 2009 at 3:54 am
Tom Kramer
Veiled suggestion of assisting the “ethnic group” by the west is exactly how the present SPDC has come about through similar perceived west approach.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6479/is_3_30/ai_n31178685/
Playing a political chess game that he has no personal stake in is fine and dandy.
What if the west is so successful and SPDC became an armed marauding faction?
Tom Kramer is not promoting dialogue or engagement or even proof himself being knowledgeable about Myanmar.
His intent is clearly to bring down SPDC.
This has been done carelessly for 2 decades with the strengthen defiant SPDC.
Tom Kramer should do his home work on Myanmar again starting with understanding the culture.
2 Stephen. // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm
PlanB, having read Kramer’s Neither War Nor Peace, I do not think that he is suggesting (veiled or otherwise) military assistance to ceasefire groups to overthrow the SPDC. Rather, he is suggesting that “international actors… should actively engage with them, and involve them in discussions.” I believe his approach is coming from the understanding that many in the West have vilified ceasefire groups as being unprincipled, abusive and self-serving as compared with the KNU and others who have not agreed to ceasefires and who are deemed to be principled, pro-human rights etc.
Such engagement is also somewhat akin to Ashley South’s argument of supporting civil-society and development work in ceasefire areas:
I also believe that you have elsewhere argued that engagement (diplomatic, economic, humanitarian etc.), rather than vilification, is a crucial and ethical international approach to Burma/Myanmar.
3 planB // Nov 26, 2009 at 11:06 am
Stephen
Points well taken. One should read this well researched thoroughly objective article by My Kipen:
http://kukiforum.com/community-articles/articles/1645-us-engagement-must-understand-burmas-diversity.html
and realize how far off reality the west has strayed in using that as one of the whip against SPDC.
Tom Kramer might be helpful to the citizenry through his uncoupling of Humanitarian, Healthcare and Educational aids advocacy.
“I salute him for this bold effort and promise to challenge any detractors of this great advocacy to the hilt”.
That being sad TF made a serious and flawed assumption of the ethnic groups-”self serving” deals and imply that as negative giving KNU as an example who has continually opposed SPDC. KNU has no choice the others do under the do or die policy of Ne Win and now SPDC.
TF assumption again dangerously reflect the west flippant attitude of simplifying the ongoing Ethic strives.
KNU is the result of a failed remnant of of HRM attempt to destabilized Burma. The animosity b/t Kareni and Burman were initiated solely by HRM divide and rule tactic that went out of control with historical documented repeated atrocities from both sides.
TF is at best guilty of not looking at Myanmar history far back enough at worst justify the west useless careless application of sanction using now “ethnic” as a reason.
Again an absolutely BAD reason to use to justify their unjustifiable acts of last 2 decades!
I am afraid he build his advocacy on wrong premises.
As you know well the result of “a house built on sand as opposed to rock”
He should simply has said the sanctions that have been
inclusive of Education, Healthcare and Humanitarian aids to the targeted country is intolerable,Period.
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.