Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Chinks in the armor

By 26 Comments

As I said, Burma is a pretty clear case.  Nobel Laureate Aum Sun Suu Kyi was leader of the National League of Democracy, which won democratic elections in 1989 (while she was in jail).  The military ignored the elections, and has ruled Burma/Myanmar with an iron fist.  She has spent much of her life in home detention.

This summer, protests spearheaded by Buddhist monks began in response to price control changes.  The monks are politically active, yet sympathetic figures in much of Southeast Asia.  In a style reminiscent of the Tianenmen protests, the scope and size of the protests has grown steadily. The latest manifestation had 20,000 people, and yesterday was permitted to visit Suu Kyi.  These don’t look like they’re going to go away soon without stringent (read: bloody) countermeasures from the junta.  The junta is somewhat isolated internationally, but still dependent on its neighbors for trade, and tourism is a notable contribution to the economy.  Here’s hoping they pack it up.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s falling apart.  I mean, it’s always falling apart, but right now more than usual.  President Pervez Musharraf is one of the wiliest folks in global government today, but you can only keep so many balls in the air.  In 1999, he grabbed control of the country for democratically elected Nawaz Sharif, who fled the country before he could be arrested.  Musharraf ha survive about 6 assassination attempts, and has been a okay ally on the fight in Afghanistan.  Given how roiling his country is, Musharraf has taken some chances offering some support to efforts in Eastern Afghanistan.

The most recent trouble began when he ticked off the head of the Supreme Court, which has regularly begun ruling against him.  Those rulings have legally cleared the way for former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to return. (Sharif did return, only to be deported within 90 minutes by the regime.) Bhutto keeps prevaricating about an alliance with Musharraf.  This has served to rile up their heretofore dormant supporters.  This in conjunction with ongoing mosque-based troubles in major cities, and new misbehavior on the part of the tribes of Waziristan (OBL’s last known co-ordinates) are becoming increasingly petulant.  There was a suicide attack on the army there yesterday.

Though nobody would be sorry to see the Burmese junta go, I’m not sure about seeing Musharraf leave.  I’ve never been thrilled with the concept of “our strongman”, but a democratic election in Pakistan would most likely result in a Islamist government — democratic suicide, if you will.  Sharif is not a strong man, Bhutto even weaker (her popularity is deeply rooted in that of her late father, a former prime minister).  Would either of them be able to hold off Musharraf’s cronies in the military, and Islamists among the population?

(PS: You will not find President Mahmoud Amahdinejad of Iran in the poll below.  Anybody who sees Amhadinejad as anything other than a glorified spokesperson — think the Queen of England — is ignorant of Iranian politics and probably shouldn’t talk about them.)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m actually quite serious.  None of the other people are trying to run around the world damaging things like a bull in a china shop.  As far as I can tell, none of the other leaders that you mention are particularly interested in doing anything similar.

    <

    p>
    I’ve read reports of the recent uprisings in Myanmar in the press here in Germany, and the problems in Pakistan were in American press before we came over to Germany in mid-July.

    <

    p>
    Your point that free democratic elections in Pakistan might lead to an Islamist government are well taken: one point I’ve made elsewhere is that, people should be careful what you wish for (democratic elections) because it might come back to haunt them. 

    • Any look at history shows that Great Powers have done the most damage when they are run by unwise leaders (GWB).  This is why the UN is a success–as bad as things might have been with the Cold War (and the dirty little wars), the UN prevented a repeat of World Wars One and Two, in which great powers launched all their ammunition at each other. 

    • George W. Bush would have to be atop of the list if you consider the impact on the world.  Sure, some of these tinhorn dictators and petty tyrants can make things very miserable for their nation and region, but GWB has just made things worse on a global basis. 

    • My post was directed largely at domestic conditions.  In terms of world impact, even a mildly incompetent American President can really wreak havoc (Hoover comes to mind) because of the whole “America sneezes, world gets the flu” type of thing.  Bush is incompetent, but Americans aren’t eating grass to survive.

      <

      p>
      If we get to issues of scale, then it will always be a 3-way race between the leaders of the US, China, and India. China and India is destroying the environmental balance of Asia, so where do their leaders fit in?  How do you weigh the brutalization of Xinjiang and a policy of forced abortion on 1.2 billion people?  What about the billion Indians suffering, having their xenophobia exploited by the BJP?  Iraq is very dramatic, but it’s approximate to the seething chaos of Eastern India, which we never read about.  This is always a tough exercise.

  2. Very well-written, interesting, and informative. I haven’t been paying any attention to Burma and the U.S. hasn’t been paying enough attention to Pakistan.

    <

    p>
    Three questions on Pakistan.

    1. Islamists in Pakistan I haven’t heard of any popular Islamist leaders in Pakistan. Sharif and Bhutto are the only ones I hear about. Is the Punjab dense with Islamists or is it more on the west side of the country where Pashto is spoken?
    2. Rivalry with India How volatile are relations with India now? Is the nuclear risk high, low, medium?
    3. Continued military rule There is some word that Musharraf might not change his mind about elections and prevent them. What might happen in that case?

    • Musharraf’s negotiations with Bhutto are stuck on the point of his remaining at the head of the army.  Regardless, even if he steps down he has that ready power base.  He would be fair in thinking that after a bit of chaos, the Pakistani elite would want him back — similar to what happened to President Obasanjo in Nigeria. Considering 30 opposition leaders were arrested this week in Pakistan, I can’t see the elections being truly “free and fair”.  I’d currently expect him to get some minor functionaries from Sharif’s parties, push them to the limelight, and pretend they are running against him. 

      <

      p>
      From what I have read, things are doing okay with India right now, mainly because neither country really has much interest in confrontation.  Given who loose government control is in both nations, I can’t imagine much desire for conflict.  Both have a lot more to worry about from China and the US.

  3. Good post.  I didn’t know about the Burma protests. 

    <

    p>
    I’m surprised you believe Ahmadinejad is just a spokesman.  Perhaps once upon a time. 

    <

    p>
    I’d agree that Ahmadinejad not the most powerful person in Iran.  That’s Khamenei, and with the other mullahs, it remains a theocracy.

    <

    p>
    But I do think he’s perhaps the second most powerful individual. 

    <

    p>
    Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria sees him as a central player. 

    <

    p>

    One man who is greatly enjoying being the subject of this outsize portraiture is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    He has gone from being an obscure and not-so-powerful politician — Iran is a theocracy, remember, so the mullahs are ultimately in control — to a central player in the Middle East simply by goading the United States and watching Washington take the bait.

    By turning him into enemy No. 1, by reacting to every outlandish statement he makes, the Bush administration has given him far more attention than he deserves.

    And so now he writes letters to Bush, offers to debate him and prances about in the global spotlight provided by American attention.

    Ahmadinejad strikes me as less a messianic madman and more a radical populist, an Iranian Huey Long. He has outflanked the mullahs on the right on nuclear policy, pushing for a more confrontationist approach toward Washington. He has outflanked them on the left on women’s rights, arguing against some of the prohibitions women face. (He wants them to be able to attend soccer matches.)

    • …Ahmadinejad is merely a front man.

      <

      p>
      As far as I have been able to tell, Zakaria is woefully ill-informed, like Friedman of the NYTimes.  Zak is glib, but his reporting is worthless.

    • I agree with Zakaria that Ahmadinejad is more useful now than ever, mainly because Bush* is hyping him that way.  However, he has no real competences within the government.  The Iranian government structure is quite odd, and this is what the Constitution has to say about the office of president:

      <

      p>

      Article 113: The President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership.

      Article 122:
      The President, within the limits of his powers and duties, which he has by virtue of this Constitution or other laws, is responsible to the people, the Leader and the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

      <

      p>
      I grant that they probably fudge a lot of the constitution in Iran, but this strikes me that the Leader’s shoeshine boy has more influence than the President.  His only exclusive competences are awarding decorations and appointing ambassadors.

      <

      p>
      * As well as Nicholas Sarkozy, who’s already acting like a real jerkoff.  Good call on that one, France.

  4. Is one that I’ve been trying to follow as closely as possible for the past few weeks. The BBC, not surprisingly, has had very good coverage,  as has the Malaysia-based Buddhist Channel web site.

    <

    p>
    It’s a bit nerve-wracking at the moment as there are rumors that the Burmese government is trying to infiltrate the the monks, to foment violence and provide an excuse for a military crackdown on the protesters.

    <

    p>
    While prostestors were allowed to march past the residence of Aung San Suu Kyi on Saturday, the military prevented a repeat performance today by shutting off access to the street.

    <

    p>
    For the moment a continued stand-off seems likely, as the monks and their lay supporters continue to gain political momentum. I am a bit worried that the involvement of larger numbers of lay protestors may embolden the government to use force, which they would be reluctant to use against the monks alone.

    <

    p>
    Finally, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship issued the following statement on Thursday:

    <

    p>

    For the last week, thousands of Burmese monks have marched against the repressive Burmese military regime in cities across that nation. This is the largest public demonstration against the junta in nearly 20 years. As the Alliance of All Burmese Buddhist Monks march, chant, and overturn their almsbowls (patam nikkujjana kamma), refusing to accept donations from members of the military regime, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship offers our full support and solidarity.

    Burma has lived under direct social and political repression for nearly 20 years, since the democracy uprisings of 1988. The army’s answer to the people’s yearning for freedom in 1988 was the killing of thousands of demonstrators. This repression has in no way abated over the years, bringing with it ethnic cleansing of minority groups, corruption, forced labor, and widespread poverty.

    On Tuesday, September 18, 2007, monks demonstrated in cities across Burma (see news story at bottom of this page). In Sittwe, west of Rangoon, they faced tear gas and gunfire before dispersing. According to reports from exile groups in Thailand, some monks were beaten and arrested. On Wednesday, September 19, more than a 1000 monks in Rangoon marched and briefly occupied the Sule Pagoda in the center of the city, after being barred from the famous Shwedagon Pagoda.

    Day by day, we closely follow this news from Burma. These non-violent demonstrations by Buddhist monks  are expressions of compassion at a time when the already impoverished nation is staggering under August’s government mandated price hikes. Burma’s monks have historically used techniques on non-violence against oppression. They initiated civil disobedience against British colonialists. They were visible and central in the movement of 1988. In 1990, the sangha declared patam nikkujjana kamma and the government crackdown saw more than 130 monasteries raided, and at least 300 monks forcibly disrobed, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured.  As truly engaged Buddhists, Burma’s monks have earned the trust and respect of their nation. Today, they are leading the way to democracy and human rights.

    Win Min, a Thai-based Burmese analyst, said the generals were cautious about stirring a public backlash if they acted against the clergy. “It’s a dilemma for the junta. If they don’t crack down on protests by monks, more people will join protests. But if they do, it could trigger massive public outrage against the government,” he said.

    We call on all our friends in the international Buddhist community support Burma’s monks as they take a stand for liberation and the end of military rule in this suffering land. We urge Burma’s leaders to meet the monks, and all the millions yearning for freedom with open eyes and ears, and with all weapons set aside. Then Burma will again find its rightful place as a beacon of freedom and dhamma in the world.

    Earthlyn Manuel, executive director
    and
    Rev. Hozan Alan Senauke, associate director
    on behalf of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship community

    For updates and current information see: http://www.campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/

    Sept 21 BBC story: Burma Monks Issue Defiant Message

    See video of the monks marching here: http://youtube.com/w…

    <

    p>

    • September is a good time for protests, as university students are again together, and aren’t weighed under by their studies.  The correlation between academic cycles and protests is worth noticing (protests also spike during exam time).

      <

      p>
      I agree that lay involvement in the protests could bring this crisis to a head.  The actions of a junta in the face of mass protest is unpredictable, be it the brief Soviet coup or the Romanian despotism.  Tianenmen only became a problem in Chinese eyes when laborers began to join students and something similar may be on the verge of happening in Burma.  The key seems to be to scale the protests too quickly for the leadership to act (and usually a display of courage in the military).  Tianenmen was building gradually, Moscow in August 1991 did not.

      <

      p>
      If Suu Kyi’s party joins with the monks at the right moment, they have a shot.  Otherwise, I fear this will just pass.

    • Not surprisingly, tension seems to be heightening in Burma:

      <

      p>

      Burma’s ruling military junta has warned it is ready to “take action” against Buddhist monks leading mounting protests, state media have reported.

      Brig Gen Thura Myint Maung, minister for religion, warned them not to break Buddhist “rules and regulations” as Rangoon saw the largest march yet.

      He blamed the protests on “destructive elements” opposed to peace in Burma.

      <

      p>
      The Buddhist Channel has initiated a call for support of the Burmese Buddhist Sangha (community of monks and nuns) here.

        • Sadly, I don’t hold out much hope that the junta will be cowed by continued protests. Certainly the vibe from Pyinmana is not particularly sanguine.

          <

          p>
          I am certainly not an expert on Burma, however having followed these events for a little while now I do think that any forceful crackdown against the protestors — especially the Sangha — will only serve to weaken the regime in the long run. Presumably there is only so far that the base can be eroded before the whole apparatus comes crashing down — even in a Burma, where the country is sufficiently isolated to be immune from international pressure.

          <

          p>
          The Sangha has served as an exemplar and a rallying point for the people of Burma, and any backlash against the monks and nuns will likely be met with resistance — overt or otherwise.

          <

          p>
          For those who are so inclined, tomorrow (Tue., 9/25) at 10:30am Eastern time will be a 15-minute period of silent prayer/meditation/solidarity for the people of Burma (per the Buddhist Channel):

          <

          p>

          An appeal to pause and meditate

          The monks of Burma are taking a great chance, trying to transform the brutal, deluded generals of the ruling military regime with metta (loving-kindness), quiet courage, and discipline.

          They have asked the people of Burma and those who support them, to meditate and pray silently in their doorways for 15 minutes at 2000 hours this Tuesday:

          Can you join them?

          2000 hours Rangoon time
          1430 hours GMT
          1030 hours New York
          0630 hours Los Angeles
          2030 hours Bangkok
          2130 hours Kuala Lumpur/Singapore/Hong Kong
          2230 hours Tokyo

          <

          p>
          Certainly it is my own hope that all people of Burma — Sangha, laypeople, and military alike — can emerge unharmed from this situation.

    • NPR gives a quick look on today’s All Things Considered.

      <

      p>
      Also, the AP article in the above link finally mentions the elephant in the room — China:

      <

      p>

      Diplomats and analysts said Myanmar’s military rulers were showing unexpected restraint this time because of pressure from the country’s key trading partner and diplomatic ally, China.

      “Beijing is to host the next summer’s Olympic Games. Everyone knows that China is the major supporter of the junta, so if government takes any action it will affect the image of China,” a Southeast Asian diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity as a matter of protocol.

      China, which is counting on Myanmar’s vast oil and gas reserves to help fuel its booming economy, earlier this year blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing Myanmar’s rights record, saying it was not the right forum. Much of the West applies diplomatic and political sanctions against the junta, but Chinese aid – along with the oil and gas revenues – effectively undercuts any leverage they might have had.

      However, Beijing has also employed quiet diplomacy and subtle public pressure on the regime, urging it to move toward inclusive democracy and speed up the process of dialogue and reform.

      Josef Silverstein, a political scientist and author of several books on Myanmar, said it would not be in China’s interest to have civil unrest in Myanmar.

      “China is very eager to have a peaceful Burma in order to complete roads and railroads, to develop mines and finish assimilating the country under its economic control,” Silverstein said.

       

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives