Our British cousins take Burma more seriously than most, befitting its status as a former colony, I guess. Kind of the way the U.S. feels about Cuba?
At any rate, the Economist, the best magazine on the planet, has these observations on what they hopefully describe as a revolution there.
Sep 27th 2007
From The Economist print edition
If the world acts in concert, the violence should be the last spasm of a vicious regime in its death throes
“FEAR”, the lady used to say, “is a habit.” This week, inspired in part by the lady herself, Aung San Suu Kyi, partly by the heroic example set by Buddhist monks, Myanmar’s people kicked the addiction.
Defying the corrupt, inept, brutal generals who rule them, they took to the streets in their hundreds of thousands to demand democracy. They knew they were risking a bloody crackdown, like the one that put down a huge popular revolt in 1988, killing 3,000 people or more. In 1988 Burma’s people were betrayed not just by the ruthlessness of their rulers, but also by the squabbling and opportunism of the outside world, which failed to produce a co-ordinated response and let the murderous regime get away with it. This time, soldiers are once again shooting and killing unarmed protesters (see article). Can the world avoid making the same mistake twice?
MUDGE confesses that, not being in any way shape or form British, he’s paid only fitful attention to Burma through the years. So, I didn’t know that,
it was an economic grievance—a big, abrupt rise in fuel prices—that sparked the present unrest.
Now it’s up to the rest of the world to “persuade” Burma’s military dictatorship to do the right thing.
[Please click the link below for the complete article — but then please come on back!]
Revolution in Myanmar | The saffron revolution | Economist.com
The crux, according to the editors of the Economist, and not a great surprise at that, is China. Just as China has supported its client, North Korea, which support has aided and abetted its insane leadership, so has China more than tolerated the Burmese junta’s iron fisted, ham handed control and leadership.
And, like North Korea, it turns out that such undemocratic leadership is really, really bad for the economic well being of a country and its citizens.
So, the U.S., distracted by its own attempts to suppress “terrorists” and insurgents 6,000 miles away, not to speak of suppressing the Constitution and its amendments closer to home, can’t be bothered to do more than posture at the U.N. and let China veto any even symbolic movement to support the unarmed monks and the afflicted Burmese they are fighting for.
And China, in its cynical way, dare not publicly criticize its client by supporting its suppressed citizenry for fear, I’m thinking, of the message it might send to its own awakening underclass.
And, just so you know where I’m coming from, I read, in the ‘Sphere this week, I believe, a writer deciding that since”M—–r” is an artifact of the current corrupt regime, using the old name of Burma is perfectly appropriate and indeed shows support for the time, hopefully very soon, when the generals fade away.
It’s it for now. Thanks,
[…] Last week (and here), the rest of the world was hopeful that, in light of the new channels of communication available in both directions, that the people of Burma would prevail in their demonstrations against the repressive regime. […]