cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Oct 5, 2007 1:22:26 GMT -5
Lets not forget what happened with India though. Civil war between Muslims and Indians which killed tens of thousands of people. Forcing thousands out of their homes. With both countries eventually developing nukes and being on the brink of nuclear holocaust a couple of times. Would India have been better off with a dictatorship installed after overthrowing the British? Burma has a Muslim population who wouldn't really care for Buddhists ruling over them. A civil war would easily break out. Just because a country has a Muslim minority does not automatically mean that civil war would break out once its authoritarian government is removed. Are you suggesting that Burma is better off with its current military junta, where the economy is in shambles, tens (if not hundreds of thousands) have become refugees, women are systematically raped as part of military intimidation, numerous human rights violations, etc. vs a government that's been elected by its people and to be led by a Nobel Peace Prize Winner? Thailand. Phillipines. Sound familiar? Being led by a nobel prize winner does not necessarily mean everything will be better. Like I said, millions died when India became a democracy. Perhaps a dictatorship would have been better?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 5, 2007 6:43:59 GMT -5
Just because a country has a Muslim minority does not automatically mean that civil war would break out once its authoritarian government is removed. Are you suggesting that Burma is better off with its current military junta, where the economy is in shambles, tens (if not hundreds of thousands) have become refugees, women are systematically raped as part of military intimidation, numerous human rights violations, etc. vs a government that's been elected by its people and to be led by a Nobel Peace Prize Winner? Thailand. Phillipines. Sound familiar? Being led by a nobel prize winner does not necessarily mean everything will be better. Like I said, millions died when India became a democracy. Perhaps a dictatorship would have been better? Once again, you evade answering my question: do you think the status quo is better for Burma than a government led by Aung San Suu Kyi?
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Oct 5, 2007 10:38:46 GMT -5
I don't think it would be better. I think it would be equally worse. It's a 3rd world country and it's proven that democracies and 3rd world countries mix poorly.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 6, 2007 6:16:01 GMT -5
I don't think it would be better. I think it would be equally worse. It's a 3rd world country and it's proven that democracies and 3rd world countries mix poorly. So, if the choice is being poor and free OR being poor and oppressed, which one do you think is better?
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 6, 2007 6:23:58 GMT -5
I'm not really sure what "equally worse" means, isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, I really don't see how keeping such rule could be at all equal to at least trying something knew. Especially since the populace seems to respect Buddist monks' decision to try to topple the oppressive government by peaceful means.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 8:08:31 GMT -5
here, article about companies from "democratic" countries (highlighted by your's truely) as well those that are not, propping up the military junta....
Current investors in Burma's oil and gas industry include companies from Australia, the British Virgin Islands, China, France, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Russia, and the United States.
The SPDC has greatly expanded investment in Burma's oil and natural gas industry in recent years. Allowing foreign investment in oil and gas is apparently aimed at bringing in more revenue to keep the government afloat at a time when economic mismanagement and profligate spending on the military and the building of a new capital at Nay Pyi Taw have drained government finances.
At present the SPDC receives the bulk of its gas money from the onshore "Yadana" and "Yetagun" gas fields. The Yadana consortium is led by Total of France and includes UNOCAL (now Chevron) of the United States and Thailand's state-controlled PTT Exploration and Production Co Ltd (PTTEP). The Yetagun consortium, led by Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, includes Japan's Nippon Oil as well as PTTEP. PTTEP, a subsidiary of the largely state-owned PTT Public Co Ltd (PTT) of Thailand, buys the gas for export to Thailand.
India, like China and Russia, which are also major investors in Burma's natural gas sector, has provided political and military support to the SPDC.www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d85f8195174cdac0959be68304582054.htmas for regime change...we'll see....maybe boycotting the Beijing Olympics would help....but that's not on the agenda of the "democratic countries" - nor is forcing the companies investing in Burma to pull out.....the talk about the importance of democracy is all style, no substance....same ol', same ol'.... all sounds depressingly familiar, dunnit? peace
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 6, 2007 9:20:54 GMT -5
Well, why don't we let the people of Burma decide their own destiny? Oh, wait they have decided already ... the military junta is however standing in the way.
I grew up watching the Philippine 1986 revolution to topple the Marcos dictatorship. I'm not so cynical with democracy as you are, Miaim.
Nonetheless, my question again is: would you rather have Burma remain in the status quo or is it better off to have political change?
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 18:44:16 GMT -5
how old were you in 1986?
and after 20 years, the Philippines is still, economically, Asia's sick man and political dissidents get assassinated on a regular basis...and the poor are left to their own devices....so democracy on its own isn't doing a very good job of solving economic problems, is it?
anyway, we don't know whether democracy will solve any of the economic problems in Burma....the current protests followed the end of fuel subsidies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank....
i don't agree with CJF - but there is no guarantee that democracy will solve anything... and, like in Iraq, it's *possible* things could become worse, as hard as it is to imagine.....
either way, it's all talk....boycott the oil companies, if you can - sustained sanctions helped bring down Apartheid in South Africa, after all...
peace
|
|
|
Post by Altan on Oct 7, 2007 4:13:18 GMT -5
My hope is China will eventually annex them and stop all the oppression!
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 7, 2007 4:29:02 GMT -5
Miaim,
The situation in the Philippines is not as economically desperate as it was when the Marcos dictatorship finally crashed. The poverty level has gone down from initially 50% of the population, to now only 30%. Sure, there are human rights violations that still occur, but they are much lower compared to the Marcos years.
One of the main problems with the Philippines is its high population growth, which strains its resources. Given that the Filipinos are mainly devout Roman Catholics, they simply follow the Church in prohibiting the use of artificial birth control. That has nothing to do with democracy.
Going back to Burma, I can't see how its situation can get any worse.
JC
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 6:43:51 GMT -5
yes, but poverty rates have fallen faster and lower in authoritarian countries such as China and Vietnam....countries where the Roman Catholic Church is banned....coincidence or not.... as for human rights being worse, it depends on who you ask, dunnit? "What is happening is worse than during the Marcos dictatorship," said Luis Teodoro, a journalism professor at Ateneo de Manila University. Since President Arroyo came to power in 2001, at least 832 people have been killed or gone missing under mysterious circumstances, 356 of them were left-wing political activists according to a local human rights group, Karapatan.news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2293482.eceas for Burma: what could be worse? that's what we all said about Iraq - even i couldn't imagine anything worse than Sadaam + sanctions....alas, it's now a deadlier place...tho technically, it's a democracy.... i don't have a crystal ball and i can't predict the future but there is no guarantee that whatever follows the SPDC junta will not be worse....we just don't know.... all depends on too many variables that cannot be predicted at this moment.... peace
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 8, 2007 1:55:13 GMT -5
yes, but poverty rates have fallen faster and lower in authoritarian countries such as China and Vietnam....countries where the Roman Catholic Church is banned....coincidence or not.... as for human rights being worse, it depends on who you ask, dunnit? "What is happening is worse than during the Marcos dictatorship," said Luis Teodoro, a journalism professor at Ateneo de Manila University. Since President Arroyo came to power in 2001, at least 832 people have been killed or gone missing under mysterious circumstances, 356 of them were left-wing political activists according to a local human rights group, Karapatan.news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2293482.eceas for Burma: what could be worse? that's what we all said about Iraq - even i couldn't imagine anything worse than Sadaam + sanctions....alas, it's now a deadlier place...tho technically, it's a democracy.... i don't have a crystal ball and i can't predict the future but there is no guarantee that whatever follows the SPDC junta will not be worse....we just don't know.... all depends on too many variables that cannot be predicted at this moment.... peace Miaim, Under the Marcos regime, there were at least 3,257 extra-judicial killings. Also, with the Arroyo presidency, we don't really know who to blame for all of them, because communist insurgents and Muslim separatist rebels may also be responsible for them. Again, my point is authoritarianism has been tried in the Philippines, and failed miserably by causing the country to regress, not progress. At least under democracy, the Philippines is making some progress, albeit slowly. In addition, some of the current problems of the Philippines (including a crushing foreign debt, communist and Muslim insurgencies, widespread corruption, etc.) can be traced to Marcos' legacy. Are you even suggesting that the Philippines should return to a Marcos-esque style dictatorship again? I don't know whether you yourself have lived through the terror of authoritarian rule. I have personally myself, with the nightly curfews, fear of simply disappearing, watching a national hero gunned down in broad daylight under supposed "government protection", fear from without and from within, etc., etc. Therefore, given the choice of being poor and free OR being poor and oppressed, I choose the former. And that is why I feel for the Burmese people. For you to suggest that perhaps Burma may be worse of under a democratically-elected government is rather shocking to me. But to the Burmese people I am sure that is a "risk" they are willing to take. JC
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 8, 2007 2:18:25 GMT -5
juancarlos, as much as i tend to agree w/ most of your views, i quite agree w/ Miaim and CJF in this instance... interestingly enough....i was writing this essay and my topic completely coincides with this one ! i know the end of Marocs was one of terror, but on the whole....wasn t his reign more "peaceful" than its aftermath? here s bits of my essay....at least the bits that coincide with this topic... Despite the fact that they were dictators, if we look at the whole picture, Marcos in the Philippines, Tito in ex-Yugoslavia, and Suharto in Indonesia; have done the country more good than their more democracy oriented successors under which chaos reigned. An obvious example would be Corazon Aquino, Marcos’ successor, an advocate of peace, woman activisism and democracy; whose reign was over-shadowed by the many coups and distraughts in political life. We could also mention how ex-Yugoslavia had a slow, yet steady economic growth, but how the fall of its communist leader, Tito, lead to the outbreak of a series of wars, as ethnic divisions claimed democracy. Under similar circumstances to that in ex-Yugoslavia, it seems impossible for democracy to succeed in African countries, given that these countries have no common culture, don’t even share a similar language, are made up of hundreds of different ethnic groups, and are the mere results of colonialists drawing their parcel of the territory on a map and claiming it as their own. Should democracy be implemented in African countries, the dominating ethnic group will most likely want to win control over other ethnic groups, resulting in conflicts very much alike the Yugoslav wars, or the genocide currently taking place in Rwanda. It seems that in these cases, democracy was more destructive than dictatorships. i wanted my essay to be on the iraq war but it was a bit too controversial it seems and i didn t want to be shipped back after merely 2 months here because of an essay...especially considering the political "tendencies" of most of the people here... so i mellowed it down and my teacher suggested i do it on "the imposition of democracy" since it seems quite fit to this very topic... here s my overall thesis : In other words, democracy can only work in already rich/educated countries, and forcing it to be implemented in 3rd world countries when they don’t have the background to make it work, will only take them all the more backwards. Under this new light, it would seem that helping the government already in place, would be the best way to help these countries, and imposing democracy, or attempting to lead the country to democracy, would be doing them wrong. Not to mention…”imposing freedom” is an oxymoron in itself. Marcos has done the Philippines "more good" and was "more peaceful" than his successor, Corazon Aquino? Is it Aquino's fault that she had seven failed military coups against her? How has Marcos done the Philippines more good by leaving it with $27 billion in foreign debt which remains to be paid to date, plundering as much as $5 billion from the national treasury, bringing half of the country into poverty, grossly violating the constitution and human rights, giving impetus to communist insurgency and Muslim separatist movements, latter years of economic recession, etc. ? In contrast, Aquino, having inherited Marcos' legacy, presided over a period of general economic growth (despite the coup attempts and natural disasters), a peaceful transfer of power, restoration of basic democratic institutions, negotiations for peace with communist insurgents and Muslim separatists. Of course, she is not perfect, but given the mettle that was given her, I'd say she did a pretty dang good job. Ironically, her deceased husband used to say that whoever succeeds Marcos is doomed to fail because of Marcos' legacy. Have you also considered that under Marcos' rule, you never really get to hear the truth about the things happening in the country? Post-Marcos, the press essentially can write anything they want. Perhaps that's the reason why you think things are so awful now in the Philippines post-Marcos. Also, have you considered that those problems under Marcos were already there, they just haven't been made public yet? Then, whoever succeded Marcos had to deal with those problems as well? After Marcos got evacuated to Hawaii, who do you think had to deal with the $27 billion foreign debt of the Philippines? The Philippines is by no means perfect. It still has immense problems (i.e. corruption, social inequality, etc.), but the situation has gotten much better than under the Marcos rule. The Philippines did not have "freedom imposed" on it. The Filipinos chose to be free by marching on the streets in 1986, as much as the Burmese have done so in recent weeks. And exactly what do you mean by "helping the government already in place"? Are you suggesting that we support Burma's current military junta as it uses systematic rape, beatings, murder and displacement to maintain its grip on power?JC
|
|
|
Post by jericho on Oct 8, 2007 3:15:01 GMT -5
At this stage I am happy that the mainstream media is picking up on the horrendous conditions of the people in Burma. Having been in Rangoon, Moulmein and Bago, I've seen how much the people suffer, it was pretty heartbreaking seeing the conditions and to hear my uncle tell me just how much the country had degenerated over the years. I hope this gets more attention and that something is done. Having held a 'democratic election' 17 years ago it just demonstrated the greed and selfishness of the junta when the refused to relinquish power to the democratically elected Daw Suu Kyi. I too hope that the situation improves in Burma, for the sake of the family I have over there and for everyone who is suffering there. To be honest, anything would be better than the conditions over there.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 8, 2007 5:10:02 GMT -5
Why does everyone assume Suu Kyi is some sort of saint, though? She got famous only because she married an Oxford professor who used his influence to portray her as a Burmese Gandhi. Her father started out founding the Communist Party of Burma, was on his way to get help from China, but Japanese intelligence agents convinced him to convert to fascism, so he went to Japan to get military training, and helped the Japanese conquer Burma. When the Japanese started losing, he became an "independence fighter". If her dad wasn't assassinated, would Burma have been any less authoritarian? Or would he have become the Kim Il Sung of Southeast Asia? Suu Kyi's supporters are basically following her father's personality cult.
|
|