|
|
Post by TS on Jun 2, 2006 12:24:33 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jun 3, 2006 3:03:18 GMT 10
Having pretty thoroughly read the "Set the Junta free" article, I've got a couple of issues in actively applying it to a Burma (or Uganda, or anywhere else) debate.
Firstly, while qualified amnesty does reduce the barriers for the ruling junta to step down, I still struggle to see any incentive for them to actually do so. In addition, what guarantee could the NLD or the Karen or anybody else possibly give the generals that the amnesty would indeed be granted once they take power?
Given the government seems to be stepping up its attacks on the Karen people and has just extended indefinitely Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest, there's little sign of a military regime growing tired of its own rule, rather it's continuing to extend its dominance of the country and is seemingly growing more and more confident.
Perhaps amongst lower ranking military officials who sympathise with the Karen people or quietly support the NLD, they would start to support a truth and reconciliation commission, but is there any evidence of cracks in the military appearing? Most of the military aren't paid very well, but is there any suggestion they might push for the regime to implode, particularly given how well off military employees are in relation to the rest of Burmese society?
Other than the military rising up, I don't see a spark that could set off the process outlined in the journal article. Than Shwe's happy to defy Kofi Annan within hours of being told to release Suu Kyi; why will he act to remove himself from office?
Sorry this just throws spanners in the works rather than being very helpful to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 4, 2006 16:49:50 GMT 10
Don't apologise Julian, you're asking the right questions. I'll take a stab at addressing them - in no particular order. Firstly i want to respond to the question " is there any evidence of cracks in the military appearing? Yes there is! It was only 18 months ago that a huge schism in the junta was revealed when the regime's leadership turned on each other and the result was that the Prime Minister was 'arrested' and hasn't been heard from since (as far as i know). Although former PM Khin Nyunt was no bleeding heart, he was the driving force behind the now (apparantly) dead "Road Map to Democracy" and had said several times that he thought Aung San Suu Kyi should be released. But regardless of whether he was a genuine reformer or not, it does show that there are definetely power plays going on within the junta, and a split cannot be ruled out. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3990613.stm (read the links in the insert box too) But onto the far more important - and admitedly difficult - question of why/how the junta would ever accept an amnesty in exchange for stepping down. Julian asks a series of questions and some are easier to deal with than others. Firstly Julian askes what guarantee could the NLD or the Karen or anybody else possibly give the generals that the amnesty would indeed be granted once they take power?Well actually thats jumping ahead. The first issue is that there would need to be some sort of curcuit-breaker to bring the current situation to a head. One example might be that the neighbouring states become fed up with the situation and pressure the junta to step down before sending in peace-keepers (similar to what happened to Charles Taylor - news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3144483.stm). Yes this would mean ASEAN breaching its non-intervention rules but ASEAN states have already violated that principle before by criticising Burma ( news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3081557.stm and even when Thailand defended Burma it did so saying that it should be given time to prove its commitment to reform - and the actions of the junta since then show that things have in fact gotten worse news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3083415.stm) So assuming (for arguments sake) that ASEAN (collectively, or key members acting as a coaltion) applied pressure on the junta for a resolution to the situation, some sort of amnesty is a pretty likely carrot to get the junta to comply. How can anyone guarentee it would be enforced - well it could be part of a peace treaty signed by the party, and reconstruction aid by foreign governments would be conditional on its full implementation. Its hard to imagine that Suu Kyi would say no to an offer of an orderly transition to democracy if it meant an amnesty for the junta. The alternatives (a bloody uprising, or continued dictatorship ad infinitum) are hardly realistic options for her. So i think getting Burma's supporters in ASEAN to apply the necessary pressure for change is actually the hard bit - enforcing an amnesty or exile arrangement is the easy bit. How could ASEAN be made to act in this way? well all trade deals, both multilaterally and bilaterally between ASEAN/ASEAN members and the West could be be put on hold until the Burma situation is resolved. ASEAN is keen for further EU-ASEAN deals in particular and states like Singapore and Malaysia would get pretty pissed off if their economic progress was hampered by Burma. If that wasn't enough the West could push harder - it could block all further WB and IMF loans to ASEAN members (except for disarter relief and humanitarian works), the Paris Club and the G8 could do the same. It would be nice if global financial institutions would for ONCE use their influence for good, instead of just for promoting neo-liberal economics! I'm not sure if that responds to all Julian questions, but this is becoming a long post so i'll stop and give other people a chance to comment. |
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 5, 2006 19:33:02 GMT 10
Since Julian hasn't responded yet, i'll throw in a quick link to a related article.
I wont post the whole thing here because its 5 pages, but its an article from Foreign Policy magazine - which you all have access to through the ejournals section of the library.
The article is; Helena Cobban, "International Courts Help Achieve Peace", Foreign Policy (March-April 2006): p22(5).
Its a good, short, sharp critic of the case for war crimes prosecutions (which i personally always thought was a hard case to oppose).
Maybe Julian will download the pdf version and put it on the MAD site, but either way you should all be able to get it online.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Jun 6, 2006 15:52:29 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by TS on Jun 15, 2006 17:37:35 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Aug 18, 2006 11:26:40 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jan 18, 2007 16:47:08 GMT 10
I've been meaning to post a link to this for a while - check out the podcast of this show (Connect Asia) from Monday (16/01) for an update on the UN and ASEAN's recent discussion of Burma. The transcript isn't up yet, but should hopefully be available soon. www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/I'd strongy recommend listening to the podcast regularly - it's usually about 50 minutes long, though the current "summer edition" is only 25 minutes. Every day it has news, analysis and interviews on whatever is happenning in Asia, Australia, and a little bit of stuff on the rest of the world. Some of the stories in the hour long programs can be a bit random at times, but for the most part it's great stuff. In the past week there's been updates on Thailand, Nepal, Pakistan, Korea and of course Burma. |
|
