h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7014570.stm

I stickler isn't it. People flick flack on the whole intervention things all the time don't they? I know I do, andf it annoys the hell out of me.

It seems are personal predjudices about the country in question and the relative stances of the UK and US governments determine our opinions more than anything on this one.

hmmmm.........

What would we intervene with?
Could we afford to rub China up the wrong way?

I don't think they've got much oil have they?; No point us interfering with them then...

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Might as well stay at home then, at least then it won't be British troops being killed.

Burma is on the verge of freedom - the G8 has published a "strong statement".

"I don't think they've got much oil have they?; No point us interfering with them then."

No but they natural gas which is one of the reasons China likes them and will block the UN security council from doing anything substantive.

Purely hypothetical. Our troops are so overstretched crusading in Iraq and doing Bob knows what in Afghanistan that they couldn't even respond to help out in the recent flooding.

Anyway Gordy has solved it by calling on the UN to err.. err.. do something and if they don't he'll tell that young shaver with the Gollum hands who is currently in charge of our ethical foreign policy to err.. errr.. issue a statement. That'll stop the monks being slaughtered and get Aung San Suu Kyi released. Aye

Morning WA, good to hear from you,

There is , as you say, no way we could 'intervene' in Burma, and it is worth remembering that many British Troops died there in WW2, I don't want to see any more.

From the practical/tactical standpoint, Iraq should have taught us that trying to change a regime by external force doesn't work. We see it also in Afghanistan, and it must be a consideration in allowing that animal Mugabe to continue to destroy his people.

However deep the desire to go and help some embattled citizens, change on their behalf can only come about from within, maybe aided by political/financial pressures from outside. For example , we didn't militarily help Hungary, Checkoslovakia or the Baltic States to escape the iron fist of Soviet Russia, yet they are now free.

In that connection it may be illuminating to look at how the Estonians gained democracy and freedom in 1993. Some amazing stories of defiance there.

Novo

Morning Novo,

However we did intervene sucessfully in Bosnia and Kosovo. Unfortunately that intervention has turned NATO into just another US poodle.

Mind you, maybe that's no bad thing, as NATO's time really is up and the sooner we get real and back the establishment of a European force the better.

"From the practical/tactical standpoint, Iraq should have taught us that trying to change a regime by external force doesn't work. We see it also in Afghanistan, and it must be a consideration in allowing that animal Mugabe to continue to destroy his people."

I'm not so sure that outside intervention is always doomed to failure - that seems a little strong to me. Afghanistan was never a single regime to start with, and a lot of the violence in Iraq, it seems to me, is about what the new Iraq should be like, rather than solely against the occupation. Saddam Hussein was a little like Tito in Yugoslavia, I suppose - a "strong man" dictator holding strong nationalist or religious forces in check through the use of a police state. Once the dictator is gone, the forces are unleashed. And it remains to be seen in both cases whether, in the long term, life will be better. I'm more optimistic for Former Yugoslavia than I am for Iraq.

In principle, leaving aside practical and tactical objections, I don't think an invasion of Burma would turn it into a second Iraq. For one thing, there is Aung San Suu Kyi, a figure who (according to the media, anyway) attracts overwhelming support from the Burmese people - a Burmese Mandela figure, and Nobel laureate. I don't think Burma has the same ethnic/religious schisms as Iraq. Perhaps this is naive, but I don't see Buddhists turning into suicide bombers or terrorists.

But in terms of what governments can realistically do, the answer has to be putting pressure on China, which essentially bankrolls Burma in exchange for natural resources and access to the Indian Ocean.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2177775,00.html

>>For example , we didn't militarily help Hungary, Checkoslovakia or the Baltic States to escape the iron fist of Soviet Russia, yet they are now free.<<

Yeah, after 50/60 years of the most horrific abuses under ruthless dictatorships. Somehow I think saying to the Burmese protesters:

"It's okay - we don't need to do anything because history tells us you'll only have to suffer for another 30 or so years before you become free. Sorry, what was that? Oh yes, well obviously you'll also have to put up with poor, weak and divided government and an imploding economy for a decade or so after freedom, but you can manage that. Just look at those plucky Estonians, they're alright now. Well, apart from the massive intrusions and threats onto their freedom and sovereignity by their former overlords, that is. Best of luck - we'll see you in a few decades time when you rejoin the global community"

... won't have quite the effect we want.

While I agree we cannot put troops in Burma, and there'd be no point in doing so unless invited in by a democratic government that needs help to stabilise their fractured nation, we cannot just sit on our hands and do nothing.

The sad truth is that some authoritarian regimes can go on for an awfully long time - look at Saudi Arabia, look at North Korea, look at Cuba - and being in a stable part of the world helps with this. Currently China and India are guarantors of this stability through ensuring that an international land war in south-east Asia won't start as they have complete regional dominance in every sphere except possibly naval. The Burmese military has no threats from this quarter

Burma is currently relatively free to conduct international business as it chooses, which helps keep the military in charge. We need to change that. China can and must be brought onside - it's been achieved with Iran and seems about to happen to Sudan - and while the global economy relies on China, China relies on the global economy. Threats from either side won't work, as all sides know they are empty, but constructive engagement will, it already has in the past.

In one way the Burmese are lucky: they have Aung San Suu Kyi. If there was ever a sucessor to Mandela's crown, it is her. She is brilliant, passionate and completely committed to democracy in her home country. She has the brains, the courage and the popular support to rebuild her country and make it a democracy.

The world doesn't get many opporunities for a win as resounding as that which could be achieved in Burma. We need to start exerting political and financial pressure on the Burmese junta and we need to start doing it today.

I agree and didn't I hear last night that we are about to export helicopter kits to India so they can supply Burma with them. I repeat it's time Gordy did something usful rather than disapearing from the scene when the going gets tough. The more I think about it the more I realise what a conviction politician Robin Cook was.

Hi Otto,

I take your point about the nature of the Burmese situation, but I don't think an invasion would resolve anything. For a start we haven't the forces necessary, secondly (from your own link) the Burmese Forces are well armed by China.

One answer may be that in your link, that we should boycot all products made in China, Or have all their import documentation dealt with in a small office in Auchtermuchie. A boycot is a deliberate action we can all take as individuals. I will start today - it will 'cost' me , but I will do it.

Novo

WA

Is it coincidental that another conviction politician was John Major, who also had a certain weakness?

Novo

Hi Novo,

I agree that an invasion isn't practical as things stand, for geopolitical as well as practical reasons. My point was just that the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't necessarily that *all* outside military interventions are doomed to failure.

It'll be interesting to see whether the monks' 'non violence' approach to protest and change, works as well as Ghandi's did in India against the British.

Hi Otto,

Understood.

Novo

Novo,

John Major just enjoyed the occasional very hot curry.

WA

, and the odd Egg Foo Yong?

As I understand it, there has been a trade embargo on Burma from the UK for some time already. Perhaps why those helicopter kits are being sent to India, not Burma.

What good are further embargoes? The only people that's going to hurt are the ordinary Burmese.

This isn't our problem. We are not the conscience of the world. Why is it whenever some tinpot socialist dictator comes to the attention of the bleeding hearts, the cry goes out "We've got to do something". Why us? Why not Venezuela or Denmark or Egypt?

No doubt if Brown & Bush had announced an invasion, the same bleeding hearts would be screaming that we're stealing their natural gas.