Miscellaneous News

Mr T said:

Number 1, how are Myanmar people able to decide their own fate if the military are pressing guns into their faces? When was the last time you stood up to someone with a gun aimed at you (and ready to use it) with just your fists?

Number 2, why is it controversial to oppose coups? If the situation in Myanmar deterioriated such that there was a civil war, that would be bad for not just for the people living there but also ASEAN and China. China sitting on the fence wouldn't do anything to avoid that.

Click to expand...

Because where does the military come from if not the people?

Why do you immediately assume the military doesn't have the interest of the people at heart? Last I heard Aung San Suu Kyi is considered a brutal oppressor of Rohingya Muslims by the west, no?

would you be in favour of the PLA taking over China from the CCP?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't like it, but that's based on experience from Beiyang government. This is a Chinese person's perspective on military rule for China. It has no bearing on what a Burmese might feel about military rule and I wouldn't dream of applying my views on a different country.


Hey look at that, Ministry of Foreign Affairs says they are paying attention and hope both sides can resolve it legally and according to the constitution. I believe Myanmar's constitution says what the military is doing is legal, who is anyone else to argue.

China sticking to policy of non-interference, how's that for diplomatic consistency.

Mr T said:

That's not really non-interference, that's just protecting your interests. Non-interference means not taking action even when your interests could be hurt.

Click to expand...

Here we go. Typical word games.
Non-interference means taking no action that violets sovereignty. No matter how do you "feel".

Mr T said:

I mean are you completely indifferent as to whether a country is run by a civilian or military government - would you be in favour of the PLA taking over China from the CCP?

Click to expand...

Majority of countries wouldn't. But his or my "favour" in case of Myanmar is irrelevant. We aren't part of Myanmar.
Guess, US primary didn't teach you that? But then,"standing up" in other country's territory based of your feelings is typical US practice.

Mr T said:

If China makes it clear that they won't work with another junta and might even sanction members of the army, it would bolster China's image as the key power in the region

Click to expand...

At which point - faster than you can say “what in the white Anglo hypocrisy supremacy imperialism” - Unlce Sam will swoop in, wearing knee pads if required, and proceed to fellate the hell outta the Junta. Certain lapdogs may be able to grab a ball.

They might even invite them to DC, fete them and make direct comparisons between the Junta and their lauded founding fathers. Just like they did with the Taliban. Or the Apartheid government’s (the O.G South African one, not the new one) favourite pet rebel group, UNITA.

Anything else, champ?

I personally think the Burmese military junta pulled off a pretty good 3D chess move.

They were always going to get massive and continuing western political and economic pressure from the west (military options were never on the table due to proximity to China) about ASSK and democracy. So they pretended to ‘cave’ and gave her a title but no actual power.

Then they went and genocided the Rohingya Muslim’s and put ASSK in charge of explaining that to her beloved west, which destroyed her credibility and support.

Now they finally couped her, and the west would need to make their usual noises, but zero substantive actions will be taken, certainly nothing like what they would have expected to receive without the Rohingya bloodbath. Game set and match.

Temstar said:

Because where does the military come from if not the people?

Click to expand...

That's a meaningless statement. People become soldiers, but that doesn't mean soldiers represent or care about the general population. If soldiers were somehow representative of the people they wouldn't commit crimes against civilians.

The entire point of civilian rule is that the military is normally divided from the general populace in terms of discipline, especially the requirement to follow orders without question. That doesn't allow for just rule.

Why do you immediately assume the military doesn't have the interest of the people at heart? Last I heard Aung San Suu Kyi is considered a brutal oppressor of Rohingya Muslims by the west, no?

Click to expand...

She was criticised for defending the military, but I'm not aware there was a unified statement from NATO and friendly countries that she was responsible. After all it was the military that conducted the attacks, not her. Perhaps she should have resigned her position in protest, but that doesn't make her guilty.

Besides, it was the military that agreed to elections for 2015. They could have just continued with the junta. The fact they want to overturn election results that they let happen shows they're acting selfishly.

I wouldn't like it, but that's based on experience from Beiyang government. This is a Chinese person's perspective on military rule for China. It has no bearing on what a Burmese might feel about military rule and I wouldn't dream of applying my views on a different country.

Click to expand...

That sounds a bit like you're saying you're incapable of empathy. Is that really the case, you're unable to take the view that military government for Myanmar might be bad even though you know it was bad for China? Is there any logical reason why some countries need or can flourish under military rule when China didn't?

China sticking to policy of non-interference

Click to expand...

Except when China has imposed sanctions on other countries, of course.

Mr T said:

That's not really non-interference, that's just protecting your interests. Non-interference means not taking action even when your interests could be hurt.

Click to expand...

Yes it is... and the non-interference is about the political situation within... since the interests or terms of engagement, by this I mean government to government interaction not in terms of war, changes it becomes a matter of foreign policy and is no longer or can no longer be considered purely an internal matter...

Mr T said:

China has agreed sanctions on countries in the past as well on officials. Was it wrong to do so?

Click to expand...

It will depend on the nature of the sanctions and purpose of the sanctions... for example sanctions on fat pomp... the initial actions needs to be considered not just the actions of the sanctions itself... the problem I have with sanctions in general in a western context is that it is not designed to help anyone especially the people in the country that is being sanctioned... the western countries sanctions based on nebulous terms like human rights while causing even more human suffering in process all for the purpose of patting themselves on the back... frankly I would have more respect for the western powers concerning sanctions if they were simply upfront about their intentions rather than some holier than thou self-righteousness BS

Mr T said:

In this case there wouldn't be a revolution but restoration of civilian control.

I mean are you completely indifferent as to whether a country is run by a civilian or military government - would you be in favour of the PLA taking over China from the CCP?

Click to expand...

Again this would be the prerogative of the people of Myanmar and no one else.

Of course I am not completely indifferent, generally I myself would not want to live under a military government but that is for me as a Chinese concerning China... not a foreign nation that I have no right to determine their fate...

Mr T said:

That sounds a bit like you're saying you're incapable of empathy. Is that really the case, you're unable to take the view that military government for Myanmar might be bad even though you know it was bad for China? Is there any logical reason why some countries need or can flourish under military rule when China didn't?

Click to expand...

It may be bad, but it may also be good. I'm just saying I'm in no place to judge, and neither is anyone else unless they are Myanmarese. No one but themselves should be allowed to pass that judgement.

Mr T said:

Except when China has imposed sanctions on other countries, of course.

Click to expand...

In response to ex-US government officials who were engaged in policies that were harmful to China? That's not non-interference is it? Unless you're saying US government's China policy under Trump is also... non-interference?

Mr T said:

but that doesn't mean soldiers represent or care about the general population. If soldiers were somehow representative of the people they wouldn't commit crimes against civilians.

Click to expand...

So i was right all along. In particular cases, when military commit crimes against civilians in other countries, their own people may actually support it.

So we have to deal with those people of those countries first.

Mr T said:

Number 1, how are Myanmar people able to decide their own fate if the military are pressing guns into their faces? When was the last time you stood up to someone with a gun aimed at you (and ready to use it) with just your fists?

Number 2, why is it controversial to oppose coups? If the situation in Myanmar deterioriated such that there was a civil war, that would be bad for not just for the people living there but also ASEAN and China. China sitting on the fence wouldn't do anything to avoid that.

Click to expand...

I oppose this coup and think it is a very bad step for Myanmar’s development.

Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that no sanctions or international pressure will change the military’s minds. Nothing can undo the coup, save an outside invasion.

So we are faced with the choice:

• Myanmar military rule
• Myanmar military rule, massive sanctions => 5 million more Burmese in poverty

I prefer 5 million less in poverty. Additionally, the history of the 21st century has shown that foreign intervention usually makes bad situations like these worse.

My prediction is that new elections will be held in two years, with the NLD banned. Then a general will win the unfair election and govern Myanmar.

Obviously this would be far worse than what I hoped for last week. When it happens, however, I would prefer Myanmar to have 10 million impoverished rather than 15 million impoverished.

Crang said:

Sanctions are working. Pompeo was rejected by companies such as Koch Industries, Mobil Oil and now works for a right-wing think tank that relies on donations to survive

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1355763233378852868

Click to expand...

Absolutely great news if true!

America has always wielded sanctions as a weapon. And it’s a fearsome tool because of their entrenchment in the global flow of money (SWIFT).

China demonstrating that it can also cause pain through sanctions proves that it has real financial clout, and that capability is only growing with time.

This should keep that revolving door of American politicians on their toes. Their entire career is based on making money in the private sector after political office.