*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, January 5th, 2011 11:27pm PST - promote requested by original submitter vaporlock.

*promote

I'm honestly very conflicted about the best way to move towards a democracy in a country like Burma or North Korea. I understood the principle of boycotting the financing of a repressive regime, but sanctions if not aimed specifically and only against the ruling junta especially against Burma cannot work.

Burma is simply too replete with timber, gas, fishery reserves and ultimately tourist attractions to avoid finding a willing financier whether it be through a surreptitious company or a country like China with an equally repressive political record.

A country like Iran is different in that it's people are far more wealthy ($4540 per capita income, versus $1100 in Burma) and have a far more developed education system.

For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.

Similarly, I read an article a while back also suggesting that foreign exchange trips for North Korea even if only for the elite and privileged would at the very least see good economic policies and understanding of western governance seep through.

When it comes down to it though, people need a baseline of subsistence, education and wealth to be able to protest or to be able to stage strikes, without that they'll simply wallow in poverty forever.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, January 7th, 2011 6:08am PST - promote requested by RedSky.

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.

RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.

I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.

I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.

Great doc!

No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

Modern combat is fought through surgical air strikes with a limited ground force. It minimizes invading state casualties but poor intelligence from limited local manpower inevitably leads to mass civilian casualties. This progressively undermines local support. Fostering a vibrant democracy or training a self sufficient military and police force, hell, let alone rebuilding the infrastructure from the initial invasion cannot be done quickly. As has been seen from Afghanistan especially, this allows insurgencies to organise and further air bombing simply adds to their recruitment numbers.

Removing totalitarianism also reveals long-held grudges and power imbalances such as how removing Saddam's minority Sunni Ba'ath Party fermented a civil war with the oppressed Shi'ite majority. Local revolutions on the other hand, without intervention create a sense of solidarity regardless of past differences. A foreign coup d'état does not.

States that have democracy thrust upon tend to squander them or relapse back into authoritarianism. Often this is from a lack of established and respectable candidates to choose from, haphazard transition to a market economy (e.g Russia) or a lack of consistent ground level demands from the people resulting in simple pandering by politicians to secure votes with no intentions of governance. Democracy is only able to work effectively when individuals with growing affluence over time begin to demand better infrastructure, services and generally representation of their interests.

Not to mention, especially in Africa, many countries were wished into existence by exiting colonial powers with no logical cultural, religious or ethnic links among them. There is simply no genuine sense of national unity. This is arguably what caused the violence in Kenya in 07-08 following the disputed election. Foreign interventions in ex-colonial countries also inevitably leads to the perception of renewed imperialism, not matter how pure actual intentions. This is why intervention in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is inconceivable unless it by the African Union, which is far too weak and unwilling. Even now, Mugabe has considerable support by his colonial independence credentials.

Other countries simply have never had a legitimate and effective government in generations. The Taliban did not so much rule Afghanistan as loosely impose Sha'ria law on individual tribes who otherwise had signficant autonomy. Now that representational democracy has been imposed, there is simply no willingness on the part of an individual tribe to work together to improve the livelihood of all, but merely their own people. Politicians and officials are not corrupt because they are immoral but because political survival means following this creed.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong. The only place they are appropriate is preventing genocide or aggressor nations. NATO was correct to intervene in Kosovo, the UN was correct to prevent Iraqi aggression into Kuwait (ignoring Iraqi invasion of Iran was not). Intervention should have occurred in Rwanda and equally in Sudan.

The Powell Doctrine more or less sets out what I wrote above concisely. In short, intervention should occur only with mass popular local support, and be undertaken swiftly and effectively with overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy established.

Thanks to Bush though, the US is overstretched militarily and lacks the moral authority to incite other nations into intervening where necessary. More importantly it's lost the deterrence its successful interventions in Kosovo and Kuwait created.

>> ^bcglorf:

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.
RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.
I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.
I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.

No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

I think that depends on goals and commitments. If removing the regime is the only goal, Iraq has been a complete and unconditional success. If providing a stable and safe state for the local population is the goal, then Iraq has been a complete and unconditional failure. If providing the local population with a better future is the goal, then Iraq has been a success.

My ideal scenario, which I admitted no nation would ever commit to, was not just regime change, but regime change followed by nation building. Both the Iraq and Afghan conflicts have absolutely refused to take any part in nation building exercises and instead have tried to jump straight from authoritarian rule to functioning self sufficient local democracy.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong.

Yet in many cases removing despotic governments can still be better for the locals, even with all that can go wrong. Even with all the grandiose mistakes and failures in Iraq, the nation has a better future than it would have without the invasion. Without the invasion there are only two alternatives, and Iraq still under Saddam which is worse. The other is an Iraq not under Saddam, but that did it without foreign intervention. I guarentee the civil warring in Iraq now is nothing to the bloodbath that there would've been toppling Saddam's Baath internally. Iraq is absolutely not a great place for it's people yet, but it is a better one than it would've been without the invasion. I'd argue the same would be true for both Burma and North Korea. Though North Korean locals would be benefiting at the cost of absolutely enormous and unfathomable losses on the part of South Korea.