Fanciful predictions

I stumbled across a few predictions that U Kyaw Thet, who wrote in the February 1958 issue of The Atlantic (“Continuity in Burma: The survival of historic forces”) made about the Burmese military:

That is the position and growing strength of the armed forces. The army has acquitted itself well and contributes significantly to national morale. Its work does not stop with military operations against the insurgents. It is helping to integrate the frontier regions into the Union, and after the rebels are driven out of any given locality, the army sets in to rehabilitate it, organizing schools and building roads, bridges and hospitals. It has become the most disciplined and dedicated arm of the Union Government.

Is there a danger that the army, realizing its strength and prestige, might try to control the Government? Could Burma follow the familiar pattern of other small states where the military, in the name of the people, or efficiency, or national honor, have taken over complete control? I think this is most unlikely. In fact, there have been moments of crisis in the past decade when this could have happened and it has not. Today the armed forces of Burma work in complete harmony and partnership with the civilian leaders. The army chiefs feel themselves part of the team which has worked and fought together for thirty years to secure independence. None of them have displayed the egomania that would drive them to use the army as a tool for personal ambition. They are determined that the new Burmese army should be thoroughly democratic and imbued with the idea of service to the needs of the people.

That is the position and growing strength of the armed forces. The army has acquitted itself well and contributes significantly to national morale. Its work does not stop with military operations against the insurgents. It is helping to integrate the frontier regions into the Union, and after the rebels are driven out of any given locality, the army sets in to rehabilitate it, organizing schools and building roads, bridges and hospitals. It has become the most disciplined and dedicated arm of the Union Government.

Is there a danger that the army, realizing its strength and prestige, might try to control the Government? Could Burma follow the familiar pattern of other small states where the military, in the name of the people, or efficiency, or national honor, have taken over complete control? I think this is most unlikely. In fact, there have been moments of crisis in the past decade when this could have happened and it has not. Today the armed forces of Burma work in complete harmony and partnership with the civilian leaders. The army chiefs feel themselves part of the team which has worked and fought together for thirty years to secure independence. None of them have displayed the egomania that would drive them to use the army as a tool for personal ambition. They are determined that the new Burmese army should be thoroughly democratic and imbued with the idea of service to the needs of the people.

Sadly, we all know how the course of history played out in the years following 1958.

Burma VJ, a review

Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country

I have just returned from a screening of Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country, a documentary on the 2007 fuel protests in Burma, directed byAnders Ostergaard. First off, I really enjoyed the film. Its realism (despite a few obvious reenactments) blew me away. It’s incredible how all this, the crackdowns, the raids, the protests, everything could have been captured on home video by some truly brave people, dubbed ‘vj,’ short for video journalist.

The movie was, to put it simply, raw and real. There’s no other way to describe it, from the shaky camera angles to some escape scenes as the cameramen run away from gun-wielding soldiers. Although the film doesn’t really go into any depth on how and why the protests started (because of a two-fold increase in gas prices), it really struck my chords. Also, the movie devoted most of its time to Rangoon, where the bulk of the protests were and didn’t even mention Pakokku by name, the town where monks were brutally repressed by monks and the place that sparked countrywide protests later that month.

Obama administration on U.S.’ Burma policy

For quite a while, I’ve been of the position that sanctions against Burma do little in persuading the Burmese military regime in changing its ways. While waiting at the Survarnabhumi airport, I read a Times article entitled “The Scramble For A Piece of Burma” that basically says the same thing, that the vacuum of investment from Western countries has given Asian countries the advantage in exploiting Burma’s natural resources:

While American and European foreign policy thinkers ponder how to financially strangle an army government that has ruled since 1962, Burma’s regional neighbors are embarking on a new Great Game, scrambling to outdo each other for access to this resource-rich land. (Time)

I’m glad I voted for Obama in the 2008 election. I’ve wondered whether his administration would change its position on Burma, or at least publicly acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the U.S.’ policy on Burma. I wanted to leave an Online Town Hall question on the White House website about this, but given the current interest in other issues, it would have probably been brushed aside by others (currently there are only 4 questions on Burma). But it’s interesting to see a shift coming from the Obama adminsitration. This is what Jim Steinberg, current U.S. Deputy State Secretary has to say:

“We all have a common interest in working together to get a constructive solution that convinces the junta that the path they are pursuing is not in their interest.” (AP)