Accidental Blogger

From the Boston Herald:

IN THE PAST few weeks, the secretive nation of Burma suddenly landed on the world’s front pages, as small demonstrations by monks spiraled into massive protests and triggered a violent crackdown by the military government.

Such an impromptu uprising surprised many observers. Searching for explanations, some have cited the rising price of fuel, which is subsidized in Burma; this summer, the regime allowed the price to skyrocket, adding to the economic misery of average Burmese people.

But behind the unrest also lies a larger explanation, one that makes the isolated country a critical test of foreign policy. Burma’s brutal ruling junta, which has long kept power through force and fear, is taking the next step and transforming itself into one of the world’s few totalitarian regimes.

It has recently moved beyond its years of authoritarian rule, in which it controlled politics but allowed some degree of personal freedom, toward more absolute control of its citizens’ lives. As totalitarian regimes die out in other parts of the world, Burma has been clamping down on the last vestiges of dissent, creating a personality cult around the junta’s leader, and isolating itself by moving Burma’s capital away from Rangoon to a remote town.

It is true that the attention the small, poor and forgotten country of Burma (Myanmar) has received in the past couple of weeks is unprecedented. Radio, TV, print and web media have been all over the news "out of Burma." Major US TV networks have begun their evening newscasts leading with Burma. News agencies have smuggled in correspondents, established contact with Burmese activists via cell phone and the Internet in order to get the update on the latest situation there. The UN Representative in Burma has met with democratic activist Aung San Suu Kyi. Anyone who has even the slightest idea on what goes on behind the impenetrable Bamboo Curtain installed by the brutal military regime in Burma, has been interviewed by the media. Even those who don’t know much but have shown some interest in the fate of Burma, are deemed quasi-Burma experts. Much to my astonishment (and the amusement of my family and co-bloggers), BBC Radio contacted me to comment on Burma! The invitation was based solely on a timely blog post when events were still unfolding there at a rapid rate.  This shows the paucity of available experts on Burmese affairs (and confirms my sneaking suspicion that if you pretend to be a pundit, you eventually become one).

Except for sporadic news of Ms Suu Kyi’s arrest, re-arrest and winning the Nobel Peace Prize, we have heard little over the years about this tiny nation, incredibly rich in natural resources but very, very poor in the quality of its leadership. But I doubt that it was just the spontaneous outburst of public demonstrations in Burma that caught the eye of the world. I suspect that for once, George W. Bush may have inadvertently exerted a beneficiary influence on a foreign nation striving for democracy and freedom. As I speculated in my post (Let’s Talk Burma … and Baloney!) Bush’s motive in putting the spotlight on Burma most likely, was less than pure. He probably mentioned the turmoil there in order to deflect attention from Iraq. However, his words have played a part in turning the attention of the world on that languishing corner of the world. Now the focus is on Burma and the role of other more powerful nations, some of them its neighbors, who have quietly and unscrupulously aided, abetted and otherwise chosen to look away from the human rights abuses and oppression by the Burmese military junta. China, that perennial patron of rogue nations (specially those with natural resources like gas, oil, gems and timber) has emerged as the chief culprit. Russia, another authoritarian regime, is also involved. But sadly enough, not wishing to be left behind in the self serving geo-politics of exploitation and power struggle, democratic India too is implicated as an enabler of the Burmese government. Thailand, which borders Burma and houses many of its refugees is an active trading partner.

George Bush like most presidents, is concerned about his legacy – to be favorably remembered for the mark he leaves on the world. He tried to manufacture a triumphant legacy by invading Iraq. Iraq will be his legacy of course, but not of triumph and vision but as a miserable failure. (Will he now take another stab at valor by invading Iran?) But if his UN address, directed at the unrest and oppression in Burma indeed ends up tweaking the world’s conscience and resolves matters there in favor of democracy, that may indeed count as a positive historical event. With his Baghdad legacy in tatters, Bush may now inadvertently benefit from a successful Rangoon revolution.  Who woulda thunk?

Note:  I hope Burma is freed and I wish its citizens the best. But I won’t hold my breath. It has been under military rule since 1962. The current regime is particularly thuggish and doesn’t give a hoot for world opinion. A civilian uprising consisting of monks and an unarmed rag tag population is hardly likely to rattle its steely resolve. Change will only come when the sponsors (China, India, Russia, Thailand) who trade with it and arm, fund and train its soldiers, withdraw their support.