4 ms·

Which is the government that committed the genocide? The one that sized power or the one that was thrown out, or some other one?

by 99_00 6y ago

gostsamo 6y ago
It is complicated. Long decades Myanmar was a military dictatorship. A few years back the dictatorship allowed democratic elections under the condition that it will conserve key positions in the government and there was this brief period when the country was semi-democratic. The military part of the government initiated the genocide, but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way. After the last elections, the military were supposed to loose some more of their positions and hence the coup.
- vmception 6y ago
  and from my understanding, the military's unilateral action is also in line with their constitution, at least according to the military. so where does that leave us to form an opinion and activism about it? just because we have a democracy-boner doesn't mean we can ignore a country's constitution, even if it is flawed, does it? and if our democracy fervor is really so strong for us to actually do something about it, then its hypocritical because we don't do anything meaningful about it in country's that are more relevant, and it makes us picking on the little country.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    I think there could at least be some geopolitical reprecussions. The US is so willing to proscribe various Iranian government officials as terrorists and to sanction Iran so far as to deny them medicine and food from other countries, and they have not done anything close to resembling what Myanmar has done (genocide). Democracy doesn't have to be the answer but there should be pressure on the state of Myanmar to change in case of genocide. We don't have to go forcing other countries to accept our values (democracy, socially liberal policies / conservatively fiscal policies, etc.) But we should at least draw the line at genocide.
  - kyawzazaw 6y ago
    It is being argued that was not constitutional You can check this for more info: https://melissacrouch.com/2021/02/07/the-illegality-of-myanmars-coup/ https://melissacrouch.com/2021/02/07/the-illegality-of-myanm... That professor is an expert on the constitution.
    - vmception 6y ago
      thanks, is there an authority or arbiter in that country left that people can respect, or does it now require external intervention
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        ...or... It's entirely possible for there to be no such authority in place, without requiring "external intervention". In that case the people who live there might create such an authority, or they might not. Eventually we might realize how all humans are harmed by subjugation to authority.
      - kyawzazaw 6y ago
        can you explain what you mean? There is an elected representatives that have the people's support.
        vmception 6y ago
        A Supreme Court to clear it up, a court that people respect. A branch of the government thinks its actions are constitutional, the people and the elected representatives don't. Just because we are conditioned to favor outcomes that are more inclusive and democratic, doesn't mean it is the legally compliant option. Just because a scholar and constitutional expert has an argument, doesn't mean it is the only interpretation. So is there a court that can take the arguments from the scholar on behalf of the people, and the arguments from the military, and make a ruling?
        ecnerwala 6y ago
        "So is there a court that can take the arguments from the scholar on behalf of the people, and the arguments from the military, and make a ruling?" NO. They wouldn't be in the current situation if they had strong functioning independent institutions.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  > but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way. I definitely found that strange at the time, especially since said democratic part had previously gotten a peace nobel prize, but considering she was imprisoned by the military before and after this whole semi-democratic experiment, is it well accepted now that she was mostly under the control of the military and had very little choice in any of the matter? Or do people still think she was mostly complicit for not speaking up, at the risk of compromising the little bit of democracy they had.
  - joshstrange 6y ago
    My understanding is she feared exactly what happened, a coup, if she spoke out. I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of coup. Did she have a choice? Of course she had a choice but it would appear she saw it as "be morally correct" or "maintain democracy" and decided to go with the latter. I hate to say it but I'm not sure if I would have picked a different course of action given the same choices.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      > I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of a coup. I am - it was wrong. Her position went beyond making a hard choice, she defended the genocide and the generals. Describing the generals involved as ‘sweet’ and the victims as ‘terrorists’, she is part of the problem. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-kyi-fall-from-grace-myanmar https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-k... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/aung-san-suu-kyi-amnesty-highest-honour-shameful-betrayal https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/a...
      - colinmhayes 6y ago
        That's politics baby. If you call people you have the power to destroy you evil you're going to get destroyed.
simonh 6y ago
It was done by the military, without reference to or oversight by any civilian government of the time, which had no say in it. The military in Myanmar was autonomous.

Which is the government that committed the genocide? The one that sized power or the one that was thrown out, or some other one?

by 99_00 6y ago

Which is the government that committed the genocide? The one that sized power or the one that was thrown out, or some other one?

gostsamo 6y ago

It is complicated. Long decades Myanmar was a military dictatorship. A few years back the dictatorship allowed democratic elections under the condition that it will conserve key positions in the government and there was this brief period when the country was semi-democratic. The military part of the government initiated the genocide, but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way. After the last elections, the military were supposed to loose some more of their positions and hence the coup.

vmception 6y ago
and from my understanding, the military's unilateral action is also in line with their constitution, at least according to the military. so where does that leave us to form an opinion and activism about it? just because we have a democracy-boner doesn't mean we can ignore a country's constitution, even if it is flawed, does it? and if our democracy fervor is really so strong for us to actually do something about it, then its hypocritical because we don't do anything meaningful about it in country's that are more relevant, and it makes us picking on the little country.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  I think there could at least be some geopolitical reprecussions. The US is so willing to proscribe various Iranian government officials as terrorists and to sanction Iran so far as to deny them medicine and food from other countries, and they have not done anything close to resembling what Myanmar has done (genocide). Democracy doesn't have to be the answer but there should be pressure on the state of Myanmar to change in case of genocide. We don't have to go forcing other countries to accept our values (democracy, socially liberal policies / conservatively fiscal policies, etc.) But we should at least draw the line at genocide.
- kyawzazaw 6y ago
  It is being argued that was not constitutional You can check this for more info: https://melissacrouch.com/2021/02/07/the-illegality-of-myanmars-coup/ https://melissacrouch.com/2021/02/07/the-illegality-of-myanm... That professor is an expert on the constitution.
  - vmception 6y ago
    thanks, is there an authority or arbiter in that country left that people can respect, or does it now require external intervention
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      ...or... It's entirely possible for there to be no such authority in place, without requiring "external intervention". In that case the people who live there might create such an authority, or they might not. Eventually we might realize how all humans are harmed by subjugation to authority.
    - kyawzazaw 6y ago
      can you explain what you mean? There is an elected representatives that have the people's support.
      - vmception 6y ago
        A Supreme Court to clear it up, a court that people respect. A branch of the government thinks its actions are constitutional, the people and the elected representatives don't. Just because we are conditioned to favor outcomes that are more inclusive and democratic, doesn't mean it is the legally compliant option. Just because a scholar and constitutional expert has an argument, doesn't mean it is the only interpretation. So is there a court that can take the arguments from the scholar on behalf of the people, and the arguments from the military, and make a ruling?
        ecnerwala 6y ago
        "So is there a court that can take the arguments from the scholar on behalf of the people, and the arguments from the military, and make a ruling?" NO. They wouldn't be in the current situation if they had strong functioning independent institutions.
ehsankia 6y ago
> but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way. I definitely found that strange at the time, especially since said democratic part had previously gotten a peace nobel prize, but considering she was imprisoned by the military before and after this whole semi-democratic experiment, is it well accepted now that she was mostly under the control of the military and had very little choice in any of the matter? Or do people still think she was mostly complicit for not speaking up, at the risk of compromising the little bit of democracy they had.
- joshstrange 6y ago
  My understanding is she feared exactly what happened, a coup, if she spoke out. I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of coup. Did she have a choice? Of course she had a choice but it would appear she saw it as "be morally correct" or "maintain democracy" and decided to go with the latter. I hate to say it but I'm not sure if I would have picked a different course of action given the same choices.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of a coup. I am - it was wrong. Her position went beyond making a hard choice, she defended the genocide and the generals. Describing the generals involved as ‘sweet’ and the victims as ‘terrorists’, she is part of the problem. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-kyi-fall-from-grace-myanmar https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-k... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/aung-san-suu-kyi-amnesty-highest-honour-shameful-betrayal https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/12/a...
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      That's politics baby. If you call people you have the power to destroy you evil you're going to get destroyed.

simonh 6y ago

It was done by the military, without reference to or oversight by any civilian government of the time, which had no say in it. The military in Myanmar was autonomous.