8 ms·

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will de

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will descend into a failed state with tens of millions affected. It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives?

baybal2 5y ago
1. Pull more countries under resolution 377, to put more pressure on Burma around the security council 2. India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything 3. International intervention under resolution 377 4. Surgical strike on the junta leadership without broad UN involvement by somebody brave enough
- roenxi 5y ago
  > 4. Surgical strike on the junta leadership without broad UN involvement by somebody brave enough Dear me. I hope not. If you look at a map, Burma is nestled between the two nuclear armed up-and-coming superpowers. This is not the part of the world to be seeking adventure by doing political assassinations on military figures. That sounds almost like the script before WWI.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Dear me. I hope not. If you look at a map, Burma is nestled between the two nuclear armed up-and-coming superpowers. And one of these nuclear power needs to be taught a very good lesson as of late.
- ridiculous_leke 5y ago
  > India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything Don't expect anything unless thousands of refugees start pouring in India.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Myanmar violence triggers asylum crisis for India's northeastern states https://m.dw.com/en/myanmar-india-mizoram-asylum/a-57171804 https://m.dw.com/en/myanmar-india-mizoram-asylum/a-57171804
mschuster91 5y ago
> It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives? There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... young people like me expect it to be more than that though. In the past, as a result the US and various European nations have gone off on their own to engage in various conflicts, both in military actions and in economic sanctions, on sometimes extremely thin or nonexistent legal grounds. That's unrealistic to expect here: - there isn't much trade between Myanmar and the EU to sanction (and the bit that is can and will be covered by Russia and China) - military action is out of the question since the US has more pressing problems to solve than a military junta - Taiwan and interior issues - and the EU is blocked by its 100% consensus requirements on foreign action, incompetent and underfunded armies and general instability - generally, outside of human rights activists no one cares about human rights abuses, that is the sad and tragic reality. - as for the UN: there isn't any hope for multilateral action any more there either, it's a dead paperweight. No single nation there acts on good faith and a sense of common humanity, everyone is just looking for their own interests.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again." It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1. > There are no alternatives The alternative is here, and it's the resolution 377 action.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.
naveen99 5y ago
Foreign billionaires adopting some of the military leadership and brokering a peace (piece) ?
eunos 5y ago
After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?
  - nanis 5y ago
    In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all? Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me. So don't criticize Clinton or the US.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?
  - test_epsilon 5y ago
    Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid. I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.
undfg 5y ago
No we do not have to act. It's not our problem. It's none of our business.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  If we don’t act, we don’t get to say ‘never again’.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    China has already ensured that with their genocide.
  - delecti 5y ago
    "Never again" has never been the truth. Standing international policy seems to be to ignore just about any atrocities as long as they're within a country's borders, and to a country's own citizens, with a couple rare exceptions when there's oil we can liberate.
tomjen3 5y ago
We also need to do something about Iran, North Korea, Eritrea, DRC, etc. Why Myanmar now?
rjsw 5y ago
I feel that Vietnam should get more credit than it did for invading Cambodia to depose the Khmer Rouge.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  I agree. In the West this history is too obscure.

baybal2 5y ago

1. Pull more countries under resolution 377, to put more pressure on Burma around the security council 2. India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything 3. International intervention under resolution 377 4. Surgical strike on the junta leadership without broad UN involvement by somebody brave enough

roenxi 5y ago
> 4. Surgical strike on the junta leadership without broad UN involvement by somebody brave enough Dear me. I hope not. If you look at a map, Burma is nestled between the two nuclear armed up-and-coming superpowers. This is not the part of the world to be seeking adventure by doing political assassinations on military figures. That sounds almost like the script before WWI.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Dear me. I hope not. If you look at a map, Burma is nestled between the two nuclear armed up-and-coming superpowers. And one of these nuclear power needs to be taught a very good lesson as of late.
ridiculous_leke 5y ago
> India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything Don't expect anything unless thousands of refugees start pouring in India.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Myanmar violence triggers asylum crisis for India's northeastern states https://m.dw.com/en/myanmar-india-mizoram-asylum/a-57171804 https://m.dw.com/en/myanmar-india-mizoram-asylum/a-57171804

mschuster91 5y ago

> It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives? There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... young people like me expect it to be more than that though. In the past, as a result the US and various European nations have gone off on their own to engage in various conflicts, both in military actions and in economic sanctions, on sometimes extremely thin or nonexistent legal grounds. That's unrealistic to expect here: - there isn't much trade between Myanmar and the EU to sanction (and the bit that is can and will be covered by Russia and China) - military action is out of the question since the US has more pressing problems to solve than a military junta - Taiwan and interior issues - and the EU is blocked by its 100% consensus requirements on foreign action, incompetent and underfunded armies and general instability - generally, outside of human rights activists no one cares about human rights abuses, that is the sad and tragic reality. - as for the UN: there isn't any hope for multilateral action any more there either, it's a dead paperweight. No single nation there acts on good faith and a sense of common humanity, everyone is just looking for their own interests.

baybal2 5y ago
> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again." It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1. > There are no alternatives The alternative is here, and it's the resolution 377 action.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.

naveen99 5y ago

Foreign billionaires adopting some of the military leadership and brokering a peace (piece) ?

eunos 5y ago

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

andy_ppp 5y ago
It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?
- nanis 5y ago
  In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all? Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me. So don't criticize Clinton or the US.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?
- test_epsilon 5y ago
  Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid. I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.

undfg 5y ago

No we do not have to act. It's not our problem. It's none of our business.

tinus_hn 5y ago
If we don’t act, we don’t get to say ‘never again’.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  China has already ensured that with their genocide.
- delecti 5y ago
  "Never again" has never been the truth. Standing international policy seems to be to ignore just about any atrocities as long as they're within a country's borders, and to a country's own citizens, with a couple rare exceptions when there's oil we can liberate.

tomjen3 5y ago

We also need to do something about Iran, North Korea, Eritrea, DRC, etc. Why Myanmar now?

rjsw 5y ago

I feel that Vietnam should get more credit than it did for invading Cambodia to depose the Khmer Rouge.

nate_meurer 5y ago
I agree. In the West this history is too obscure.