Sometimes, aggressive pacificism will get you nowhere but dead. This week’s protests in Myanmar, led by Buddhist monks, provide an object lesson in this phenomenon.
Burma’s generals silenced the Buddhist monks yesterday morning.
For a week and a half, the monks had been on the streets of Rangoon in their tens of thousands, and their angry calm gave courage to the people around them.
But overnight, they were beaten, shot and arrested, and locked in their monasteries. Handfuls of them emerged yesterday – two or three brave individuals, a dozen at most – but nothing to approach the mass marches of the previous nine days. Everyone felt their absence.
…
The monks were moral shields; without them the marchers had lost a lucky charm. They felt less like crusaders for justice and more like what they resembled – scared, angry kids in T-shirts facing well-drilled troops with automatic weapons.
…
The crowd scattered and ran to reform a few hundred yards up the road. Banging their shields, the riot police advanced again with the loud-speaker van behind them.
The message was both crude and courteous. It included an honorific form of the Burmese word for “youâ€Â, and might be translated like this: “Good sirs, please leave the area or we will open fire in ten minutes time.”
Here’s an interesting note that ought to resonate, but won’t:
“Tell them to send foreign troops, UN troops,†said a young monk at the Mwe Kya Kan pagoda. “Please, fly them to our country to save our lives.â€Â
An American in Rangoon told me yesterday about an opinion poll carried out on Burmese attitudes to US foreign policy.
“Like most people, they thought that it sucks,†he told me. “But not for the usual reason. Burmese wanted to know why George Bush hasn’t invaded their country yet.â€Â
Meanwhile, on the American left:
MATTHEWS: Jonathan, he didn‘t pound his shoe on the table. Good old Khrushchev did.
JONATHAN CAPEHART, “THE WASHINGTON POSTâ€Â:†No, he didn‘t. It‘s sort of the usual rants against the developed world from a country that‘s either in the developing world or a country that wants to be part of the big powers, and so a way you show your strength is by maybe rhetorically slamming your shoe on the podium. That‘s basically what the president of Iran did.
MATTHEWS: You‘re a newspaper man. You all are. When you‘re looking at the newspapers of the world, Roger Simon, today, tomorrow, the next day, they‘re just a great panoply of newspaper front pages. Who‘s winning this battle of the front page, our president or their president?
SIMON: Well, probably their president because our president is so disliked around the world. If you‘re going to talk about the world press. Also, our president talked about Myanmar, which may not be a huge headline around the world. It may be.
MATTHEWS: Are you outraged about Burma?
SIMON: We probably should be, you know.
MATTHEWS: I know. But outraged about Burma? Nobody‘s thought about it, let alone be outraged about it. They‘re outraged about New Orleans, if anything.
MASON: Well, about housing prices too and crime going up. But Burma, I don‘t know. Can they point to it on a map?
CAPEHART: Chrisâ€â€
MATTHEWS: They may be thinking about Burma Shave or something.
MASON: I‘m outraged by Burma shave. I‘m on record.
“Ahmadinajad wins! Oh, and BURMA SHAVE! Ha ha!”
Comment by cicero on 9/30 @ 3:39 pm #
Yr blt t lt g whn y dn’t hr yr prfrrd nswr t “hw mny ngls dnc n th hd f pn” s mprssv.
s fr s yr pnn r: “ggrssv pcfsm”, thght Chrst shwd th dwnsd f tht n m tm? Hvn’t Gndh nd MLK prvn t snc. Sm ppl dn’t rsrt t vlnc t gt thr wy; mst f th thrs r lk y, pb
[Comment disemvoweled in the hope that someone might be able to interpret something other than ad hominem into it. Good luck, kids. - Ed.]
Comment by Pablo on 9/30 @ 4:40 pm #
OK, back to the stalking.
Comment by cicero on 9/30 @ 5:50 pm #
Here, I de-vowled this for you: fck y
ou aii o e o e ou o’ ea ou eee ae o “o ay ae ae o e ea o a i†i ieie.
A a a ou oiio e: “aeie aiiâ€Â, I ou i oe e oie o a i y ie? ae’ ai a oe i ie. oe eoe o’ eo o ioee to e ei a; o o e oe ae ie ou, a
[Exactly the same comment, now without consonants! Think of it as a jigsaw puzzle of inanity. Because we're all about adding value! - Ed.
P.S. This version has a bit more rhythm, don't you think?]
Comment by Pablo on 9/30 @ 6:28 pm #
Cicero, if you’ve got something substantive to say, by all means do so. For instance, you could respond to a couple of my direct questions. That might engender a modicum of respect for you.
If you’re just going to spew, it isn’t going to go well for you.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/30 @ 7:23 pm #
Guess which name NPR prefers?
http://www.npr*.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14779565
Comment by Shawn on 9/30 @ 11:34 pm #
Morris Day and the Time!
Comment by Chairman Me on 10/1 @ 1:02 am #
“Yr blt t lt g whn y dn’t hr yr prfrrd nswr t “hw mny ngls dnc n th hd f pn†s mprssv.”
Anna Nicole, is that you?
Comment by corvan on 10/1 @ 1:11 am #
A Do-ron, ron ron, a do-ron, ron.
Comment by cicero on 10/1 @ 1:47 am #
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Pablo, no wonder you don’t have you’re own blog. You couldn’t the daily ass kickings.
Hey, just take out every third letter, since you have so much time to waste. I suppose being a deranged loner does free you up.
Comment by JorgXMcKie on 10/1 @ 1:56 am #
Where’s cicero’s blog? I guess since he can’t get anyone to take him seriously (or probably at all) he act’s like an angry 3-year-old and comes to your house and pisses on the carpet. Not unexpected, though, from that quarter.
Comment by maggie katzen on 10/1 @ 1:59 am #
the word, “projection” comes to mind….
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot on 10/1 @ 2:11 am #
Hey, I think Brother Iz sang that #3.
Anyone think that Burma Shave joke was prepared in advance, just waiting for an opening? Because wit is everything, you know.
Comment by Shawn on 10/1 @ 2:13 am #
Got a link there, Cic?
TW: The 1836 Orioles represent the greatest example of futility in Major League Baseball
Comment by Letalis Maximus, Esq. on 10/1 @ 2:32 am #
Burma Shave. That’s funny. That’s really funny.
Is there a clever one-liner we can use with Darfur, too? You know, for laughs and all.
The well-fed Chris Matthews should be ashamed. But then, we know better.
Comment by Tom Gray on 10/1 @ 7:48 am #
He said it with a straight face, the no gays comment, do you think he could be lying about the rest of it too? Hmmmmmm
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 8:53 am #
Couldn’t do them?
Yes, some days that’s true. I just don’t have the time.
Wait….you’re not trying to declare victory again, are you? Because once again, you’ve brought absofuckingloutely nothing to the table. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Question to the room: Does anyone find cicero the least bit clever? Anyone? Bueller?
Comment by Doug Stewart on 10/1 @ 11:14 am #
Cicero’s disemvoweled prose looks strikingly like Welsh.
Or Qwghlmish. Y’know, cause of the fiction n’ whatnot.
TW: peasants minutes. Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Comment by BJTex on 10/1 @ 12:13 pm #
Help me out here, cicero: What is your purpose in life?
Oh, is it to show up at somebody else’s blog, spouting goofy insults and head scratching inanities?
Well, then, I guess you really are purpose driven!
TW: greater Americans Especially those with purpose, babee!
Comment by B Moe on 10/1 @ 1:25 pm #
“Cicero’s disemvoweled prose looks strikingly like Welsh.
Or Qwghlmish.”
I don’t know, seems more R’Qqharbian to me.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/
Comment by cicero on 10/1 @ 1:39 pm #
So, the Politburo here at the Pub consists of Pablo, B Moe and BJtxs? Are three different people or just one person with three screen names?
My comment, which was vandalized by Pablo, was extremely relevant and interesting. He couldn’t handle it, so he changed it.
Gee, I’m not sure why I would declare victory. pablow couldn’t handle the post. Here’s a direct question to you, pablo, why would insinuate pacificism is bad on a Sunday? Have you no respect for Jesus and his admonitions?
Unfortunately, for me, I cannot live up the aims of Christ, which is why I engaged a non-serious person such as yourself.
As for the B Moe, BJ pile one, nice work, boys. Ever since my first post, Mr. txs has been nothing if not pleasant.
Comment by B Moe on 10/1 @ 1:53 pm #
“Here’s a direct question to you, pablo, why would insinuate pacificism is bad on a Sunday?”
Not necessarily bad, but usually ineffective. And as to the timing: because a bunch of pacifist monks got their asses handed to them on Saturday.
Comment by Doug Stewart on 10/1 @ 1:54 pm #
What part of
is in following with Christ’s teachings, exactly, Sissy-ro?
Jesus also taught at length about motes, planks and ocular devices, if I recall correctly.
Comment by B Moe on 10/1 @ 2:12 pm #
“Cicero(s) … career as a statesman was marked by inconsistencies and a tendency to shift his position in response to changes in the political climate…
“Would that he had been able to endure prosperity with greater self-control and adversity with more fortitude!” wrote C. Asinius Pollio, a contemporary Roman statesman and historian.”
Heh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero
Comment by BJTex on 10/1 @ 2:14 pm #
Timmy? TimB? Is that you?
If so you got some splainin’ to do!
Comment by Rob Crawford on 10/1 @ 2:16 pm #
It’s also bad Monday-Saturday.
Comment by cicero on 10/1 @ 3:07 pm #
See, Robert, I would think it’s a fine ideal. In fact, it raised the profile of this movement above just student demonstrations ended. Unfortunately, the movement will falter without international attention. It think the President did a fine thing in highlighting Burma. It’s true to his vision of the “march of freedom.”
Fine point, Doug. He also knocked over the money changers in the Temple. I mention that not to compare myself to Christ or Pablo to the money-changers, but to note that righteous (or self-righteous?) anger can grab any of us.
BJTex, not sure what that means.
B Moe, it is true that the real Cicero was fungible in his support. He was not the warrior in the Roman sense and could be intimidated. It is from his devotion to the Republic that I take the name. The devotion that cost him his head when he criticized the wrong fellow (Octavian). Is anyone truly consistent in his/her politics? It’s an interesting questions, as the “pro-life” folks support wars and the death penalty and the “pro-choice” folks tend say every human life has value…once it’s out of the womb. The internal contradictions of that very basic divide in American politics demonstrates, in my opinion, why all of will “vote against the 80 billion before we vote for it.” Shorter me: we are all Romneys somewhere.
I must say, I like the second round of comments better. There are interesting things in there, especially Robert’s observation re: pacificism. Much like the namesake, I admire it, even if I can’t always live up to it (Cicero condemned to death a number of men, without due process when he was consul for an apparent attempt at revolution).
Do you guys agree that international powers should do more re: Burma? Specifically, Thailand?
Comment by B Moe on 10/1 @ 6:17 pm #
I am pretty sure that was the point of the post. That this would be yet another grand opportunity for the International Community to do something besides sponge of the US.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 6:36 pm #
Does a moronic statement like that even deserve a response? I think not. I’ll just leave it there so we can all bask in its idiocy once again.
No, it was foolish and inane and off topic. What do you think was brilliant about it? It’s still there and still decipherable. Tell us how it was relevant and brilliant. Tell us what your point was supposed to be. And as I mentioned, if you’d step up your game, you might get a little respect. Otherwise, you are not entitled to any, cissy.
When I see dogshit on the sidewalk, I step around it. When I see it on my front walk, I clean it up. Same rule applies here.
Pacifism isn’t necessarily good or bad, and it really doesn’t matter what day it is. The results may vary, however, depending on who you’re trying to use it against. You see that word “Sometimes”? It’s the first one in the post. Do you know what that word means, cicero? See also B Moe’s comment at #21. Dead is not good where I come from. (See how I answered your direct question? You should try it sometime.)
Well, sure. But Jesus didn’t preach much pacifism. And he did a number on the moneychangers, didn’t he?
You should maybe shoot for the aims of Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Something along your level of intellectual ability. But if you can’t do it, and you think you’re my moral and intellectual superior, why would you try a stupid gambit like the one in the quote just before this one?
BJ is nothing if not patient. Me, not so much.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 6:44 pm #
BURMA SHAVE! Ha ha!
Way to completely miss the point, cissy.
Now we might be getting somewhere. Yes, of course, but the organ that should be driving such an effort, the UN, won’t, thanks to China who really doesn’t like the idea of cracking down on human rights violators to begin with. As for Thailand, what about it interests you? The jihad in the south? The coup? What do you think ought to be done there?
Comment by RiverC on 10/1 @ 6:50 pm #
Read a couple-weeks old Time magazine while waiting for my oil change this morning, and saw an interesting article. It had a picture of the Burmese monks marching, and the title read (to paraphrase) “Burmese monks will not be silenced.” If I recall I attempted to read but was put off by the triumphalist-pacifist tone. I chuckled, though, because it was pointless to read that article now, at least for me – the monks already have been silenced, beauty and/or justice of pacifism nonwithstanding.
They seem to forget that the calculus of the real world – under mostly all circumstances reduces itself to force. The Rule of Law exists to ensure that principles can actually live in the world as opposed to just in men’s minds, and a military junta is the last institution – aside from a gang, maybe – that you would expect to obey anything but its own limitations in power.
The Burmese have, as Pablo points out, been looking TO us to rescue them (or some of them have, anyway.) The old conservative instinct in me reacts immediately with: ‘Why is it any of our business?’ Which is probably an important question to answer. Often the response “because it is best for the world” requires qualifications – many of which will be in a juvenile fashion redefined according to who is benefiting from success.
I think we could probably go in and kick ass, and get away with it. If our mission was for the world to like us, good old buddy USA, then perhaps they might see some kind of action. Honestly, though, I have no idea what our military or gov’t’s policy is regarding this, other than (if I remember correctly) calling for the violence to stop.
Obviously a factor is that Burma as it stands is only a harm to itself, which is also probably why Darfur got so little attention. In general, it seems like there are two world orders, (or three if you count radical Islam.) The first is the democratic-economic world order of which the USA is the axis and major players like India and China are gradually being integrated into. The second is the U.N.’s world order- a bureaucratic/idealist world-government style order, of which the EU is probably the Axis, though obviously EU states are part of the other world order, and the US houses the UN and participates.
If you frame things in this way, you can see that mostly there are economic and military players in one game – with democracy serving as a common ground with ethics as a code, and free market serving as the oil to grease the gears as well as the gears themselves. Many players in this game even would like it be their own game if possible, while others seem content to prosper and cooperate so long as things don’t go to hell.
In the other game you have ideological players – groups like ANSWER, and bureaucracies like the UN and EU which seek to market their ideas on one hand and on the other hand attain and wield power. Corruption isn’t an issue since ethics – in the normal sense of the word – are not really part of the game. The game is whose Utopian vision will win (more or less.)
In this sense, the system only reacts to a rogue – state or otherwise – if it threatens the integrity of the system instead of just its own integrity. Iraq and the Middle East threaten the first system, but not the second – the second system is about ideas (rather than results) so a hundred years of ‘peace process’ with no results are acceptable mostly because the idea is ‘peace processes’ rather than results, really. Darfur did not significantly effect either system – and thus was not reacted to automatically. The same may be true for Burma.
I think someone called this the ‘unintegrated gap’. This unintegrated area, it may be, will only be addressed if its lack of integrity threatens the system. Think about how the body will deal with certain poisons/pathogens – seal them off until they go away on their own rather than trying to integrate them and remove them immediately.
Comment by BJTex on 10/1 @ 6:59 pm #
Hey Pablo! I am not a patient. We’ve been over this and I explained that I was given an conditional release as long as I maintain a 500 yard buffer and stop trying to make zoo animals out of cotton candy…..
What?
Oh! I’m patient. Of course there’s no “a” there! Well … um … thanks for that … um … ah … so how ’bout those Sox?
Cicero: A little less inflation and a little more arguing facts and supporting opinions might very well isulate you from general mocking.
Puffing yourself up like a horny Pheasant? Not so much…
I’m reminded of the curious way in which the mainstream feminist movement in this country (*cough*NOW*cough*) pretty much ignores the ongoing oppression of women in muslim theocracies or monarchies. I remember engaging actus on this and the best he/she could do was say that NOW chose to concentrate on “domestic issues.”
If the US was actively engaged in Burma, the outrage would be LEGION!!! Oh, well … FREE TIBET!
Comment by RiverC on 10/1 @ 7:04 pm #
By the way, can’t we just shortcut cicero’s mind parasites and get to the actual conversation? Oops, I think I got their attention…
TW: Synagogue organiza – according to Urban Islamic Myth, the original Gangsta.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 7:13 pm #
As for pacifism, the world has taken the pacifistic approach to Darfur and the Janjaweed that are slaughtering innocents there wholesale. It’s a nice ideal, but it sucks for you if you live in Darfur.
I’m guessing they’d like nothing better than to see a shitload of US Marines rolling into the neighborhood to kick some Janjaweed ass. And some US Air Force above, erasing them by the hundreds and decimating their capacity to operate as they have been for so, so long now.
Not that they’re going to get it, mind you…
Comment by RiverC on 10/1 @ 7:17 pm #
Just so we don’t get sidetracked, the idea of the system and its unintegrated gaps is not mine, it belongs to Thomas Barnett.
Comment by cicero on 10/1 @ 9:43 pm #
A fine point. Disorder in the heart of Europe (okay on the fringe of the heart of Europe) saw nothing done about it for three years or more until NATO acted. Disorder in the center of Africa in Rwanda with no danger to the international order saw no one but the French lift a finger (and on the wrong side).
Since Marines aren’t landing in Rangoon (and I don’t think they should be), and Pablo’s observation regarding the limits of Thai interests is absolutely true (although I think they play up the Muslim thing for cash…it appears those “jihadis” are more interested than banditry and shooting teachers than an overwhelming desire for political control. Nonetheless, they are violent and murderous and need to be dealt with).
Back to the point, I think the US could play a Pakistan on the Thailand. They need our tourism and our aid and we could threaten that aid to “encourage” them to take action against the Burmese military. Seriously, the only cash export for Burma seems to heroin and wouldn’t it be nice to stop that AND hurt the Burmese military.
I favor soft power over hard power. For instance, once hard power is used and occupied, it is difficult to wield in other places. So, maybe with the President’s last few months he could use the soft power of the US to encourage the Thais?
The mocking does not hurt. It was the annoying editing that bothered me. To that end, Pablo, thanks for not doing that anymore and thanks for talking seriously.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 10:12 pm #
cicero, this is the only thread on which I’ve done “that annoying editing”, which AFAIC pales in comparison to the annoying substance-free triumphalism I’ve seen on display here for some time. If the end result is an actual discussion, my having done it is further vindicated, though I’m not in any particular need of vindication.
I’ve never been one to accuse jihadis of being especially coherent, but they are true believers in Thailand as they are elsewhere. And they’re interested in wiping out the Buddhists, going so far as beheading schoolgirls.
See here.
And if your stomach is strong…and ONLY if your stomach is strong, see here.
Comment by cicero on 10/2 @ 2:09 am #
I understood your point (I will admit I skipped the second one, thanks for the head’s up), but I think this line shows we’re both correct: “More than 2500 people have been killed in the far south since the latest unrest erupted in January 2004.” 2500 in three plus years seems to be a low level insurgency….I suppose I can say that since I’m not a Buddhist schoolteacher in Southern Thailand.
What do you think of using economic pressure on the Thais. I’m sort of skeptical it could work, but I doubt the gents from Diego Garcia are landing in Burma any time soon.
Comment by Pablo on 10/2 @ 2:32 am #
To what end? Would you have the Thais remove the junta? Are they even capable of that? Honestly, I don’t know if they are. They seem to have enough of their own problems. And is it their responsibility? Or is this something the international community ought to be addressing? And no, I don’t see that happening any time soon, if ever.
Comment by B Moe on 10/2 @ 3:56 am #
“2500 in three plus years seems to be a low level insurgency….”
You don’t say.
Comment by cicero on 10/2 @ 2:44 pm #
I think the Thais could place pressure on the military and help the Burmese opposition. I am too convinced that the house of cards the Burmese military has built could withstand event he slightest jolt and I’m willing to pay some US tax dollars to find out.
Pressing issue? Probably not. But, it seemed important to the President.
Comment by B Moe on 10/2 @ 4:28 pm #
See, Pablo? Just place some pressure on them and it will all be better. The chiropractic school of foreign policy.
Comment by cicero on 10/2 @ 5:07 pm #
Actually, Mr. Moe, Pablo and I agree that a free Burma is a good idea and, whereas he has not say so explicitly (I’m pretty sure from earlier comments he made in the thread), he certainly implied that the US Marines aren’t landing in Rangoon (Pablo, if I misunderstood, then you can correct me).
Since there is a goal (Free Burma) and one option has been ruled out (two, really, because both of us agree the Chinese will prevent Security Council intervention), then we are discussing what a third option might look like. From his earlier comment about the Thai govt’s hands being full, I think it’s safe to say that he thinks my idea is unrealistic and hopeless.
Your desire to continue the sniping from above isn’t helping me bridge the yawning gap between Pablo and I; a gap for comity’s sake, I would like to close as much as possible.
I understand your point by the way, but diplomacy, the only thing any of us is willing to do, is about pressure and it can work.
Comment by Pablo on 10/2 @ 6:38 pm #
I don’t know that putting economic or other pressure on the Thais is the way to go about it. Putting pressure on the junta seems a better way to go. But again, in order to do that we’d have to have the consensus of at least the Perm 5, at least one of whom isn’t going to play along. And if we can’t get hard on the junta, how can we get hard on the Thais to make them get hard on the junta?
This is what leads to such frustration with the UN, and why I’d like to see something like a union of Democratic nations replace it, so that the opinions and desires of every thug regime on the planet aren’t placed on par with those of free nations.
And I can’t help but recall the lessons learned from putting such pressure on Saddam and the abject lack of compliance it bought us.
Trackback by Chiropractor Qualifications on 4/25 @ 4:26 pm #
Chiropractor Qualifications
General Education- S.F.Community College; B.A. Psychology- San Fran
Trackback by Templates For Teachers on 6/10 @ 11:36 am #
Templates For Teachers
You will get at home with the templates for teachers communication use
Trackback by Chiropractor Nd on 7/15 @ 9:55 am #
Chiropractor Nd
International Chiropractors Association Web Site: w