Burma’s Saffron Revolution: Goodbye, Generals.
Just because we can’t see protestors any longer doesn’t mean they aren’t there. The Burmese regime wants us to believe their claims that they have “restored normalcy” to the country. They want us to conclude that the repression was successful and that the resistance has been crushed. But that’s not the real story from Burma.
No one should be surprised that the regime cracked down; after all, that’s what regimes do when faced with dissent. The effects of the protests may be much deeper and longer-lasting than the effects of the most recent round of terror against Burmese citizens. Exiled pro-democracy leaders, monks, and students all claim that the movement survives and that, in the words of one refugee, the people “have committed themselves to victory in the struggle for Burma.” There are some encouraging signs that this commitment is being translated into a systematic strategy to undermine the junta’s sources of support and control.
For starters, the movement learned how to coordinate “lines” or layers of leadership, so that if one group of leaders was jailed or otherwise neutralized, another would quickly step up in its place. And that is exactly what happened after the first wave of arrests, then the second, and then the third. And it is believed by some Burma observers that there still more-many more-ready to take their places.
Next, with monks in the vanguard, the movement has revealed the regime’s utter lack of political legitimacy and moral authority. By cracking down on the most respected and revered part of its society, the regime has cracked down on the very soul of Burma. This has activated parts of the population that have up till now stayed on the sidelines, including teachers, villagers, and even government workers. A BBC World Asia correspondent recently said, “It is obvious that despite their best efforts to stifle any opposition, the question Burma’s ruling generals need to ask themselves is not if the anti-government protests will return, but when.”
It hasn’t taken long. Already, news broke that citizens in Rangoon were engaging in “silent protests” - such as turning off the state news reports en masse, or turning off their lights — to symbolize their rejection of the regime’s propaganda. Ordinary people have withdrawn their consent to the regime, and are willing to take action — if creative, low risk options are presented to them. They will follow in the footsteps of courageous nonviolent resisters who battled against Pinochet’s junta in Chile, the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines. They all faced repression yet devised nonviolent actions to disrupt their oppressive systems and mobilize people.
Rank and file members of the military and police are finding themselves in a dilemma. To disregard their orders might get them into trouble, but to obey will only put their souls in peril in this devoutly Buddhist country. If the movement can achieve a critical mass, some soldiers and police may hesitate to repress if they know that people from their own communities or extended families could be the ones being hurt. Such was the case in Serbia during the nonviolent uprising against Slobodan Milosevic, otherwise known as the “Butcher of the Balkans.” When police were asked why they did not fully obey orders, some answered that they could not shoot into the crowd because they didn’t know if their own children were in it.
A final sign of the strategic planning and strength of the movement is its ability to maintain “nonviolent discipline.” Despite the horrors committed by the regime over the past days, there has not been a single report of protesters becoming violent. And why should they use violence? It would only give the regime more pretence to repress, and perhaps even allow many individual soldiers and police officers to rationalize doing something they otherwise could not bring themselves to do. The maintenance of nonviolent discipline- along with the growing size, diversity, and commitment of the resistance in Burma- has garnered more sympathy from the international community, and is a critical factor in building the movement’s own legitimacy.
The latest rumor making its way through the streets and alleys of Rangoon is that the wife of General Than Shwe, the junta’s alpha dog, is house-shopping in Dubai. Rather than debate whether or not the crackdown on the Saffron Revolution was successful, perhaps the more intriguing question we all should be asking is who is more afraid of whom.
Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science and international studies at the State University of New York at Brockport. Shaazka Beyerle is senior advisor at the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
It would be nice someday if the USA supported democracy.
A Police state is to large scale protest (non-violent or otherwise) as the Titanic was to the Iceberg. The damage done wasn’t visible immediately, but the damage had been done. The ship was doomed to sink. So it is with Burma. So it will be with any other country (be it yours or mine) whose misrulers take it down the path of authoritarianism.
Nothing was ever to be the same again in South Africa after the shooting of Hector Petersen in Soweto in 1976, for example. One of the rioting students stated that: “…we know that we are up against the most well equipped armed forces and Police in Africa…It may take tens of thousands of us to die to break its power, but we’re all ready for that”. Apartheid fell 18 years later.
What is so striking is the quiet, disciplined determination of the Burmese people, and their commitment to nonviolence. I’m wondering how long it will take for the InterLeft to notice that this nonviolence has a religious basis. Will this incredible demonstration of true populism make any impact on the “religion is a mental disorder” crowd? Religion is not all about Islamist extremists and Fundie Christian homophobes. In fact it has been central to many successful movements of resistance - please see history of left in the US. Can we (leftists who are religious and those who are atheists) work together, or will the commitment to ideology (”faith,” one must surely call it) trump awareness of shared priorities?
In Peace
Ken Hymes
Nigel and other folks, Hi, thanks for your thoughts. Sadly, based on really ugly and way-too-close experience, I have to say that we can’t get even remotely optimistic about Burma, where I have many friends, and I know exactly what’s happening to them right now.
“The ship was doomed to sink. So it is with Burma”
That’s what everyone said in China when I was there on June 3, 1989.
“So it will be with any other country (be it yours or mine) whose misrulers take it down the path of authoritarianism.”
I’d sure like to think so, Brother, but the reality is that China and Singapore _ whatever their external blather to keep Westerners happy and their money rolling in _ are way-too-powerful supporters of Burma’s regime for it ever to fall under demonstrations or even outside pressure. The generals are laughing in their sleeves at the monks as they listen to their screams at night.
China’s government leaders _ those noted experts in crowd control _ are Burma’s closest ally, and now its adviser in this situation. Singapore _ an insidious, snarling, and viciously brilliant little high-tech dictatorship and key US ally, due to US bases there _ are never going to let Burma become an example of the power of people. The US government will never pressure China for economic reasons, or Singapore for strategic reasons.
Only massive, massive, and I mean massive ECONOMIC pressure on China and Singapore _ both _ will bring down Burma’s regime.
A boycott of the Chinese Olympics is the best hope and last chance for Burma. Singapore’s egotistical and insecure leaders would tremble, pee their pants and follow through if China pulls out. Trust me on that one. TIE THE OLYMPICS TO BURMA. Only hope. It’s not a tenuous connection or a conspiracy theory. It’s all on the record, and in this part of the world it’s clear as a diamond bullet.
Sorry to be negative. I love Burma and this week has broken my heart. Thanks for your thoughts on a fine country and people, and Keep the Faith.
Thank you Zell. The Burmese Generals, likewise the rulers of China and Singapore, might try to stem the tide of revolution with reforms (or convenient wars).
But if it’s found that they can’t change, or that the “old guard” is too far entrenched, then they simply won’t survive. Don’t lose heart, Zell - remember that lies are sprinters - the truth is a long distance runner!
Hi Zell-
Your comments are based on a conventional wisdom that I think is understandable but, fortunately, becoming less defensible as people-power movements have successes in places where many would have (and did) predict failure: Chile, Serbia, South Africa…
No doubt economic pressure will be a key variable in the collapse of this regime, but the assumption underlying your argument is that repression will work because it will continue to be tolerated. But if repression and the use of force could hold a system in place, how do you explain the collapse of the regimes named above?
Strategic nonviolent conflict works by putting pressure on oppressors from multiple sources simultaneously: the most significant, of course, is the en masse withdrawl of consent by the people. When a regime’s own defenders begin to doubt its ability to survive, its days are numbered. It can no longer count on those who are tasked with enforcing its (unjust) mandates. There are already many stories of soldiers refusing to carry out orders, and others who have actually defected. See the Democratic Voice of Burma (dvb.no) for an interview with an army officer who escaped to Thailand after switching loyalties.
No doubt this group of generals is thus far unwilling to budge, but very soon, it may no longer be up to them.
Cynthia (Boaz)
Hi, Cynthia, thanks for your note, and for your hope and belief. And especially for your care for Burma.
I’m sorry, I respect your comments and don’t want to sound argumentative, but my comments aren’t based on conventional wisdom. I wish they were. Lots of things in life I wish I hadn’t seen.
I met Nelson Mandela for the second time in early 1997, when he was meeting with Burma’s regime’s closest supporters, best friends and major investors from Asia, seeking investment.
Asked why he was willing to deal with them in spite of their support for Burma and treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi, like him a long-time political detainee and Nobel laureate, Mandela said _ “We are willing to deal with any region irrespective of the internal policies of those regions … Why should we let ourselves depart from what international organisations are doing?”
Judging by the context, “international organisations,” apparently referred to The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Burma’s main enablers before China took over.
He was criticized thoroughly in South Africa for his stance, but defended it.
Those generals will slaughter every single person in that country before they give an inch.
Only pressure on China will stop them, because China is entirely holding them up.
You’re right. Peaceful resistance and civil disobedience have accomplished much.
But in today’s world, global government-financial power has reached such a critical mass of international power that those tactics will not work in that country’s case.
We can cheer on the Burmese, but they’ll just end up dead. Their leaders are utter psychopaths. They listen only to China and the voices in their heads _ which are rapidly becoming the same thing. I’m really sorry. Just trying to make the point. Thanks for your comment. All respect, keep going.
Zell-
“Those generals will slaughter every single person in that country before they give an inch.”
That’s the point— they cannot do that unless the security forces agree to continue to carry out their orders, and those individuals– most conscripted– are not all psychopaths. As we noted in the original essay, the generals have committed violence against the soul of Burma, and the soliders and police will eventually be able to see that as well as the people.
Cynthia
Is there a way we can refuse to buy Chevron’s natural gas?
“The latest rumor making its way through the streets and alleys of Rangoon is that the wife of General Than Shwe, the junta’s alpha dog, is house-shopping in Dubai.”
I take it that Halliburton is again-hiring “experienced consultants” as Executives?
We can cheer on the Burmese, but they’ll just end up dead.
Literally using your logic,the military junta would have no one to brutalize or better yet cannabalize but each other.
We tend to think of China as an immovable , implacable economic and military powerhouse . Compared to the immovable,implacable… powerhouses of the Roman,Holy Roman,Spanish,English,French,Dutch,German,Russian empires it is by longevity a mere infant in comparison to the meteoric Japanese empire .
First century Christians ( they didn’t even initially call themselves that ) took on the brutality of an empire that by their own account makes the military juntas in China , Burma and Singapore appear benign.
Whether you are a Christian or Buddhist or Atheist , the monk’s strategy of non-violent confrontation with a few gaps in the dark ages can be traced all the way back to Jesus Christ and maybe even beyond. Yes,they were almost wiped out but like penicillin-resistant bacteria a few survived. Today there is no functional Roman Empire but…
The non-violent element of the dissidents’ strategy helps drive a wedge between the oppressors and their armies, thereby weakening the oppressors.
militantliberal: Is there a way we can refuse to buy Chevron’s natural gas?
Yes, make your own gas with anaerobic digestion of household biowaste.
the myanmar government is more afraid of the monks. the lack of full force international crackdown on burma is reprehensible. but this movement only came together in rangoon. the repression in burma is rural. the monks are standing for that. rangoon was only the place they chose to burn. this opression is deeper and darker than current media portrays, and the international community NO LONGER HAS ANY REASON NOT TO STAND FOR BURMESE DEMOCRACY based on transpancy. the real question is why haavent international governmental coalitions taken the hard stand instead of the obfuscated moral stand?
Sorry , I meant to say about as long-lived as the Japanese empire so far.
The junta has maintained that it has an accommodation with the democratic forces in Burma. The junta has maintained that it has an accommodation with the Buddhist monks in Burma. The junta has maintained that it has an accommodation with the soldiers in the army in Burma.
The junta has used the appearance of power derived from the appearance of accommodation with these powerful groups to repress, through fear, the people of Burma.
The people of Burma watched as the junta resorted to extreme measures in an effort to put down a protest; it was evident that the appearance of accommodation with these powerful groups was only appearance; it was evident that the power the junta derives from the appearance of accommodation with these powerful groups was only appearance.
The Burmese people realize that these powerful groups of which they are members are the real power in Burma; the Burmese people see that the junta derives its power from them; the Burmese people see that the junta that represses them, through fear, is itself frightened.
The lie is seen; the truth is seen; the days of the junta are numbered.
FREE BURMA!
There seems to be so little known about the situation in Burma. News is very sketchy.
Zell, where can we get better info?
armchair, on a previous post you mentioned a book you wrote on Burma. is it still relevant to the situation now?
There are a host of international supporters of this dreadful regime. As we have seen - Capitalism LOVES dictators - less issues with unions, wages etc . Remember the bastion of capitalism (University of Chicago/Milton Friedmansim is the best) once published a paper showing hw slavery WAS a better economic alternative- of course they only meant it in terms of economics - sheesh the mind you must have to actually go down that alley of utter darkness.
Total of France, Chevron, India, China etc are ALL involved in supporting this dictatorship. Don’t except to sanctions (like against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba) - instead expect this to disappear - or as pointed out earlier to drag on for seemingly ever - like South Africa, Israel etc.
Anyone else need to belittle or dismiss the sheer courage and hope expressed by the monks and Burmese people? I mean since your negative views are so helpful and moreover so important in the scheme of things? You do not help but offer reasons why there is no hope? Methinks you naysayers posteth too much! Who cares that YOU feel the need to tell everyone that the courage of 200,000 is useless.
In the first place the monks have succeeded already. The world was made aware of Burma. You naysayers said nothing till something was done. That should tell you something but I doubt it does. While the example of the monks’ courage may not inspire hope in your armchairs… I mean in your hearts, the world SAW real courage and people everywhere are responding.
The generals wanted silence, it makes control so much easier. While the world forgot and ignored Burma, the generals had their way without difficulty. The problem was how to make the world take notice of Burma. A seemingly impossible task yet here it is. Give credit where it is due and acknowledge their masterful non-violent courage. It succeeded and immediately the naysayers dismiss it like the generals. Whose side are you on? Your naysaying helps whom? The generals that’s whom. You naysayers give the generals hope.
People lost their lives to bring attention to the Burmese’ plight. Even from your armchairs naysayers you must admit the monks did the impossible and broke the silence of Burma. People of goodwill will help them. Some in their armchairs will help the generals.
The truth is that the courage of the monks inspires hope and courage in everyone. The human spirit seeking truth and freedom marches on even under the shadow of the gun. If we fail the Burmese we fail ourselves… we who seek a better world. SO if you would do nothing to help the monks from your armchairs then at least have the dignity to stop helping the generals.
Such courage deserves only respect.
Ronald White,
Hi, thank you, thought that was a really astute essay you posted. Good, original thoughts, can see you know China some. Interesting words on Christian history. Folks over there _ in Burma, I mean _ are feeling so helpless and hopeless, and that historical context would probably be reassuring for them. Wish there was some way to convey it to the activists there in Burma. Who knows, maybe it’ll find its way into their hands.
Hi, Cynthia,
Thank you so much for your reply.
“the generals have committed violence against the soul of Burma, and the soliders and police will eventually be able to see that as well as the people”
Yeah, point taken, thanks. And well-put. If one knows the country, one clearly sees it as that _ “violence against the soul of Burma.” It’s a snide spit in the face to the whole concept of decency itself, which the Burmese in general personify like no other society I’ve met. It is indeed a country with a rare level of soul. I hope you get to go sometime. It’s a truly unique place.
You’re right, there is hope. Guess the question that remains is whether the soldiers and police with consciences _ and they’re out there, I’ve met them _ will be able to reach that critical mass that’s needed to say no. It’s mainly a psychological exercise for them. They are scared, have families to feed. Their counter-intel is one of Asia’s most efficient, devious. They learned from the best, Singapore and China.
The next question in line is how we help them. They need very practical help, not just moral support. They need to be assured somehow that the rest of the world will be there to back them up if they turn. Asylum offers, etc. There are a lot of scholars and intellectuals there who really do fear China will suck them in in a terrible way if they become a “failed state.” They fear being the Next Tibet. Don’t know what to do. Some better minds than my own are certainly required on that.
I believe these monks have been carefully and surreptitiously planning this non-violent revoloution for years. They’ve been patiently waiting for the time to be ripe. It isn’t about the most recent rise in the price of fuel that was already unaffordable to most of the population. It’s about reducing suffering in Burma by dismantling the agency imposing that suffering. If the common people are willing to risk their lives for the cause, they will win. We need to make the same commitment here, and dismantle the plutocracy that is only more subtle and sophisicated in its oppression of us.
Cynthia–South Africa, Chile, et al provide inspiring examples, but also cautionary tales. If the Burmese democracy movement, allied with international pressure, were to send the generals back to the barracks, would this simply clear the way for more agressive plunder by multinationals, the creation of a transnational nouveau riche class, etc? What is the significance of nearby Nepal, where the monarchy was brought down not at the behest of the international community, but through an alliance of democracy advocates and Maoists?
To my mind all of this hinges on a truth not yet accepted by a majority. Nationalism allows for small factions of oppressors to take charge of nations and their commons.
The perceived separation of nations; “their” government, “their” culture, “their” differences of
religion/philosophy/”isms”, sets up a dynamic where the billions of people who hold no lust to take from another, or interfere with another’s life, stand by and watch the domination of others expand across the globe under the guise of National Borders. We give each faction a
separate name, depending on their nationality or doctrine, but in truth - they are all the same.
For these odd fellows, “The end justifies the means”. Their goal is never, as they ALWAYS declare, national security, but is ALWAYS power and oppression in service to their individual appetites. In every country their means are the same; promises of “something better”, increasingly limited domestic freedom, incarceration/brutalization of dissidents, and the acquisition of natural resources for profit. Violence is an underlying tool in this undertaking - preaching to our fears either as veiled or direct threat/action.
Even the United States of America is in the early throes of these aggressors, and as long as we call them Republicans or Democrats, or some other seemingly accepted title, we continue to believe that civility and elections will rule and we can save our nation from their iron fist.
We the People must remember that we are simply and always, WE THE PEOPLE - of every nation.
We are not parties, religions, races, ethnicitys, or genders, we are all people living and working and tending our families and communities.
Regardless of beliefs and differences, I see only two ways to view World dynamics;
A world of oppressors and the ones they use, or
We The People and those we support.
In truth We the People and the Earth are the source of all labor, production, ingenuity, creativity, and resource - governments produce, create, engineer, generate, maintain, NOTHING without us…
If humanity linked arms across the false borders and divides, if we no longer indulged our fear and loathing of what we did not know, if we never again gave away our power and responsibility for our choices to others deemed more suitable/knowledgeable/articulate… War and Oppression would cease. Like those born to other communal/herd species - if we simply refused our support to those who would force themselves upon us - they would have no power
with which to wreak their havoc on a world of families.
Mainstay, if you already haven’t, you ought to read “The Iron Heel” by Jack London. This book refers to so much of what you wrote. At one point in the book, a war didn’t happen because the peoples of those two countries simply refused to fight. The governments couldn’t shoot everyone, how would the country suvive without people?
As regards Burma. I live so close to there. It is the one country of the old “Indochina” that I have yet to travel to. But I will say that the Buddhist people are the friendliest of all the peoples I’ve known. Whether it is Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand, all I have experienced is warmth and welcome. Of course there are exceptions, but overall, this kindness is vastly the case in my experience.
I truly hope the people of Burma rid themselves of their present oppressors. It is so true what many have said about the soul of Burma. In the country where I teach, whenever I ask someone (ages 4 to late 50’s I teach) what they would do if they recieved an enormous amount of money, the answer is 97% of the time that they would give it to their family, a charity, and save some for their education. When I ask about their idea of an ideal vacation, the usual reply is to take their parents somewhere they have always wanted to go - and it’s usually in their own country.
The selflessness of the vast majority of these people never ceases to amaze me. Yes, if you want to find crime and criminals you will find them, as is true everywhere.
They don’t say thank you very much. At first I was baffled by it. But they believe you don’t need to say thank you because you will be rewarded for doing a good thing. I still think of myself first. If only I could learn to think of others before myself.
I truly hope that this Saffron Revolution succeeds. And I hope it succeeds in months rather than years.
“Cynthia–South Africa, Chile, et al provide inspiring examples, but also cautionary tales. If the Burmese democracy movement, allied with international pressure, were to send the generals back to the barracks, would this simply clear the way for more agressive plunder by multinationals, the creation of a transnational nouveau riche class, etc? What is the significance of nearby Nepal, where the monarchy was brought down not at the behest of the international community, but through an alliance of democracy advocates and Maoists?”
threehegemons-
Your question gets at the heart of why the means by which the Burmese achieve their freedom is so important. It has to be through a campaign of indigneous, nonviolent mass civilian resistance. Although that doesn’t 100% protect the Burmese from the kinds of forces you reference in your question, it gives them (more) sovereignty over their own destiny. This is THEIR struggle. We (the international community) have a right and an obligation (if we make claims to democratic rights and justice for ourselves) to support their struggle by keeping the spotlight on it, and by putting whatever pressure we can on the economic and political “pillars of support” (i.e. China, Singapore, India, Chevron) for the Burmese regime, but we cannot— and should not— do it *for* them. From all I understand, the will to see this struggle through to victory is much stronger amonogst the people than the security forces carrying out the regime’s orders (the people are calling this their “final war” with the regime.) Given that, my opinion is that while the short-term prospects (repression) are grim, the long-term prospects are promising.
Cynthia
The Burmese people are aware that forces both inside and outside Burma necessitate a strong government; one that acts in the interest of the Burmese people.
how about extending the same concerns and applying the same standards to the murderous regimes in Egypt and Pakistan? Oh well, Burma is not a US client state so I suppose it is all right.