What I have to say today may be a bitter pill to swallow; however, conditions are necessary for it to be said. There are times when violence is justified, and in Burma, such a time is now. It is an unpleasant statement, but one that reflects reality. The pioneers of modern Democracy stated that all men have a God given, natural right to their life, liberty, and property. John Locke argued that one has not only a right, but an obligation to protect one's self and one's community. Whenever protection of these rights can be successful by non-violent means, it should be done so. It is too easy to rationalize a case for war when none exists, thus leading many to unjustly rationalize violent coups, power grabs, and acts of vengeance. However, how long must a community suffer before it can be determined that fighting back is justified? How long has nonviolence been the mandate of the resistance? How many chances has SPDC had to resolve this non-violently? What has been the result? Why? Nonviolence relies upon international aid to manifest its results, and the international community is not willing to help Burma beyond impotent sanctions. Failing that, non-violence relies on the mercy of the oppressor. To put it simply, the non-violent resistance has no leverage. SPDC has successfully bypassed our most gentle recourse, and so, there is but one left.
Let us take the case of the many successful non-violent revolutions of the past: The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Gandhi's peaceful ousting of the British in India, and Martin Luther King in America. These all have common factors which have allowed for success. They all existed under a semi-autocratic regime (maybe not the case with America... but that depends on who you were), each country we use for case study relies on the international community for their economy, and they all had some modicum of free speech. Loyalty of the army also plays some small part, but that is influenced by the sureness of victory. Generally speaking, the non-violent revolutionaries were able to bring international shame to the occupiers via semi-free media and demonstrations, and thus create a potential for economic problems and loss of prestige to any illegitimate power. You will find many unsuccessful nonviolent revolutions as well: Uzbekistan, Tiananmen Square in China, and Algeria. In these countries, the regime is in complete control and the media is state run. When protests occur, atrocity follows. I would argue that there are many more failed non-violent revolutions than successful ones.
The same is the case in Burma. Not only does the regime have control of the media and army, they also do not require the international community's approval. Because of this, there is no reason to transition to Democracy. This is a death or cake situation for the Generals. They can possibly be harassed, threatened, and economically unsure for the rest of their lives, or they can simply continue to live comfortably by continuing to do what they do. Where is the incentive for them to give up control?
Incentive will not be found in the international community’s action, and you can thank China for that. China does not worry about an inwardly unstable country next door, at least not one that provides so many benefits. Not only does China sell weapons to Burma, get cheap labor from Burma, they also have access to a plentiful supply of energy in a world facing an energy crisis. Beyond this, it would be a threat to China if there were a Western-friendly liberal democracy directly to the south. Not only would China's people start getting ideas about democracy if Burma became democratic, but China would also have to worry about the United States moving in too close for comfort. They will use their position as permanent UN Security Council members to veto any potential moves from the UN to help bring democracy to Burma. Furthermore, showing his naiveté, Gambari has recently hailed the Junta’s election announcement as a positive step. It is not a positive step; it is a lie and a trap. You clearly cannot count on the rest of the world helping you obtain democracy, and you cannot rely on SPDC to bring you democracy.
Since the citizens of Burma have no legal or peaceful recourse through the International community, their leaders, or nonviolent revolution, it is time for Burmese to create their own incentive for the government to provide democracy. The regime’s generals, protectors, facilitators, and guardians must all fear for their lives, liberty, and property. This is something every person can see to. Western NGOs and nonviolent resistance leaders say that war is never justified, but during the Saffron Uprising they leveled criticism at ethnic armies for not impeding the military’s march to Yangon. Are they really against war, or do they wish not to dirty their hands? I do not mean this in offense, but it is time to stop morally bashing the patriot who uses violence to secure his community’s liberty. Freedom must be earned by all. It is every Burmese citizen’s obligation to bring democracy, and there is a part to play for those using both violence and non-violence.
Violence and non-violence must be used together in a synchronized effort. The Burmese people must support their revolutionary leaders, and their revolutionary leaders must deliver measurable results. These leaders, whether individuals or an organization, must realize that SPDC is not a bargaining partner, and is in the business of self-preservation. A legitimate interim government has already been decided, elected in 1990. An interim constitution has already been drafted, again in 1990. SPDC is the only obstacle between the violent anarchy of Burma today, and the prosperous, free Burma of tomorrow. Thus, all effort should focus not on principles or reconciliation, as that has been shown impossible with SPDC, but instead on employing all methods necessary and possible to force SPDC to fall.
I feel that the works of Thomas Paine are applicable to the Burmese situation, specifically: “Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it.” We all know violence in unjust application can be the most dreadful thing to suffer or inflict. However, the enemy has clearly chosen his path. If he’ll allow no other resolution, then let him suffer the consequences. Desperate times call for desperate actions, and no time is so desperate as now.
No comments:
Post a Comment