America Abandons Myanmar! (or, Burma's Equal Opportunity Oppressors)

American ships may leave Burma / Myanmar soon. They haven't delivered the supplies that Burma's people need. And the junta that runs the place probably won't let them.

We'll be reading editorials and op eds about how the "international community" ought to do something. And, unless something very odd happens, not much will be done. (I wrote about this yesterday: "Do We Really Want These Guys in Charge?" (May 31, 2008).

About 2/3 of the people are Burman. The others are members of other ethnic groups:

Burman	68%
Shan	9%
Karen	7%
Rakhine	4%
Chinese	3%
Indian	2%
Mon	2%
other	5%

(from CIA.gov)

There's more detail about Burma's people at Burma Issues - "Ethnic Groups"

At least the junta is doing one thing right: they seem to be equal-opportunity oppressors. The ruling junta, which seems to be Burman, rapes, tortures, and pillages members of minority ethnic groups. But they rape, torture, and pillage Burmans, too.

Even so, I think the people living in Burma would be better off without them.

I also think that the junta will be ousted faster, if more people start thinking about something besides the United Nations, when they think "international community."

Background and sources:

• "Gates: Decision to Pull U.S. Ships From Burma Coast Will Come Within Days"
  FOXNews (June 1, 2008)
  • "U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday he will make a decision in a matter of days to withdraw U.S. Navy ships from the coast of Burma, also known as Myanmar, because 'it's becoming pretty clear the regime is not going to let us help.'
  • "As a result, he said, many more people will die, particularly those in areas that can only be reached by helicopters, such as those sitting idle on the U.S. ships.
  • "Asked if the ruling military there is guilty of genocide, Gates said, 'I tend to see genocide more as a purposeful elimination of people, this is more akin, in my view, to criminal neglect.' " l
• "A witness's plea to end Myanmar abuse"
  International Herald Tribune op ed (May 19, 2005)
  • " 'The violations inflicted on the Burmese people in general are undoubtedly crimes against humanity,' Horton, 54, said in a recent interview. 'But the destruction of the homes, medicines and food of hundreds of thousands of ethnic people may amount to an attempt to commit genocide. If an international court were to arrive at the same conclusion, it would oblige humanitarian intervention. And that could put the Burmese regime in some peril.
  • "Aung Zaw, who edits The Irrawaddy, a magazine published by exiled Burmese from Chiang Mai,believes genocide is a 'heavily loaded' word in Myanmar's case.
  • " 'The junta targets everyone,' he said, 'including other Burmans. Do they forcibly relocate and loot and rape? Yes. There is a war going on with the ethnic insurgencies, and obviously civilians will be hurt. But I doubt if the junta has any specific campaign against one race.' "
• "DELAYING DEMOCRACY / How long must the Burmese wait?"
  International Herald Tribune (May 28, 2008)
  • "On Tuesday, the Burmese junta extended the detention of the pro-democracy leader and the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, for an additional year. This marks the fifth consecutive year that Suu Kyi's house arrest has been prolonged and a new low for General Than Shwe, who regularly runs roughshod over the rule of law - even draconian national security laws of the regime's own creation...."
  • "...In the aftermath of the cyclone, some 134,000 Burmese are now dead or missing - over 40 percent of which are believed to be children. And the United Nations reports that only 42 percent of the storm's 2.4 million affected victims have received any humanitarian relief. Although foreign aid workers have begun reaching remote areas of the country, it would come as no surprise if the junta backs away from fulfilling the commitment Than Shwe made to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, to allow "all foreigners" in to provide relief to the Burmese people...."
  • "...While the UN secretary general, the Burmese regime, and allies of the junta have urged that the question of humanitarian aid not be "politicized," the regime itself is taking every advantage of the cyclone to make permanent its grip on power to the exclusion of helping its own people. As is often the case, distraction and delay in discussing the fundamental issues in Myanmar only serve the interests of the regime...."
  • "It is deeply regrettable that Ban Ki Moon played right into the junta's hand by declining to raise the fraudulent election result or Suu Kyi's expiring house arrest in his meeting with Than Shwe, both of which occurred after Cyclone Nargis hit the country. In so doing, he sent a clear signal to the junta that as long as they held their own people hostage, they could press ahead with their campaign to consolidate power and be assured the United Nations would relax any pressure for political reform."

Do We Really Want These Guys in Charge?

Wouldn't it be nice, if everyone would be nice?

Can't argue with that. It would be - nice.

But everyone isn't nice. Decisions should be made on the basis of that unpleasant reality.

In the American presidential election, debates and sound bites are covering predictable ground: basically, that the current Administration made up stories about the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and used that as an excuse to unilaterally invade Iraq. On the up side, one guy is making money with a tell-all book on the subject. You've got to hand it to McClellan: his timing, for the release of his book, was about as good as it could have been.

Again, this blog isn't political, but what the politicos do affects the world we live in. And, with rather wild tales of subversive plots bouncing around, I think it's time to look around, and see what the world is really like. Parts of it, anyway.

Burma / Myanmar

Sometimes I'm happy to be wrong. Two weeks ago, it looked like a cholera epidemic had started in Burma (or Myanmar, or whatever) ("It Has Begun: Cholera in Burma / Myanmar" (May 16, 2008)). So far, we haven't heard of massive death tolls from cholera in that country.

Of course, we haven't heard much of anything. Except now the U.N. reports that the junta that runs Burma, and wants everyone to call it Myanmar, is forcing people out of the refugee camps and back into what's left of their homes. Which is rough, since they don't always get rations, and the cyclone didn't leave much 'home' to go back to.

Peru

About 60 people murdered by that country's military in 1984 are being dug up. They're some of the 123 people killed in the 1984 Putis massacre.

At that, Peru is a success story. Of a sort. After the 'democratic' government of Peru went after Shining Path (Sndero Luminoso or SL) guerrillas (Maoist flavor) and other threats to its rule and/or Peru's citizenry, Peruvians got sick and tired of being pushed around: and occasionally dumped into graves they'd been forced to dig.

There's a 'truth commission' going around, digging up evidence - and bodies - in an effort to sort out what actually happened. "Paz y Esperanza, which provides legal counseling for victims' relatives, said that the Defense Ministry has refused to provide information on the soldiers who were involved in the massacre."

The indiscriminate slaughter seems to have ebbed somewhat. And yes: I'm quite sure that some American/CIA plot is supposed to be behind it all. America is a big country, and does deal with quite a few countries: some of which don't have very nice leaders. That doesn't make America responsible for what those leaders do.

Iraq

This country's leader, Saddam Hussein, was removed 'unilaterally' by America: and over two dozen other countries. The news is full of the current chaotic state of Iraq - Sunnis and Shiites alike agree on one thing: 'Yankee Go Home!' Or, as CNN wrote about discussions of American-Iraqi security arrangements: "Many Iraqis suspect it could lead to the establishment of bases, a long-term presence of American troops, and a weakening of Iraqi government control of foreign troops. Powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has said any such agreement should be put to a popular referendum.... "

'Iraq would be safely under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, if the current American administration hadn't lied about the Iraqi nuclear program.' That's the line I've been hearing for a few days. Oddly, quite a few people believed that Saddam's regime had, or would soon have, nuclear weapons. And, reasonably enough, didn't want to wait until some of their cities got instant urban renewal.

I think that semantics play a part here. Quite a few people don't seem to understand the difference between a lie and a false statement. A lie is a false statement made deliberately. A false statement is just that: a statement which is not factual. Human beings can and do make mistakes. Even Americans make mistakes. Quite often, in fact.

The World Isn't Perfect: Live With It

I read an op ed in the International Herald Tribune this morning that started with: "For the past 40 years, the world has tolerated one outrage after another against the people of Burma by a succession of military dictatorships. Imprisonment, executions and brutal suppression of any dissent have been the way of life in Burma for more than a generation, while the junta's neighbors, supporters and critics alike, have only made lame excuses for doing nothing."

The author does have a point. The junta that's running Burma is bad for the country, and bad for the country's people. He raises a sensible (and rhetorical) question, "will the international community remove the generals while there is still a chance to save lives?"

My answer is, no. Certainly not if by "international community" he means the United Nations. The United Nations is good at some things, but decisive action against tyrants isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure that the United Nations' approach to solving the Burma mess would go like this:

1. Request that 'ousting the Burmese junta' be brought up in the next U.N. Security Council meeting (I believe that might be the appropriate body)
2. Prepare speeches for the meeting
3. Address the U.N. Security Council, when an opening in the agenda became available
4. Prepare responses to objections raised (probably by China)
5. Go To Step 3

If that sounds familiar, you've either been keeping track of the United Nations, or read my post of April 26, 2008.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the time to get rid of the junta that's been running Burma. But I'm not convinced that it's impossible, either.

The International Community, America, and Tyrants

Many seem to forget that the 'international community' and the United Nations isn't the same thing. Well over two dozen other countries were involved when America was "going it alone" unilaterally" in Iraq. from Albania to the United Kingdom.

What it took then was a strong nation to lead a sizable fraction of the other countries on Earth in an effort to oust a dictator who was reasonably suspected of having weapons of mass destruction.

Even though the WMD program wasn't found, I submit that Iraq is better off without Saddam than with the tyrant and his colorful sons.

Without a country like America, the world would most likely be a patchwork of alliances, each dominated by whichever warlord was least ineffective at using guns and leadership.

Given a choice between a world

1. Run by the likes of
   • The House of Saud (among the most enlightened old-school monarchies around) or
   • Burma's junta
   or
2. Where diplomats squabble in the United Nations while America provides a rallying point for countries that give a rip

I'll take option 2.

Sources and background:

• "Disaster unfolding in Burma; A bleak future; Nuclear fears; Governments at fault"
  International Herald Tribune (May 27, 2008)
• "U.N. Says Burma Forcing Cyclone Victims From Camps With No Aid"
  FOXNews (May 30, 2008)
• "UN labor agency warns: forced labor in Myanmar could increase in cyclone reconstruction"
  International Herald Tribune (May 31, 2008)
• "Officials Find Massacred Children, Babies in Peruvian Mass Grave"
  FOXNews (May 31, 2008)
• "Iraqi Nuclear Weapons"
  FAS (Federation of American Scientists)
• " 'Two Potent Iraqi Weapons: Denial and Deception,' by Steve Hadley"
  Global Security
• "Osiraq / Tammuz I"
  Global Security
• "Iraqi-U.S. security talks worry Shiites and Sunnis"
  CNN (May 31, 2008)

It Has Begun: Cholera in Burma / Myanmar

Things are very bad in the Irrawaddy Delta, where Cyclone Nargis has killed tens of thousands. Over a hundred thousand may die soon, if food and medical supplies - and aid workers to deliver them - are either allowed, or dropped, into the region.

Leaders have a very short time in which to act.

Crisis in the Irrawaddy

"Burma raises official cyclone death toll to 78,000"
The Guardian (UK) (May 16, 2008)

Includes video (1:25) " 'I felt like I was being watched' "
The Guardian (UK) (May 16, 2008)

"Guardian journalist Helen Pidd reports from neighbouring Thailand after spending a week in Burma seeing first-hand the extent of the damage caused by Cyclone Nargis"

One of the important points here is Pidd's description of what journalists have to do in Burma / Myanmar - and what everyday life is like there.

The article has at least two gems:

"Outbreaks of potentially life-threatening cholera have been confirmed among the survivors, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said today. But officials said the number of cases was in line with previous years, suggesting there may not be an epidemic of the waterborne disease, as aid agencies had feared."

"The Burmese prime minister, Thein Sein, was reported on state television saying the emergency phase of the cyclone disaster was over and that the country was now in the rebuilding phase. The UN said this was nonsense, and that there was still a critical need for far more aid. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, has not even been able to talk to Senior General Than Shwe, Burma's military dictator, on the phone." [emphasis mine]

I discuss a possible, although radical, solution to the humanitarian disaster in the Irrawaddy in a previous post: "People May be Dying Soon in Burma - There's a Solution."

A very similar idea is discussed in " 'This is a Good Day to Argue for Humanitarian Intervention' " The Irrawaddy (May 15, 2008).

Remember the Irrawaddy

Cyclone Nargis blew down buildings, killed people, and knocked out vital support systems.

But it was the junta in Burma / Myanmar that refused to let aid in, refused to let aid workers in, apparently switched useful food for low-nutrition junk, and continues to get in the way of people who are trying to save the lives of its subjects.

This is how despots work. They like being in charge, and don't like having anyone running loose who might see what they've done to the country.

Despots aren't good for their citizens.

The next time America is involved in removing a tyrannical regime, and a fuss is being raised, it would be well to remember the Irrawaddy.

People May be Dying Soon in Burma - There's a Solution

This is a quick follow-up to a previous post, "Burma / Myanmar / Myanma - Between Cyclones and Juntas, We Can't Ignore This" (May 11, 2008)

The situation right now in Burma is that a trickle of food and supplies is making it into the country, and a fraction of that may be getting to people who actually need it.

Odds are very good that between lack of food and rotting corpses, there's going to be a lot more death in Burma very soon.

Unless something is done.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that what is needed is for diplomats to deplore the ruling junta's lack of cooperation, the United Nations Security council to soberly consider why it's impossible to force Burma's bosses to let people in who can help Burmese citizens, and wait for the whole thing to blow over.

I'm being a bit unfair, but not by much, I'm afraid.

Another approach was brought to my attention in a comment on the previous Burma post. Oversimplified, here it is:

The starting premise is that the United Nations is not the only agency by which assistance can reach Burma.

An American-led coalition could assemble and deliver aid to the areas that need it most, without asking the ruling junta's permission. As an op-ed piece put it:

"The insertion of carefully targeted medical, clothing and food aid drops into the worst affected Irrawaddy delta region by US-led coalition aircraft would help prevent the deaths of many at risk of starvation and those at risk of succumbing to preventible diseases.

"Limited humanitarian intervention along these lines would probably provoke howls of outrage from China and others, yet these same countries would have little choice but to eventually acquiesce for fear of being seen as morally equivalent to the regime in Burma. Such action would also breach the legal sovereignty of Burma and the regime could argue it was justified in shooting down any aircraft as they entered Burmese airspace. But the regime would have to wear the consequences of this action, including Washington's almost certain military response to the targeting of US aircraft involved in leading an important (and widely popular) humanitarian mission."

I've seen worse ideas put forward: and this seems better than waiting the crisis, and the people in Burma, to die out while diplomats make speeches.

From:
"Kosovo aid the model"
The Australian (May 14, 2008)

Burma / Myanmar / Myanma - Between Cyclones and Juntas, We Can't Ignore This

Whether you call it Burma, or Myanmar, or Myanma, people living in that country between India and Thailand are not having a good time right now.

Photo from AP, via Fox News, used w/o permission

Around 100,000 people were killed there by cyclone Nagris a few days ago.

If something isn't done about the lack of food, drinkable water, and medical supplies - and the presence of dead bodies - 1,500,000 could be dead soon, according to Oxfam¹ and the British government. (Guardian (UK) (May 11, 2008))

I've posted about the mess in Myanmar before ("United Nations Refuses Aid to Burma, or Myanmar, or Myanma" (May 9, 2008)). Today, a selection of headlines gives a pretty good idea of what's happening:

• "Myanmar holds vote on constitution"
  International Herald Tribune (May 9, 2008)
• "Constitutional referendum still the priority for Myanmar leaders"
  International Herald Tribune (May 9, 2008)
• "Cyclone overshadows Myanmar referendum"
  CNN (May 10, 2008)
• "Myanmar junta hands out aid boxes with generals' names"
  Yahoo! News / Associated Press (May 10, 2008)
• "Boat carrying aid for Myanmar cyclone victims sinks"
  SFGate.com San Francisco Chronicle / Associated Press (May 11, 2008)
• "Myanmar holds referendum despite post-cyclone chaos"
  The China Post / Reuters & Associated Press (May 11, 2008)

Cyclone Nagris, the SPDC, and the War on Terror:
We Can't Ignore People in Trouble

The "We" here may be taken as Americans, or, my preference, anyone who believes that people should not have to put up with tyrants.

Photo from The China Post, used w/o permission

Everybody seems to want "democracy" these days, and the military junta running Burma / Myanmar is no exception. See the smiling people in that photo? We're told that they were participating in yesterday's election in Myanmar. And, in their position, with their sort of leaders, with a camera pointed at me, I'd probably smile, too.

Burma Background

The people there elected members for the People's Assembly or Pyithu Hluttaw:

Party	Seats
(opposition) National League for Democracy 392	392
(opposition) Shan Nationalities League for Democracy	23
(pro-government) National Unity Party	10
other	60

Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) Senior Geneneral Than Shwe and the rest of the junta hasn't let the People's Assembly convene yet, but they say they'll have another election for membership in 2010.

Burma / Myanmar has been getting along without a constitution. The junta suspended the old one in 1974. However, a national convention got together in 1988 to set up principles for drafting a new constitution. That convention didn't include representatives from major democratic or ethnic majority (not a typo: majority) groups.

The junta's constitutional drafting committee started work on a new and improved constitution in December, 2007.

(from "The World Factbook" (CIA (updated May 1, 2008))

Elections

Yesterday, people in Burma / Myanmar voted on the junta's new constitution. "Widespread rumors say the results have already been fixed to deliver an 84.6 percent vote in favor of the constitution." (CNN). I wasn't terribly surprised to read that "witnesses and local officials who watched the local counting of votes Saturday say the vote appeared to average 80 percent to 90 percent in favor of the draft charter." (The China Post)

The constitution that appears headed for a landslide victory "guarantees 25 percent of parliamentary seats to the military and allows the president to hand over all power to the military in a state of emergency." (CNN)

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, but my guess is that an "emergency" will happen a few days to a month after the 2010 elections.

Burma, Responsibility, and Global Concerns

Cyclone Nagris and the State Peace and Development Council don't make much of a difference in the small central Minnesota town that I call home. Not directly, anyway.

That vote may not have been "fixed:" not post-poll, anyway. The powers that be in Burma have seen to it that their subjects have a clear understanding of what's at stake.

• " 'To approve the state constitution is the national duty of the entire people,' the state-run newspaper New Light of Myanmar said in a front-page headline Friday."
  (International Herald Tribune)
• " 'We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region,' said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.
  " 'It is not going to areas where it is most in need,' he said in London."
  (Yahoo! News)
• "Aye Aye Mar, a 36-year-old homemaker, looked frightened when asked if she thought anyone would vote against it.
  " 'One vote of "No" will not make a difference,' she whispered, her eyes darting around to see if anyone was watching. Then she raised her voice to declare: "I'm saying "Yes" to the constitution.' "
  (International Herald Tribune)

I agree with the poet: "No man is an island...."² Hundreds of thousands of people dying because their rulers are either incompetent, depraved, or distracted is something I can't ignore. "I am involved in mankind". And, sooner or later, ripples from the lands around Pathein and Bago will reach my home, here by the Sauk River.

Right now, hundreds of thousands of people desperately need food, drinking water, medical supplies and clothing. Many will die if they don't get it.

Their need for assistance, in my opinion, outweighs the junta's need for maintaining power over their subjects.

Being ruled by tyrants didn't make people in Burma the target of Cyclone Nargis. But now that the storm is over, their government is very much part of their problem. Unhappily, Burma / Myanmar isn't the only country that needs a different sort of leadership.

I suggest that, when considering and debating the merits of military force, these ideas should be kept in mind:

• Tyrants often don't have the best interests of their subjects in mind
• Dictators don't, as a rule, give up power, no matter how nicely they're asked
• History suggests that force must be used to unseat a tyranical regime
• Even when tyrants aren't actively killing their subjects, their preoccupation with personal power inhibits maintenance of vital infrastructures

The point I'm making is that sometimes being involved in military action isn't the worst thing that can happen to people.

---

Donations for Burma / Myanmar Relief Being Taken:
Some of this Lot Might Help

Lists of agencies that accept donations, and might help people in Burma, have been published on

• MSNBC
• International Herald Tribune

Both news outlets got their information from InterAction, "the largest coalition of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) focused on the world’s poor and most vulnerable people."

¹ ("Oxfam International is a confederation of 13 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice.")

²"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
excerpt from Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions: XVII. MEDITATION, John Donne (Project Gutenberg ebook)

United Nations Refuses Aid to Burma, or Myanmar, or Myanma

It's all the same country: you may still think of it as Burma, but around 1989 the bunch that's running the place decided that they liked the mame Myanma better. Sometimes it comes into the Latin alphabet and English as Myanmar.

Names are important, but right now I'd say that a higher priority is getting food and supplies in to people who weren't killed in the cyclone that hit the country.

Tens of thousands of people have already died. The body count may top 100,000 as survivors run out of safe drinking water and food.

Sure, it's Bad News, But So What?

There's something to be learned from this humanitarian disaster. I'm getting to that.

United Nations World Food Program (WFP) aircraft touched down in Burma yesterday. Then, according to the WFP, the shipment of supplies was seized. By the bunch that runs Burma/Myanma/Myanmar.

The WFP isn't sending any more aid for now. (UPDATE: Latest News indicates WFP will try again, tomorrow. "U.N. 'furious' as Myanmar aid 'seized'" CNN (May 9, 2008))

That shipment included 34 tons of high-energy biscuits. For survivors of a disaster like this, those biscuits could be life-savers. Literally.

A U.N. spokesman "said he didn't know why the supplies had been seized, but the move has left the WFP with 'no choice' but to suspend its aid shipments." ("UN halts aid shipments to Burma, accuses government of seizing supplies" CBC (May 9, 2008))

Humanitarian aid workers aren't being allowed into the country, which also is not helpful. The junta that runs the country isn't granting visas.

Unilateral Action? Cette Fois, l'Idée est Acceptable

American officials "have raised the idea of dropping aid into Burma unilaterally, without permission from the ruling military junta." There could be a problem with political fallout, and the practical issue of getting supplies to the people who need it. ("CBC" (May 9, 2008))

Interestingly, unilateral action is okay this time. French officials were considering the same idea. "French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of the aid group Doctors Without Borders, said this week that unauthorized air drops could be permitted under the UN's "responsibility to protect" mandate, which applies to civilians." ("CBC" (May 9, 2008))

National Sovereignty is Important: So Are People's Lives

I haven't seen any arguments against efforts to force Burma/Myanmar/Myanma's leaders to let life-saving supplies through to their subjects. That's not surprising: humanitarian missions are well-thought-of among most Americans, at least.

In fact, the news about the Burmese hurricane shows that saving people's lives is so important that "unilateral" action is acceptable. Even if it violates the sovereignty of a non-western nation.

This is no exaggeration: Crossing a national boundary with a formation of aircraft, without permission, and then dropping un-asked-for materials on another nation's territory, would be very close to an invasion.

Something to think about

If it's okay to unilaterally save people's lives by defying a nation's leaders by bringing in food: is it okay to unilaterally save people's lives by defying a nation's leaders by bringing in military forces?

Of course, the two situations are completely different:

• On the one hand, you have humanitarian aid saving people's lives
• On the other hand, you have big, rough, soldiers barging in and, in the long run, saving people's lives

Obviously, there's no similarity at all.

Except that tyrants often don't have the best interests of their subjects in mind. And they don't seem to give up power, no matter how nicely they're asked. It takes force to unseat such people. And, once the big, rough, soldiers have fought their way through and removed a despot, they can, if they're Americans, stick around to fix roads, water plants, hospitals, and all the other critical systems that the tyrants were ignoring.

I think this comparison is worth thinking about.

Burma / Myanmar: Small Country, Big Trouble

Burma, or Myanmar, as the junta that runs the place likes to call it, has been in the news recently.

Burma is a mostly Buddhist (89%) country, with 4% each of Christians and Muslims. Aside from the possibility that the Taliban or Al Qaeda might become offended by the country's export of men, women, and children "for sexual exploitation, domestic service, and forced commercial labor," Burma doesn't seem obviously involved in the war on terror.

On the other hand: seventy years ago, who would have thought that a regime in Germany which believed in racial purity and the supremacy of what they called the Aryan race would join forces with Italy and Japan?

A biased view of Burma and its recent history is offered by "National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma" - in Washington D.C. They're hoping that the regime in Burma will eventually fall, allowing restoration of human rights and democracy. As I said, they're biased: if favor of people being allowed to have a say in what their government does.

I became much more aware of the mess Burma is in last week, as part of a "Blog against Abuse" campaign. Burma / Myanmar posts on another blog:

• "Myanmar / Burma: a Burmese Perspective"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 28, 2007)
• "Myanmar / Burma: a Buddhist Perspective"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 28, 2007)
• "Myanmar / Burma: Offline"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 28, 2007)
• "Burma or Myanmar, the Place Needs Help"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 27, 2007)
• "There's Trouble All Over, but Darfur and Burma/Myanmar Stand out"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 27, 2007)