I Love This Article!!

Armed Intervention Debate Goes Online [Commentary]
By Aung Zaw
November 28, 2007

The debate on humanitarian intervention and covert operations to remove Burma’s regime leaders isn’t just a domestic talking point but is increasingly being taken up on Internet Web sites, in the media and even in US congressional hearings.

In what was regarded as a “pointed remark” at the height of the September crackdown, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, for instance, warned the Burmese military dictators of the potential consequences of their actions.

Some observers say the Burmese people would definitely welcome any foreign liberation troops that could remove regime leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his regime in Naypyidaw—a sitting target for air strikes.

“If you slaughter the monks and those calling for democracy, when your regime falls, and it will fall, you will be pursued to every corner of the globe like the Nazi criminals before you,” said the hawkish legislator from California.

Exactly two years previously, in September 2005, Rohrabacher suggested pressuring the Burmese regime with the “threat of military intervention.”

In testimony before the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, Rohrabacher urged US support for all attempts by the Burmese people, including revolutions and covert operations, to topple the regime.

Aside from hot air, some serious thought has been—and is being—given to the possibility of an invasion to remove the hated regime.

The London-based independent think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said on May 19, 1993, that a better case could be made out for the UN to intervene in Burma than in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The IISS said that UN intervention in Burma "would have a clear aim: removing SLORC [the regime’s previous name, the State Law and Order Restoration Council], a finite end, and the support of the majority of the [Burmese] people."

Prince Khaled Sultan Abdul Aziz, commander of the Saudi contingent in the 1991 Gulf War, called for “Desert Storm” style action against Burma after he visited Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh in April 1992.

US Senator Joe Lieberman suggested in an article in the New York Daily News in October that the Bush administration should be asked to “actively investigate how else our military and intelligence capabilities can be used to put additional stress on the regime.”

William Kristol, founder and editor of the Weekly Standard, a hawkish writer who advocated the war on Iraq, wrote in The Washington Post on October 7: “What about limited military actions, overt or covert, against the regime's infrastructure—its military headquarters, its intelligence apparatus, its rulers' lavish palaces? Couldn't such actions have a deterrent effect, or might not they help open up fissures in the regime? Have we really done all we can to avert the disaster that is unfolding?”

Isn’t it ironic that Burma, preparing now to celebrate the 60th anniversary of its independence, now generates debate about a new invasion from outside?

Some observers say the Burmese people would definitely welcome any foreign liberation troops that could remove regime leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his regime in Naypyidaw—a sitting target for air strikes. But then what? After a few years of “liberation,” would Burma witness a new armed struggle to eject the invaders?

Burma is one of the countries identified by Condoleezza Rice as outposts of tyranny when she was appointed US Secretary of State in 2002. Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Iran and North Korea were the others. So far, some say, Burma is off the US radar screen.

On October 12, Ramzy Baroud, author and editor of the online magazine PalestineChronicle.com, posed the question: “So why aren't the US and Britain responding to the situation in Burma with the same determination that they exhibited for Iraq, and now Iran?”

In an article titled ‘Burma Is Not Iraq,’ Baroud criticized the West’s hypocritical stand: “Western leaders, aware of the criticism that awaits them, have paid the necessary lip service, but little else. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown decried the use of violence against protesters and demanded European sanctions. President Bush declared that Americans ‘stand in solidarity with these brave individuals’.

“Israel, on the other hand, denied its military links to the junta, despite much contradictory evidence. It justified its unwillingness to influence the situation on the grounds of nostalgia—Burma was the first South Asian country to recognize Israel.”

He continued: “If Iraq has been a lesson of any worth it is that the Burmese are much better off without American bombing raids or British napalm in the name of intervention. True reforms and democracy can only come from within, from the closed fists of the determined dispossessed. Indeed, Burma is not Iraq, and Thank God for that.”

These articles provoked some vigorous online feedback.

“Why is it that a guy who thinks US military action is always the answer is any more credible than the peacenik who thinks it never is?” fumed one reader of Kristoll’s article.

One letter writer contributed to the debate on the online Tiscali Forum: “So why aren't we proposing an invasion of Burma to remove the regime there? At the time of the Iraq war, we were told about the ‘moral case for regime change’ in Iraq. Well, isn't there a moral case for regime change in Burma? Why aren't the USA and UK sending a task force to liberate the people of Burma?”

The letter continued: “Burma has a long coastline, allowing many landing points for our forces. The western-friendly neighbors, India and Thailand, might allow our troops to invade from their borders. It should not be too difficult. What's the big difference between Iraq and Burma, then? Apart from the fact that Burma hasn't got huge oil reserves?”

A debate on the Helium website produced the opinion: “Fundamentally, Iraq was a country of interest to the US government, while Burma has long been off America's radar, as it's a highly secretive country. Burma has pursued a very low profile and made it difficult for people to visit. On the other hand, Saddam's Iraq pursued the limelight and enjoyed pushing the envelope. Saddam pursued a cult of personality and relished brinkmanship.

“There are many differences between Iraq and Burma, but the most important seem to be that Iraq had lots of oil, threatened Israel and insulted American leaders. Iraq had been a country of concern for years and it had lots of powerful enemies.”

Simon Taylor added a humorous slant to the debate on the Tiscali Forums Web site: “The leaders of Burma didn't try any funny business with George Bush's dad when he was in power. God hasn't told Bush to invade Burma. (YET)!”