Thant Myint-U on The Right Way to Save Burma

From Sunday's Los Angeles Times' Opinion Section:

The country only began to crawl out of its isolation in the early 1990s, when the regime finally began to welcome foreign trade and investment back to the country and asked for help in reforming the economy. As important, the army agreed to cease-fires with nearly all the various rebel armies. But all this came at the same time that Burma's new democracy movement -- headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of a revered hero of the Burmese independence movement who had been assassinated -- was pressing hard for political change. The West began to impose sanctions to support her position, pushing the generals back into their shell.

And so the stage is set for an even worse turn in the future. We have seen the anger and frustration on the streets of Rangoon (now called Yangon by the junta). The cease-fires remain fragile, but the international community has done little or nothing to encourage moves toward a just and sustainable peace. There is the dire poverty. And there is the fragility of the state itself. In Burma, the army has become the state -- there is little else. And yet the present officer corps, having grown up in international isolation, has little sense of the alternatives and remains deeply distrustful of the outside world.

There is still time to avoid the nightmare, but I'm afraid it will take a lot more than the international community is likely to give. Avoiding disaster will require high-level attention and commitment beyond the couple of weeks when Burma is on the newspaper front pages and television screens. It will require an acceptance that long-distance condemnation and Western economic sanctions don't mean much to the half-century-old military regime, a regime that has long been comfortable in isolation and needs only a modicum of money and trade from the outside world. It will require a realization that Burma sits right in the middle of Asia's economic miracle, that harnessing Burma to that rapid change is the surest way to raise up living standards, and that access to Western markets and Western ideas will make all the difference in determining whether the Burmese become equal partners of China and India or merely the providers of cheap labor and raw materials. And it's only when the Burmese ruling elite are exposed to the world that they will see a need to mend their ways.

Avoiding disaster in Burma will mean taking a long-term and pragmatic approach and understanding that democracy won't be created overnight. Cooperation among the United States, China and India will be essential, but it cannot be based on a policy of "regime change." We need to see the bigger picture in Burma -- not only the protests and the repression but also the ethnic conflicts, the pressing need to reform the economy and the urgency of delivering assistance to the most vulnerable people, especially the children. The war, poverty and repression are all interlinked; progress on all these fronts needs to happen together.

British Judge Rules Al Gore's Film Partisan Political Propaganda

Now that Al Gore has joined Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, this legal judgement may not make a difference. Still, the text of the decision makes for interesting reading.Here's a link to the full text (PDF) of Justice Burton's October 2nd decision in Stuart Dimmock v. the Secretary of State for Education and Skills--the British case challenging school showings of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

This abstract comes from the Heartland Institute website:

In the matter between Stuart Dimmock, Claimant and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families), Defendant, British High Court Justice Michael Burton determines former U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, promotes “partisan political views.”

The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver, member of a local school council, and the parent of children aged 11 and 14. The defendants are British ministers responsible for the government education system, who had ordered nationwide distribution of Al Gore’s film. Dimmock said the film is inappropriate for showing to school-age children because it is politically biased, scientifically inaccurate, and contains “sentimental mush.”

After outlining nearly a dozen serious factual errors in the film, Burton determined it could continue to be shown in schools, but only if accompanied by a teaching package that includes limiting and cautionary “guidance notes” and other films, including a counter-film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” produced by Britain’s Channel 4.

Fravahar's Video Tribute to Iranian Victims of Islamism

(ht Amil Imani)

Yichus

As my cousin Paul lay dying in his West Los Angeles nursing home last week, my cousin Dorothy, his sister who now lives in Israel, talked about the importance of Yichus. Paul was a decorated WWII Navy veteran, who participated in some of the fiercest fighting in the Pacific Theater. After the war, he had led a quiet life as an engineer. He was proud of his service to our country in the US Navy, which began when he volunteered after Pearl Harbor, age 17, and ended after V-J Day. As a Navy veteran and member of the "Greatest Generation," Paul had been the creator of his own Yichus.

After Dorothy's discussion, I wanted to learn more about the concept and its importance in Jewish thought. Thanks to Google, I found this discussion in a commentary by Rabbi Aron Tendler at Torah.org:

Most of us think of Yichus from the position of the recipient not the initiator. We are the children of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, Yakov, Rachel, and Leah. We are the recipients of their unique accomplishments and reputations. We did nothing to earn it, yet it defines who we are. Unfortunately, many of those who have it do not know that they have it, or care that they have it. That means that as important as Yichus might be to the recipients its practical value is only as great as the recipient's awareness and caring. Understanding Yichus demands that we begin seeing Yichus from the position of the initiator, the one who really cares about it, rather than the recipient who may care less.

As Moshe began his final words to the Bnai Yisroel the question of Yichus was foremost in his mind. Moshe was the product of Yichus and also the creator of his own Yichus. He knew that the amazing experiences of the 40 years in the desert were the foundation of the nation's identity and Yichus. It was what made them unique and apart from all the other nations of the world. Therefore, it needed to be preserved in the written word, but even more so, in the hearts and minds of the nation. It was incumbent upon the children of the Exodus to embrace their own Yichus so that they could be the progenitors of Yichus for their own children and grandchildren.

The transmission of Yichus is far more the responsibility of the initiator than the recipient. The initiator must engender in his recipients a sense of pride in the past and personal commitment for the present and future. The actions of the fathers are a foretelling for their children because it is the actions of the fathers that guarantee the passage of Yichus to their children.

Everyone knows that personal Yichus is the most important Yichus of all. However, every new beginning is really a reconnecting with a Yichus that extends back to the Avos, Imahos, and Moshe Rabbeinu. Personal Yichus simply picks up where previous generations left off.

Gathered in the Plains of Moab within sight of the Promised Land, Moshe summoned the entire assembly. His call was all embracing and inclusive, from the heads of the Tribes to the water-carriers and woodchoppers. He addressed a population of men, women, and children uniquely diverse and independent, yet sharing a collective Yichus and destiny. As a nation they had been molded apart from Egypt and independent of the outside world. However, they were the Sons of Jacob and they were not independent of each other.

"Each of you serves an essential job in the collective service of G-d. You cannot do it alone. You cannot give over the full Yichus without each other. We are a nation and it was to a nation that G-d gave His Torah. From the greatest to the lowest, from the most scholarly to the simplest, each of you has a job and each of you is responsible to the collective future of our people. We have all gathered to accept G-d's covenant and be His nation. So it was promised to our fore fathers and so will you witness the completion of that promise. However, far more important than being the fulfillment of past promises is your main job as guarantors of the future."

Christopher Hitchens on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

From Slate (ht LGF):

Suppose the narrow and parochial view prevails in Holland, then I think that we in America should welcome the chance to accept the responsibility ourselves. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a symbol of the resistance, by many women from the Muslim world, to gender apartheid, "honor" killing, genital mutilation, and other horrors of clerical repression. She has been a very clear and courageous voice against the ongoing attack on our civilization mounted by exactly the same forces. Her recent memoir, Infidel (which I recommend highly, and to which, I ought to say, I am contributing a preface in its paperback edition), is an account of an extremely arduous journey from something very like chattel slavery to a full mental and intellectual emancipation from theocracy. It is a road that we must, and for our own sake as well, be willing to help others to travel.

For a while, her security in America was provided by members of the elite Dutch squad that is responsible for the protection of the Dutch royal family and Dutch politicians. The U.S. government requested that this be discontinued, for the perfectly understandable reason that foreign policemen should not be operating on American soil. The job has now been subcontracted, and was until recently underwritten by The Hague. If The Hague defaults, then does the "war on terror" administration take no interest in protecting the life of one of the finest enemies, and one of the most prominent targets, of the terrorists? Hirsi Ali has been accepted for permanent residence in the United States, and would, I think, like to become a citizen. That's an honor. If she was the CEO of Heineken or the president of Royal Dutch Shell, and was subject to death threats while on U.S. soil, I have the distinct feeling that the forces of law and order would require no prompting to consider her safety a high priority.

Fareed Zakaria on Burma

Zakaria cites Thant Myint-U's policy advice, in Newsweek:

One of the lessons of Iraq surely is that a prolonged sanctions regime will destroy civil society and empower the worst elements of the country, those who thrive in such a gangland atmosphere. If the purpose of sanctions is to bring about a better system for that country, devastating its society is a strange path to the new order. Burma is a particularly complicated place for such an experiment because it is riven with ethnic divisions and conflict. The Burmese government has been fighting 17 ethnic rebel groups for more than 50 years. Many of the rebels now control territory and run their own drug and resource cartels. The country is a failed state waiting to happen. Its one functioning national institution is the Army. Bringing liberal democracy to the country is going to be a challenge anyhow, and it is being made more difficult by the evisceration of its society.

In the early 1990s, after refusing to accept the results of an election in which Suu Kyi won, the Burmese regime began—haltingly—to open up the economy. But Western sanctions quickly put an end to such moves. Thant Myint-U, a former senior U.N. official and author of "The River of Lost Footsteps," a wonderful and affectionate portrait of Burma, argues that had that process of trade, travel and investment been encouraged, "Burma today would look more like Vietnam. It would have many more connections with the world, much more economic and social activity, and the regime would be far more constrained and reluctant to use force or engage in crackdowns."

The other effect of sanctions has been that American firms have mostly been replaced by Chinese companies. (This is precisely what's happened on a larger scale in Sudan, where American firms discovered and built the country's oilfields, then had to abandon them because of the worsening human-rights situation, and now find that the fields have been picked up by Chinese state oil companies.) And while it is perfectly fair to blame Beijing for supporting a dictatorial regime, the Indians, the Thais, the Malaysians and others have also been happy to step into the vacuum in Burma. Is this a net gain for America, for Burma and for human rights?

Thant, who has a celebrated pedigree in Burma—he is the only grandson of U Thant, the third secretary-general of the United Nations—hopes for sustained diplomatic pressure to get the regime to begin a process of real reform, involving the United States, China and India. "If the three countries can reach some consensus, that's the only outside pressure that is likely to matter," he says. "America can still play a crucial role. What the Burmese really want—if they had a choice—is not to be another province of China. They aspire to be a proud, independent country. There are many people there, even in the regime, who want to have good relations with America and the West. But my fear is that the West, momentarily aroused, will reflexively impose new sanctions and then move on. The result will be that the West's role in Burma will decline even more, China's will rise, and Burma will be further away from a liberal democratic future."

Christopher Hitchens on Mark Daily's Supreme Sacrifice

From Vanity Fair:

Lieutenant Daily crossed from Kuwait to Iraq in November 2006, where he would be deployed with the "C," or "Comanche," Company of the Second Battalion of the Seventh Cavalry Regiment—General Custer's old outfit—in Mosul. On the 15th of January last, he was on patrol and noticed that the Humvee in front of him was not properly "up-armored" against I.E.D.'s. He insisted on changing places and taking a lead position in his own Humvee, and was shortly afterward hit by an enormous buried mine that packed a charge of some 1,500 pounds of high explosive. Yes, that's right. He, and the three other American soldiers and Iraqi interpreter who perished with him, went to war with the army we had. It's some consolation to John and Linda Daily, and to Mark's brother and two sisters, and to his widow (who had been married to him for just 18 months) to know that he couldn't have felt anything.

Yet what, and how, should we feel? People are not on their oath when speaking of the dead, but I have now talked to a good number of those who knew Mark Daily or were related to him, and it's clear that the country lost an exceptional young citizen, whom I shall always wish I had had the chance to meet. He seems to have passed every test of young manhood, and to have been admired and loved and respected by old and young, male and female, family and friends. He could have had any career path he liked (and won a George C. Marshall Award that led to an offer to teach at West Point). Why are we robbed of his contribution? As we got to know one another better, I sent the Daily family a moving statement made by the mother of Michael Kelly, my good friend and the editor-at-large of The Atlantic Monthly, who was killed near the Baghdad airport while embedded during the invasion of 2003. Marguerite Kelly was highly stoic about her son's death, but I now think I committed an error of taste in showing this to the Dailys, who very gently responded that Michael had lived long enough to write books, have a career, become a father, and in general make his mark, while their son didn't live long enough to enjoy any of these opportunities. If you have tears, prepare to shed them now …

Achmed Abdullah

The other night, someone I know and yours truly watched Lives of a Bengal Lancer starring Gary Cooper. This 1935 drama of British imperialism was set on India's Northwest Frontier with Afghanistan (present-day Pakistan). The credits rolled, and there appeared the name of one of the writers: "Achmed Abdullah." How come he's not better known? Inquiring minds wanted to know....

Turned out that Achmed Abdullah was a White Russian emigre, related to the deposed Tsar, named Alexander Nicholayevitch Romanoff. He was a prolific author--he'd written The Thief of Baghdad, and a colorful character. Served in the British Army after exile from Russia. A witness and chronicler of "The Great Game."

Achmed Abdullah was born in Yalta, in the Crimea, of mixed Russian-Afghan ancestry. Abdullah never revealed the name to which he was born but apparently he was christened Alexander Nicholayevitch Romanoff. However, he was also know as Achmed Abdullah Nadir Khan el-Durani el Iddrissyeh. His father, Grand Duke Nicholas Romanoff, was a Russian-Orthodox, cousin to the last Tsar of Russia. Abdullah's mother, Princess Nourmahal Durani, was a Moslem. After she divorced her husband, Abdullah lived in Afghanistan. He was educated in Indian School, Darjeling, and College Louis le Grant, France. He then moved to England, where attended Eton School and astonished his schoolmates with his turban and earring. From there he went to Oxford. He also studied at the University of Paris. While still at college, Abdullah made his debut as a poet with Chansons Couleur Puce (1900), which was privately published. His study on Bantu dialects (1902) was also privately published.

In 1900 Abdullah entered the British army, where he spent many years as a gentleman officer. He served over the world - in India, China, Tibet, France, the Near East, and Africa. Some of Abdullah's drew on experiences from this period of his life. In the 1920s Abdullah settled in the United States, where was employed by Hollywood studios on occasion. Most his stories were first published in pulp magazines under the name Achmed Abdullah. His other pseudonyms were A.A. Nadir and John Hamilton.

Abdullah soon gained fame with colorful, enjoyable adventure stories. Sometimes they had supernatural elements, as in the collections Wings: Tales of the Psychic (1920) and Mysteries of Asia (1935). Among his mystery books are The Honourable Gentleman and Others (1919), tales set among the Chinese community in lower Manhattan, The Swinging Caravan (1925), Steel and Jade (1927), and The Bungalow on the Roof (1931), in which an secret African cult camps on the rooftop of a New York apartment building. The Man on Horseback (1919) is based on Abdullah's experiences in the American West. Especially after 1920s women readers devoured his romantic adventures. Abdullah's autobiography, The Cat Had Nine Lives (1933), is not far from fiction with its vivid tales of his travels and exploits. With Lute and Scimitar (1928), a collection of poems and ballads of Central Asia, Abdullah returned to his philological and folklore interests. His last years Abdullah lived in New York. Abdullah died on May 12, 1945. He was married three times, first to Irene Augusta Bainbridge, then to Jean Wick, who died in 1939, and then in 1940 to Rosemary Dolan.

More at www.kirjasto.sci.fi. Lives of a Bengal Lancer is part of the Gary Cooper Collection DVD set, which you can buy from Amazon.com:

Was Genghis Khan Kindler, Gentler Than George W. Bush?

That's the sense one gets from reading Alistair Gee's account of Sergei Bodrov Sr.'s latest movie, "Mongol. Part One," in The Moscow Times:

Bodrov's drama aims to deconstruct the notion of Genghis Khan as a bloodthirsty murderer, and focuses on his early years of poverty and slavery instead of his later transcontinental conquests. An all-consuming love affair between Genghis Khan and his first wife, Borte, also features heavily.

"Genghis Khan is not a popular man in Russia; his name is not well loved," Bodrov said. "I'm telling a story and saying: 'Look how it happened. Don't believe what's written in the old school textbooks.'"

"He abolished torture -- not so many people know about that," the director added. "And Mongolians used to keep slaves -- he said no to that."

Agustin Blazquez: An Open Letter to Ron Paul

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RON PAUL © ABIP 2007
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

The biggest enemies in the United States of those who want freedom for Cuba are the liberal media and academia. This Cuban American’s personal opinion has been reinforced by 40 years of life in this country seeing and reading reports from the liberal media and academia about the Cuban revolution and life in Cuba since Fidel Castro’s military regime took power.

When you know a subject matter very well, the romantic ideas, false myths, errors, misconceptions, misleading reports and propaganda, do more than jump out at you; they attack you with fury.

The liberal media and academia, after decades of bombarding the American people with relentless misinformation about Cuba, fool most of them, but they cannot fool a Cuban American with firsthand experience about the Castro brothers’ ongoing totalitarian regime.

I don’t think most Americans – misinformed by the liberal media and academia – can make an educated judgment or decision about the Cuban issue. Many are so misled that they even wear Che T-shirts.

They don’t know that Che Guevara was a criminal who took pleasure in executing people – including minors – without trial. They don’t know that he was the architect of the Cuban gulag, prison and execution system. They don’t know that other than that, he failed miserably, mismanaging everything Castro assigned to him.

The confusion extends to our politicians.

Of the Democrats running for President, Barack Obama and John Edwards recently made statements about Cuba that revealed their ignorance.

An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times on August 25, 2007, said, “Barack Obama, determined to cast himself as the Democratic presidential candidate most open to new ideas on foreign policy, raised plenty of eyebrows recently when he proclaimed that he would be willing to meet personally with such rogue figures as Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.” Castro has proven repeatedly that he is, unfortunately, not open to negotiating.

ABC News’ Rick Klein reported on August 17, 2007, that John Edwards, at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa, answered a question about Cuba’s healthcare system thusly: “I’m going to be honest with you – I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?”

Even decent, honest, well-intentioned politicians don’t have a clue about how the totalitarian military regime in Cuba operates.

On September 24, 2007, replying to an inquiry about U.S. policy toward Cuba, the campaign of Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas responded: “Congressman Paul believes that real free trade benefits both parties involved. His stance on Cuba would be to end the embargo, which only leads to the suffering of the people of Cuba while Castro is far from ‘punished’ and is in fact, strengthened by them. By setting a good example at home we can become an inspiration for countries such as Cuba, who may wish to emulate our actions.”

This naive approach would work if the Castro brothers’ totalitarian regime and their henchmen thought the way Americans think, but unfortunately they do not.

This is my answer to Congressman Paul: the reasons why I think his policy, with which many agree, is misguided and why the Cuban embargo should not be lifted and free trade should not be established with Cuba.

1. What is good for agribusiness in Texas is not necessarily good for the Cuban people.

2. Doing business in Cuba is not doing business with Cuban business owners. The Cuban government requires that all foreign business done in Cuba be conducted with the Cuban government as intermediary. As revealed by many participants, foreign companies must pay the regime in dollars to get workers, and the regime keeps 90% of the salaries; workers receive just 10%, and they are paid in Cuban pesos. Independent labor unions are forbidden. On August 11, 1989, Carlos Miguel Suarez and Isidoro Padron Armenteros were executed in the city of Sagua La Grande, Cuba. Their crime? Trying to organize an independent labor union.

3. The embargo is working. If it had not been in place, the Cuban government would have had more money to spend on spreading communism and terrorism around the world and on maintaining control of and suppression of the Cuban people. It may even have been able to afford nuclear weapons by now. It is on public record that Castro asked Nikita Khrushchev to use nuclear missiles against the United States during the missile crisis in 1962 and that Che also wanted to use nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. In addition, the embargo may prove to be a bargaining chip for a future change of government there.

4. Doing business with Cuba does not put pressure on the Castro government to increase freedoms; it merely reinforces the existing elitist system, since the only Cubans permitted to do business with foreigners are the privileged elite, who are chosen by the government. But not even the elite can put pressure on the Castro government, because their status can change in the blink of an eye.

5. Many naively point out the role of free trade in overturning the totalitarian regimes of countries such as China and Russia. But as reported by 60 Minutes on Sunday, September 23, 2007, and many other sources, Russia is resuming its totalitarian police state. The television program 20/20 reported a few weeks ago that Vladimir Putin has created a Hitler Youth–type organization to fight dissent, similar to Castro’s dreaded paramilitary Rapid Response Brigades, which equate to the “Tonton Macoutes” of the late Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier. All are used to control, intimidate and create fear among ordinary citizens.

6. The United States has been trading with China since the Nixon era, yet that country remains a totalitarian police state and is a major human rights violator, including the use of slave labor. In addition, most big companies in China, such as China Ocean Shipping Company COSCO, are owned in partnership with or solely owned by the repressive military elite.

7. The unscrupulous businessman’s dream is to convert Cuba into another China in partnership with the repressive Cuban military elite. The Cuban elite in conjunction with American businessmen continues taking advantage of cheap Cuban labor. Currently, via international business agreements, Cuba exports slave labor to other countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe and Africa. For upcoming documentaries I have interviewed ship workers sent to Curacao and doctors sent to Venezuela. I have a relative, a dentist, who was sent to Peru twice.

8. Shortages of consumer goods is one of the tactics used by the Cuban regime to control the citizens: They are so preoccupied with obtaining their next meal that they don’t have the time or energy to complain about the government. In Hugo Chavez’s “Cubazuela” (Venezuela’s carbon copy of the Castro revolution), shortages of consumer goods have been appearing for some time, despite the oil wealth and despite the lack of a U.S. embargo against the Chavez regime.

9. Cuba does not have the money to pay for what it buys from companies in other countries. Cuba’s credit history is notorious and well documented. U.S. agricultural companies will end up being paid by U.S. taxpayers instead of by the Cuban government.

10. It was immoral doing business with South Africa because of the apartheid regime. Why are you in favor of doing business with Cuba? The records clearly show that Cuba has an apartheid regime. Are you in favor of keeping ordinary Cuban citizens away from beaches, restaurants, hotels, stores, nightclubs and neighborhoods; from participating in business deals, from owning property, etc.? Foreigners in Cuba enjoy all of those rights, but average Cubans are forbidden by law to participate in the pursuit of freedom and happiness.

11. It is immoral to do business with a regime that has caused the deaths of over 100,000 people (documented by Dr. Armando Lago in an ongoing study referred to in numerous publications such as the Wall Street Journal). Cuba is designated by the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist country that sponsors terrorism around the world and slowly but surely is subverting Latin America. Take a look at Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina.

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul as well as other decent politicians should consider these points before making more errors dealing with the Castro brothers’ regime. The U.S. has a dismal record of failures dealing with them dating back to 1957. All must read The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution by Earl E. T. Smith, a former United States Ambassador to Cuba from 1957 to 1959.

© ABIP 2007
Agustin Blazquez, founder and president
UNCOVERING CUBA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (UCEF) A non-profit organization [501 (c) (3)]
AB INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS (ABIP)
Producer and director of the documentaries:

COVERING CUBA, premiered at the American Film Institute in 1995, CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation, premiered in 2001 at the U.S. Capitol in and at the 2001 Miami International Book Fair COVERING CUBA 3: Elian presented at the 2003 Miami Latin Film Festival, the 2004 American Film Renaissance Film Festival in Dallas, Texas and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival, COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below, premiered at the two Tower Theaters in Miami on January 2006 and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival and the 2006 Barcelona International Film Festival for Human Rights and Peace, Dan Rather "60 Minutes," an inside view , RUMBERAS CUBANAS, Vol. 1 MARIA ANTONIETA PONS, COVERING CUBA 5: Act Of Repudiation premiered at the two Tower Theaters in Miami, January 2007, at the Hispanic Cuban Club in Madrid, Spain and the 2007 Palm Beach International Film Festival, and the upcoming COVERING CUBA 6.

Author of more that 300 published articles and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book COVERING AND DISCOVERING and translator with Jaums Sutton of the book by Luis Grave de Peralta Morell THE MAFIA OF HAVANA: The Cuban Cosa Nostra.

Thant Myint-U: What To Do About Burma

Thant Myint-U, U Thant's grandson (and I seem to remember an elementary school classmate of mine in the Riverdale section of the Bronx, while his father served as Secretary-General), published an article in the London Review of Books last February that still sounds worth consideration by the Western powers currently imposing sanctions on Burma:

Some people still argue that trade and investment sanctions against the Burmese government are the only way to push the army leadership into talking with Aung San Suu Kyi. But the sanctions argument is deeply flawed. First, it assumes a regime very different from the one that actually exists. That is, it assumes a government that is committed to rejoining the world economy, that sees clearly the benefits of trade and investment or is in some way sensitive to the welfare of ordinary people. True, there are some in the army who like the idea of trade and investment and care about popular welfare, and for them sanctions might constitute a sort of pressure. But many in the military don’t care. For them, national security, as they see it, is everything. Compromise might be possible on other issues, but if the choice is between political suicide and interacting with an outside world they fundamentally distrust, then there is no debate. Isolation is their default condition: not ideal, but comfortable all the same.

Second, sanctions really only mean Western sanctions. In the years since 1988, Burmese trade with China and several other neighbouring countries has grown considerably, and tens of billions of dollars’ worth of natural gas have been discovered offshore. To believe that China would impose sanctions and cut off their access to Burma’s energy supplies in order to push the country towards democracy is naive. Sanctions going beyond those already in place would mean in effect increased influence for China; not something likely to lead to democratic change.

Third, imagine for a moment that somehow, miraculously, extremely tight sanctions were possible – involving China, India and Thailand – and that these brought the government to its knees, without a dollar or renminbi left to pay for vital imports. While there is a possibility that reasonable heads would prevail, there is also a very good chance that the army leadership would stay in their Führerbunker until the bitter end, as the country collapsed into anarchy around them. Many of those who support sanctions hope that greater outside pressure would lead to disagreements within the army. Nothing could be more dangerous: the country could easily fall apart into dozens of competing military factions, insurgent armies and drug warlord militias. If that happened, all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t be enough to put Burma back together; it would be a disaster for Asia.

The problem with sanctions is best illustrated by the opportunity that was lost in the early 1990s, when a new generation of generals, eager for change, launched a series of reforms and opened up the economy to the outside world. Hundreds of foreign companies set up shop. Rangoon was transformed, with new hotels, shopping centres and official buildings, traffic jams on previously empty roads, and the first real influx of tourists in years. Satellite dishes went up everywhere. But thanks to boycotts and then, in the later 1990s, more formal sanctions (as well as continued government mismanagement of the economy), Western firms began to pull out, leaving Burma in limbo: with more than enough regional trade to stay afloat, but nothing like the momentum to begin changing society. If, over the last fifteen years, there had been aid and investment (as there has been in Vietnam), rather than a half-hearted ‘regime-change’ strategy from the West, there could have been real economic growth and social change. The isolation on which the regime depends would have diminished and it would have become increasingly clear to the officer corps that proper government is too complex for the army to manage. And this in turn would have created a better situation for Burma’s democrats and more leverage for Western governments. As it is, Western leverage is close to zero. Focusing on political change at the top is not the answer.

This is not to say that Burma shouldn’t be a democracy, or that the Western supporters of democracy and human rights in Burma should give up. Far from it. Liberal democracy is the only sustainable form of government for a country as culturally and ethnically diverse as Burma, but we need to start from the way things are. Per capita aid to Burma is less than a tenth of per capita aid to Vietnam and Cambodia: this should not be acceptable. Serious diplomacy that includes both the Burmese government and its neighbours should have priority over a new round of condemnation.

Georgian President Accused in Murder Plot

The bloom appears to be coming off Georgia's "Rose Revolution," according to Eurasianet:

After days of silence, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has responded to allegations of murder and corruption leveled against him and his government by former defense minister Irakli Okruashvili. However, opposition politicians believe his explanations are too little, too late.

On September 29, Saakashvili blasted Okruashvili, once one of his closest associates, describing the former minister’s allegations as "very painful." Okruashvili was arrested on September 27 on charges of extortion, money laundering, abuse of office and work negligence after making his claims and announcing the formation of an opposition movement, For a United Georgia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"I want to tell you that for me as a person what Okruashvili has done is very painful," Saakashvili told Georgian reporters before traveling to open a new road in the Upper Kodori Gorge, a strip of Georgian-controlled territory in breakaway Abkhazia. The president had previously not been expected to return to Georgia before October 2 from official trips to the United States and Greece. "He accused us of what is most unacceptable and is the kind of thing which we have never done, and would never and could never have done. And he knows this perfectly well himself."

During a live television interview on television station Imedi, Okruashvili recently accused Saakashvili of ordering him to "take care of" the media tycoon Badri Patarkatsishvili, co-owner of Imedi with the News Corporation, and stated that he had information that former Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania’s body had been moved after he died. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The latter comment continues to stir heated comment and speculation among both ordinary Georgians and local media.

In an interview with Imedi television hours before his arrest, Okruashvili predicted he might be arrested "if Saakashvili feels in danger of losing power." Saakashvili’s ongoing silence had fueled much opposition criticism, with a September 29 headline in one sympathetic newspaper succinctly asking readers "Where Is the President?"

In addition to Okruashvili, the authorities have also arrested several men reportedly with close ties to the former minister. On September 27, his bodyguards and driver were detained although they were released the following day, according to Okruashvili’s press secretary Tamar Rukhadze. On September 30, Kavkaz Press reported that Malkhaz Bukia, the alleged founder of the Poti branch of Okruashvili’s party, was also arrested. Rukhadze confirmed that Bukia had been detained, but did not know if he had been officially charged. The general prosecutor’s office could not be reached for comment.

Mark Horowitz on Nordhaus & Shellenberger

From Wired.com:

Nordhaus, 41, and Shellenberger, 36, didn't set out to infuriate their former colleagues. On the contrary, they were good Berkeley citizens — partial to black clothing, into biking (Nordhaus) and yoga (Shellenberger), fluent in pinot noir. Above all, they were passionate about the environment. For the better part of a decade, they toiled in the green movement as consultants and political strategists, each hoping to change the world. Instead, the climate crisis changed the rules: It demanded a new way of framing the debate, and the pair became disillusioned when the environmental establishment stubbornly refused to adapt. That led to their fateful essay, with the not-so-subtle title The Death of Environmentalism. Overnight, the two became pariahs. And now, with the October publication of their first book, Break Through: From "The Death of Environmentalism" to the Politics of Possibility, they are going to face the full fury of enraged environmentalists. Pope, who has read the book, predicts that the reception from the movement "will be harshly negative."

Break Through is a fascinating hybrid: part call to arms, part policy paper, part philosophical treatise. (Name another book that gives equal time to Nietzsche, cognitive therapy, and fuel-economy legislation.) It takes aim at some of the environmental movement's biggest lions, including Kennedy and Al Gore. It belittles the Kyoto Protocol; it rips into best- selling social critics like Thomas Frank and Jared Diamond. But it also dismisses free marketeers who believe that unfettered markets alone can solve our carbon-emission woes. "If this book doesn't piss off a whole lot of conservatives and a whole lot of liberals, we've failed," Nordhaus says.

You can buy the book from Amazon.com:

Exercise Makes Us Fat...

Someone I know sent a link to this article from New York Magazine by Gary Taubes:

The one thing that might be said about exercise with certainty is that it tends to makes us hungry. Maybe not immediately, but eventually. Burn more calories and the odds are very good that we’ll consume more as well. And this simple fact alone might explain both the scientific evidence and a nation’s worth of sorely disappointing anecdotal experience.

It’s difficult to get health authorities to talk about the disconnect between their official recommendations and the scientific evidence that underlies it because they want to encourage us to exercise, even if their primary reason for doing so is highly debatable. Steve Blair, for instance, a University of South Carolina exercise scientist and a co-author of the AHA-ACSM guidelines, says he was “short, fat, and bald” when he started running in his thirties and he is short, fatter, and balder now, at age 68. In the intervening years, he estimates, he has run close to 80,000 miles and gained about 30 pounds.

Youssef Ibrahim on the Saudi Lobby

From the New York Sun (ht Melanie Phillips):

Take the famed case of Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi prince whose $10 million check for the Twin Towers Fund was returned by Mayor Giuliani when the prince linked the September 11 attacks to changing American policies in the Middle East. A couple of years ago, the prince sneaked his bucks back into America by giving $20 million to Harvard University.

What's the money for? To study Saudi traditions, Bedouin society, or desert communities? No. As stipulated in the gift, it was uniquely given for the study of Islam, Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic history.

Forget about cross-cultural dialogue or the study of Saudi traditions, society, or just getting to know each other. It is Islam, specifically the Saudi brand of Wahhabi Islam, that is being funded. Harvard officials are far too smart to miss the point but, hey, even with an endowment of $33 billion, another $20 million might come in handy.

However, the Saudi lobby's agenda, unlike those of the Israeli, Greek, or Armenian lobbies, represents a real and present danger to America's national interest, particularly when we recall that it was Saudi Arabia that produced, nurtured, and promoted 15 of the 19 Muslim fundamentalist hijackers who attacked this country on September 11. Saudi schools still teach the same basic stuff — "Hate thy neighbor" — and their lobby seeks to spread the word.

There is nothing wrong with taking the money, in my view. But it is not a gift from American Muslims or American Arabs, and the expected quid pro quo could be the sale of America's soul.

Gordon Brown's Labour Party Conference Speech

Heard part of this stem-winder on the car radio yesterday, thanks to C-Span. My eyes misted over...

Honoured and humbled by the trust you have given me, I speak to you for the first time at our Conference as Prime Minister and Leader of this Party.

No one could have foreseen all the events that Britain has been through since June.

But tested again and again the resilience of the British people has been powerful proof of the character of our country.

Early on a June morning, two cars were found parked and packed with explosives in Haymarket, London.

They were put there to bring terror and death to men and women who would do nothing wrong but be out with their friends, walk on our streets and visit our capital.

But from the bomb disposal experts who courageously risked their lives, to the Londoners who defiantly went on with their lives, that day the world witnessed the resolve and strength of the British people.

And when the terrorists tried to attack Scotland’s biggest airport, they were answered by the courage of the police and firefighters and a baggage handler named John Smeaton. He came to the aid of a policeman under assault from one of the terrorists.

Later John told me it was instinctive, he was doing what was right.

That man, that hero John Smeaton is here with us today and on behalf of our country – John, we thank you.

Every citizen who answered the call of the country – policemen and women, our security and emergency services, our health services – all left their mark on this island’s story by keeping us safe. They are the pride of Britain.

Just as our armed services with bravery and heroism every single day also make us proud. We mourn those who have been lost and we honour all those who in distant places of danger give so much to our country.

It was in these early weeks, in the wake of the worst flooding in almost 150 years, in county after county, we saw British people pull on their boots and pull out their boats to rescue neighbours and strangers.

And together they went to work to clean up the streets, sweep out the shops and reopen the schools. Long after the waters have receded the memory of their quiet strength remains.

They too showed the character of Britain: communities where buildings can be damaged and even destroyed but our spirit is indestructible. They too make us proud of the extraordinary resilience of ordinary British people.

And then on an early August morning in Surrey, a farmer went out to tend to his livestock and what he saw terrified him, made him remember back to 2001 when all across our countryside clouds of smoke scarred the sky and for many in farms and villages, family dreams were turned to ash.

During the outbreak this summer, our vets, scientists, and public officials in DEFRA cancelled their holidays. To fight the contagion farmers worked day and night. And they have done it all over again this month and continue to do so. Their actions live out our shared understanding that our countryside is more than the space that surrounds, it is the oxygen for our towns and cities.

And in order to be the country we should be, Britain must protect and cherish not just our cities, but our countryside too.

And as we saw again this summer there is no Scotland-only, no Wales-only, no England-only answer to the spread of disease or to terrorist attacks that can strike at any time, anywhere in any part of our country. And sharing this same small island, we will meet our environmental, economic and security challenges not by splitting apart but when we as Great Britain stand united together.

So my sense of talking to people in all parts of these islands is that instead of leaving us pessimistic, these three months make us more optimistic about what we the British people at our best can do.

Our response was calm and measured. We simply got on with the job.

Britain has been tested and not found wanting.

This is who we are.

And there is no weakness in Britain today that cannot be overcome by the strengths of the British people.

So don’t let anyone tell us Britain is not equal to every challenge.

Ann Althouse on Columbia University President Lee Bollinger

From Althouse:

Back to excerpts from Bollinger's speech:

[T]his event has nothing whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.

This is a solid point. I like it. But I want to understand how it squares with the earlier statement that the event "is required." I appreciate the emphasis on the audience's right to receive information, but if it is our right, why are we required? Don't we also have the right to withhold the respect of a lofty podium to individuals whose hateful ideas we abhor and whose actions we regard as murderous? The point must be we wanted to hear him. Say why!

Shelby Steele on Little Rock, Arkansas--50 Years Later

From OpinionJournal.com:

But on this 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis, it is important to remember that this evil did happen in America, and that no engineered redemption can make us innocent again. And we might also remember that it is better to be chastened than innocent. Innocents don't learn from their sins; the chastened are informed by them.

Rudy Giuliani on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Caught this exchange with Sean Hannity in my car yesterday. Giuliani's main point, highlighted below, struck me as the most important consideration:

SEAN HANNITY: “You had as Mayor of New York a number of confrontations with some of these leaders and now we have this controversy at Columbia today with Mahmud Ahmadinejad and the invitation by Columbia. Your thoughts?”

MAYOR GIULIANI: “My thoughts are he should never have been invited in the first place. I think this is a distinguished lecture series, what it suggests is you make a selection right? But thousands of people conceivably would want to speak at Columbia, they only pick a certain number, and it would seem to me you don’t pick somebody who is the biggest—the head of the government that’s the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in the world, a government that is by every indication that we have presently engaged in activities that are resulting in the death of American troops., someone who has threatened the existence of the state of Israel, denied the Holocaust. I heard some of his answers on the Holocaust, of course they were absurd. The idea that it needs further research. I think the fact of the Holocaust has been pretty darn well established, doesn’t need further research. This is just part of his constant refrain of anti-Semitism, threats on Israel, threats on the United States. … Doing this, giving him this kind of status—even though the President of Columbia introduced him with an insult, he just responded with an insult—I believe this may underscore some of their fantasies that they really do have a world stage and that they really should be taken seriously and maybe they can fool us and maybe they can fool a certain number of us. So I think this is a damaging thing doing something like this with someone as deranged as Ahmadinejad is. You have no idea what you’re playing with here. So why would you invite him to a distinguished lecture series?”

HANNITY: “While Bollinger in his introduction said his views were ridiculous, the Holocaust is not an issue in dispute, that his arguments were absurd.”

GIULIANI: “But then he turned the podium over to him.”

HANNITY: “Well then he turned the podium over to him and I’ll tell you what was more frightening to me, immediately thereafter, here was Ahmadinejad basically saying he found the introduction insulting but more importantly I want you to listen to the students’ reactions and clapping for Ahmadinejad in the background. … Does that student reaction frighten you as much as it does me?”

GIULIANI: “Well here’s—this is really to my point, Sean. It frightens me because I don’t know what kind of reaction Ahmadinejad has to that, which means he comes away from this thinking, hey there’s a strong level of support for me in the United States of America, maybe I can push these people a little further, maybe I can take advantage of them a little bit more. That’s why I say in spite of the fact that the president of Columbia introduced him with an insult, he turned the podium over to him and he comes away from it. Ahmadinejad comes away from it saying, ‘Sure there are people there that don’t like me and opposed me and booed me, but hey, there were an awful lot of people there that applauded for me too. So I have some support there.’ And who knows what that results in when you’re dealing—look we have to come to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad is an irrational man. You don’t say the things he says if you’re working on, kind of a rational script. The denial of the Holocaust, the threat of—against Israel, the ways in which he gives five different versions of every single answer. This is a man who’s living in this fantasy world of jihad and world domination by Islamic extremism.”

HANNITY: “And providing the weaponry to kill American troops.”

GIULIANI: “And providing weaponry right now, right as we’re speaking possibly taking the lives of American troops. And we hand him a podium at Columbia University. And have no idea of what impact that can have on him? And the idea that it’s in the name of free speech, well that isn’t correct. Not everybody gets to speak at Columbia. …”

Amil Imani on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

From The American Thinker:

Ahmadinejad, a man driven by his religion, has a spiritual advisor in Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (the defacto leader of the Hojatieh). The President's advisor is known for his extremist views on Islam and promotes suicide bombings and attacks on civilians in the West. There is only view of Islam for him. He once said, "...if anyone tells you their own interpretation of Islam, punch them in the mouth!"

President Ahmedinejad has in a short time acquired great many descriptors at home and overseas: zealot, fascist, fanatic, anti-Semitic, lunatic and more. One prominent Western columnist called him "unhinged." But we cannot just dismiss the man as an aberration, someone who is in urgent need of psychological help, a person out of touch with reality, who represents nothing of substance.

Once again the West is misreading and misjudging people and events in the Middle East, due to the fact that it views things through its own prism.

Looking at the man through Western spectacles, he indeed appears to be all of the above and more. Yet Ahmadinejad is far from unhinged. As a matter of fact he is firmly hinged to a set of beliefs that dictate his views of the world, and inform him how he should deal with it from his position of power.

An unhinged man has the potential of becoming once again hinged. But, there is very little that can be done to a person who is inseparably hinged, and Ahmadinejad views are firmly rooted in the most orthodox philosophy of Shiism.