I don't know ... I'm not sure, David Scott Mathieson claims, that international attention has been re-focused on Burma following the earthquake. Gleaning the world's media, most people -- readers' especially -- seemed to be tuned in to the destruction the earthquake has wrought. And, sure, international aid has been coming in but nowhere near on the scale of other natural disasters, such as the 2004 Sumatra tsunami (what are, in the words of Charles Tilly, are "huge comparisons"). In so far as the military dictatorship's systematic carnage to lives and property, moves to bring down that regime appears to stem only from within Burma, spearheaded by various armed domestic groups. The historically and predictably lame ASEAN, filled with pure hot air, has categorically failed to rein in its member in Rangoon, while China keeps backing the cowardly junta with money and arms, mostly to ensure its invested economic interests are protected. The so-called promised pause in fighting came to nought: the junta cowardly struck at the warring parties on the other side as the world's eyes were gazed on largely the physical destruction of property from the quake. It seems to me there isn't a single state east, west, south or north of Burma -- not even the great big loud-mouth oaf Donald Trump -- is willing to cast its eyes beyond its nose to bring the civil war in Burma to an amicable conclusion quickly. The last thing you'd expect ASEAN members to do in the case of Burma is lift a useful finger. That's because it -- as a collective -- has zero power and influence over a corrupt, murderous military regime certain ASEAN member -- principally Singapore and Malaysia -- like China continue to invest in Burma -- investments that in real terms do not and have not lifted the plight of ordinary Burmese from their long-suffering wretchedness.
ASEAN can't rein in the Burmese junta or intervene more forcefully in Myanmar for it would fundamentally compromise one of their founding values: that of non-interference in the domestic affairs of individual member states.
That and as you rightly pointed out, too many in ASEAN are either vested too much with the Burmese junta, or are problematic themselves with histories of military coups and non-democratic rule.
A terrible stalemate situation all round, a Gordian Knot which in my opinion demands a foreign sword to cut through where local fingers can't unravel.
Thanks, Andy Wong. I'm not sure the "non-interference" item has much value when it comes to politics or international politics. In the world of realpolitiks, every country in one way or another meddles in another country's politics and economy to protect or advance its interests. To me, the non-interference element, since the creation of ASEAN (wasn't done out of its volition), has always sounded fanciful if not naive. Even a complete nonsense.
On your last paragraph: Don't expect the British under Starmer or the Americans under the great big idiot Trump to flourish their swords to bring order to warring Burma. I do think, though, India is quietly trying to get a foothold of influence in the western parts of Burma but China pretty much has sway over the murderous military dictators. Piss-weak ASEAN won't dare step on Beijing's toes. So much for ASEAN's collective or singular diplomatic heft -- generally speaking. It's business as usual for ASEAN in Burma, as long as its economic investments are protected, principally those of Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. ASEAN is, as always, pitifully and chronically hypocritical.
I don't know ... I'm not sure, David Scott Mathieson claims, that international attention has been re-focused on Burma following the earthquake. Gleaning the world's media, most people -- readers' especially -- seemed to be tuned in to the destruction the earthquake has wrought. And, sure, international aid has been coming in but nowhere near on the scale of other natural disasters, such as the 2004 Sumatra tsunami (what are, in the words of Charles Tilly, are "huge comparisons"). In so far as the military dictatorship's systematic carnage to lives and property, moves to bring down that regime appears to stem only from within Burma, spearheaded by various armed domestic groups. The historically and predictably lame ASEAN, filled with pure hot air, has categorically failed to rein in its member in Rangoon, while China keeps backing the cowardly junta with money and arms, mostly to ensure its invested economic interests are protected. The so-called promised pause in fighting came to nought: the junta cowardly struck at the warring parties on the other side as the world's eyes were gazed on largely the physical destruction of property from the quake. It seems to me there isn't a single state east, west, south or north of Burma -- not even the great big loud-mouth oaf Donald Trump -- is willing to cast its eyes beyond its nose to bring the civil war in Burma to an amicable conclusion quickly. The last thing you'd expect ASEAN members to do in the case of Burma is lift a useful finger. That's because it -- as a collective -- has zero power and influence over a corrupt, murderous military regime certain ASEAN member -- principally Singapore and Malaysia -- like China continue to invest in Burma -- investments that in real terms do not and have not lifted the plight of ordinary Burmese from their long-suffering wretchedness.
ASEAN can't rein in the Burmese junta or intervene more forcefully in Myanmar for it would fundamentally compromise one of their founding values: that of non-interference in the domestic affairs of individual member states.
That and as you rightly pointed out, too many in ASEAN are either vested too much with the Burmese junta, or are problematic themselves with histories of military coups and non-democratic rule.
A terrible stalemate situation all round, a Gordian Knot which in my opinion demands a foreign sword to cut through where local fingers can't unravel.
Thanks, Andy Wong. I'm not sure the "non-interference" item has much value when it comes to politics or international politics. In the world of realpolitiks, every country in one way or another meddles in another country's politics and economy to protect or advance its interests. To me, the non-interference element, since the creation of ASEAN (wasn't done out of its volition), has always sounded fanciful if not naive. Even a complete nonsense.
On your last paragraph: Don't expect the British under Starmer or the Americans under the great big idiot Trump to flourish their swords to bring order to warring Burma. I do think, though, India is quietly trying to get a foothold of influence in the western parts of Burma but China pretty much has sway over the murderous military dictators. Piss-weak ASEAN won't dare step on Beijing's toes. So much for ASEAN's collective or singular diplomatic heft -- generally speaking. It's business as usual for ASEAN in Burma, as long as its economic investments are protected, principally those of Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. ASEAN is, as always, pitifully and chronically hypocritical.