monk aggressors tear gassed in Burma

[lord of the mark]

4 dead, protests continue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070926...protesttoll_12;_ylt=Att3tVWSc1fVljrydVvqueatubgA

[lord of the mark]

a dilemma for India as well.

read the whole thing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7013975.stm

[Kidlicious]

[capitalist]
If they don't like the price they don't have to pay it.
[/capitalist]

end threadjack

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Burmas nat gas reserves are a tiny fraction of world reserves, and are probaboly of less importance to China than its stature in the world. In any case, Burma is NOT exporting gas to China now, the pipeline isnt there. By the time gas exports are available there may be a new regime in Burma, which will appreciate Chinas support for change.

Myanmar's reserves are significant, which is why China is spending billions to get at them, and keeping 10% economic growth going is more important to the continuing survival of China's own regime than the opinion of western activists.

You may be too young to remember, but one of the regular arguments against sanctions on South AFrica were there many strategic minerals. Well guess what, we still import strategic minerals from South Africa.

STOP USING THIS TERRIBLE EXAMPLE! South Africa's regime was too particular in nature to be a worthy example of anything universal. Not only was it a small racist democratic government ruling a vast disenfranchised mass (which makes it vastly different from autocratic regimes that are 'popular' in the sense that they exist with a large support of some part of a populace, and which oppress the whole polity), but it was a country that saw and characterized itself as Western, meaning it desperately wanted to be included in the whitey club.

I am. Im giving examples of where states have run out of money to pay their troops, despite your assertion that that never happens. Was I to limit it to people power revolutions? There are too few data points, and most are in countries more prosperous than Burma.

Want a valid example, look at NK, which faces mass starvation, is as poor as Myanmar (same PCI according to the CIA), and still can pay a 1 million man army.

But there havent been sanctions from China in those years, and what we were discussing was the question of whether the regime could survive sanctions from China. If youd like to make the point that GDP per capita was lower at points in the last 17 years, than it WOULD be in the near future if China imposed sanctions, now that would be relevant. I await your analysis.

AND THERE WON'T BE CHINESE SANCTIONS! Jesus, you think the Chinese are going to throw away investments of two billion dollars to get at natural gas??? What planet are you on!?

China does not want to see a bloody crackdown, its bad for business. But the possible outcomes are few, and none are at all likely to lead to any significant Chinese sanctions:

1. Regime falls. No need for sanctions. Do business with new government.
2. Bloody crackdown, regime falls. Look above.
3.Bloody crackdown, reigme survives. China is miffed, world is outraged. China still needs the natural gas, so they keep investing.

Maybe you haven't gotten it through your head yet, but China does not believe in harshly punative sanctions. They don;t care about human rights when compared to cold cash interests. Those win every time, no matter the platitudes.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by GePap
China does not believe in harshly punative sanctions. They don;t care about human rights when compared to cold cash interests. Those win every time, no matter the platitudes.

Sadly this is true. Equally sad is the consensus decision in the west that business with China is far more important than human rights issues. Every now and then a politician will ruffle some feathers (as with Germany this week) but the cash comes first.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil


Sadly this is true. Equally sad is the consensus decision in the west that business with China is far more important than human rights issues. Every now and then a politician will ruffle some feathers (as with Germany this week) but the cash comes first.

When you can show that acting based on respecting human rights increases GDP as much or more than acting based on purely economic interests this might change....

[Wezil]

That would require our governments to re-examine their priorities and I just don't see that happening.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil
That would require our governments to re-examine their priorities and I just don't see that happening.

Come on, its not just governments. The public cares more about whether they, their family, or their friends have jobs than whether some individual they will never meet, from some alien culture, ejoys the right to vote, or of free assembly.

Everyone, not just governments, would have to re-examine their priorities.

[lord of the mark]

[ Originally posted by GePap

Myanmar's reserves are significant, which is why China is spending billions to get at them, and keeping 10% economic growth going is more important to the continuing survival of China's own regime than the opinion of western activists.

Its not the opinion of activists alone, but of western polities. And maybe not just western.

You may be too young to remember, but one of the regular arguments against sanctions on South AFrica were there many strategic minerals. Well guess what, we still import strategic minerals from South Africa.

STOP USING THIS TERRIBLE EXAMPLE! South Africa's regime was too particular in nature to be a worthy example of anything universal. Not only was it a small racist democratic government ruling a vast disenfranchised mass (which makes it vastly different from autocratic regimes that are 'popular' in the sense that they exist with a large support of some part of a populace, and which oppress the whole polity), but it was a country that saw and characterized itself as Western, meaning it desperately wanted to be included in the whitey club.

If you calm down, you would realize I was referring specifically to the issue of minerals.

I am. Im giving examples of where states have run out of money to pay their troops, despite your assertion that that never happens. Was I to limit it to people power revolutions? There are too few data points, and most are in countries more prosperous than Burma.

Want a valid example, look at NK, which faces mass starvation, is as poor as Myanmar (same PCI according to the CIA), and still can pay a 1 million man army.

Im quite aware of North Korea. Its obviously POSSIBLE that the Burmese regime will survive. Its not assured.

AND THERE WON'T BE CHINESE SANCTIONS! Jesus, you think the Chinese are going to throw away investments of two billion dollars to get at natural gas??? What planet are you on!?

Earth. The earth that China wants to keep selling to.

China does not want to see a bloody crackdown, its bad for business. But the possible outcomes are few, and none are at all likely to lead to any significant Chinese sanctions:

1. Regime falls. No need for sanctions. Do business with new government.
2. Bloody crackdown, regime falls. Look above.
3.Bloody crackdown, reigme survives. China is miffed, world is outraged. China still needs the natural gas, so they keep investing.

You do realize that 2 billion is small potatoe compared to the Chinese economy, to the volume of exports they need to keep it running? Burmas gas is peanuts by comparison.



[q]Maybe you haven't gotten it through your head yet, but China does not believe in harshly punative sanctions. They don;t care about human rights when compared to cold cash interests. Those win every time, no matter the platitudes. [/QUOTE]


Why are they spending money on the Olympics? How much do you think that will cost them? Prestige is very important to them, as are there markets. And THEY WONT LOSE cold cash in Burma, cause the regime will have no choice but to cave.

From everything I can gather, Sudan has agreed (thus far) to an AU-UN force in Darfur part due to Chinese pressure. China will still get energy in Sudan. N Korea has made the concessions it has do to Chinese pressure.

The Chinese arent going to advertise that. They wil do it quietly. If they put the squeeze on Burma, that will be deniable too.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

1. Regime falls. No need for sanctions. Do business with new government.
2. Bloody crackdown, regime falls. Look above.
3.Bloody crackdown, reigme survives. China is miffed, world is outraged. China still needs the natural gas, so they keep investing.

4. Regime falls, new govt chooses to do business with someone else, like India or Thailand.

5. Bloody crackdown, regime falls, no new govt establishes itself, civil war, no possibilitiy to develop energy, dangerous instability on Chinas own borders

6. Regime cuts a deal with the protestors, stability is maintained.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its not the opinion of activists alone, but of western polities. And maybe not just western.

1. Western Countries will continue to do business with China regardless. China's support for the Sudanese government has had no negative consequences for China's trade.
2. Only "Western" coutnries give a damn. Japan, other SE Asian countries, India, African states, Arab states, Russia, they won;t stop doing whatever business they do with china over something so inconsequential to most of them as Human rights in Myanmar.

[q]
If you calm down, you would realize I was referring specifically to the issue of minerals.

Earth. The earth that China wants to keep selling to.

If you think anyone besides a few Western activist that don't like China anyways will stop buying Chinese goods if China were to stand aside and let the Myanmar Junta crack down, then you most certainly are NOT on earth.

You do realize that 2 billion is small potatoe compared to the Chinese economy, to the volume of exports they need to keep it running? Burmas gas is peanuts by comparison.

Given that there is no realisitc threat whatsoever to Chinese exports for this, only Chinese pride, Two billion is quite a handsome amount of money.

Why are they spending money on the Olympics? How much do you think that will cost them? Prestige is very important to them, as are there markets. And THEY WONT LOSE cold cash in Burma, cause the regime will have no choice but to cave.

Again, there is no threat to Chinese export markets. The toy recalls in the US are a VASTLY greater threat to Chinese exports than whether a thousand monks get shot by burmese generals. As for prestige, the Chinese surely want it - and everyone spends huge sums on the Olympics. But you are folling yourself yet again if you think this matter will have any real effect on China's prestige long term.

From everything I can gather, Sudan has agreed (thus far) to an AU-UN force in Darfur part due to Chinese pressure.

A force that has not had much effect whatsoever because it is so limited in scope and effectiveness.

N Korea has made the concessions it has do to Chinese pressure.

Because the Chinese have their own interests in keeping nukes from NK and maintaining the small nuclear monopoly in place.

The Chinese arent going to advertise that. They wil do it quietly. If they put the squeeze on Burma, that will be deniable too.

And yet as I said earlier, in the end the final decision lies with the Junta.

Actions speak more than theory, so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/world/asia/27myanmar.html?hp

From the article:

In response to the violence, the United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss the crisis, but China blocked a Council resolution, backed by the United States and European nations, to condemn the government crackdown.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
4. Regime falls, new govt chooses to do business with someone else, like India or Thailand.

NO government in Burma smart enough to stay in power would ignore doing business with the biggest economic player in the region.

5. Bloody crackdown, regime falls, no new govt establishes itself, civil war, no possibilitiy to develop energy, dangerous instability on Chinas own borders

highly unlikely given the existance of an alternative group with legitimacy. if this government falls, its clear who the successor should be.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

1. Western Countries will continue to do business with China regardless. China's support for the Sudanese government has had no negative consequences for China's trade.

Then why DID they put pressure on Sudan?

2. Only "Western" coutnries give a damn. Japan, other SE Asian countries, India, African states, Arab states, Russia, they won;t stop doing whatever business they do with china over something so inconsequential to most of them as Human rights in Myanmar.

From what I can gather, and story is evolving hourly, several SE asian countries are very concerned, and indeed would like to see China take a stronger role wrt Burma.

Its also an issue of contention within India.

If you think anyone besides a few Western activist that don't like China anyways will stop buying Chinese goods if China were to stand aside and let the Myanmar Junta crack down, then you most certainly are NOT on earth.

I dont expect to wake up the morning after the bloodbath and find Walmart empty. But bad publicity is bad publicity.

I wonder how much China pays per annum for ad inserts in US newspapers. I ask AGAIN what the Olympics are costing them.

I wonder if youve ever had a job in marketing.

Again, there is no threat to Chinese export markets. The toy recalls in the US are a VASTLY greater threat to Chinese exports than whether a thousand monks get shot by burmese generals. As for prestige, the Chinese surely want it - and everyone spends huge sums on the Olympics. But you are folling yourself yet again if you think this matter will have any real effect on China's prestige long term.

So you really dont beleive they pressured Sudan, do you?

From everything I can gather, Sudan has agreed (thus far) to an AU-UN force in Darfur part due to Chinese pressure.

A force that has not had much effect whatsoever because it is so limited in scope and effectiveness.

If you followed Darfur, youd know I was referring to a new force - the existing force is AU only. This is a recent development. Until recently the govt of Sudan wouldnt allow anyone other than AU peacekeepers in.

I suppose I will have to start a thread to keep you up to date on developments in Sudan.

N Korea has made the concessions it has do to Chinese pressure.

Because the Chinese have their own interests in keeping nukes from NK and maintaining the small nuclear monopoly in place.

And in maintaining stability throughout the region, and in appearing a responsible power.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

NO government in Burma smart enough to stay in power would ignore doing business with the biggest economic player in the region.

No, but they could give preferences to others.

5. Bloody crackdown, regime falls, no new govt establishes itself, civil war, no possibilitiy to develop energy, dangerous instability on Chinas own borders

highly unlikely given the existance of an alternative group with legitimacy. if this government falls, its clear who the successor should be.

Burma is a multiethnic state, theres no assurance the coalition against the govt will hold together. Its also possible elements of the regime might hold on. Nothing is certain.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
From the article:

In response to the violence, the United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss the crisis, but China blocked a Council resolution, backed by the United States and European nations, to condemn the government crackdown.

Yeah, with only 8 dead (and the govt is disputing that number) they can stonewall it for now. Thats not the question, the question is what happens if theres 3,000 dead, like last time. Or even higher numbers, as the political situation is less favorable to the govt and even greater force might be necessary.