US sanctions and Burma's environment

Do sanctions against Burma work?  Do they somehow benefits Burma over the long-term?

This question was discussed at a recent US Senate hearing on US-Burma relations.   For an overview of the hearing see, "Burma is not Vietnam." See also "Burmese slam Senate hearings" and "US Senate AWOL on Burma."

The overriding question, Sen. Webb said, is whether the current approach has brought the results we seek. Webb referred to sanctions as "tensions."

Dept. Sec. of State Kurt Campbell said that "Any easing of sanctions now would send the wrong signal to those working" to help Burma.  He said that sanctions will "only be lifted if Burmese take meaningful action."

Senator Webb read from a letter from Kent M. Wiedemann, US Chargé d'Affaires ad interim for Burma (Oct 1996-May 1999).     Wiedemann explained that he had frequently met with Aung San Suu Kyi, and that Suu Kyi had seen sanctions as "tactical tools."  On the other hand, US based groups saw sanctions as "weapons" to force regime change.   In his view, sanctions had proved harmful and counterproductive.

Sen. Webb characterizes the current approach as "unsuccessful." and cited a subsequent increase in investment into Burma by China and North Korea.  

There was heated exchange between Sen. Webb and Prof. Williams, a legal scholar who opposed lifting sanctions.  Williams had spoke at some length about atrocities that have been committed by the regime.

Webb asked Williams if he had favored lifting sanctions against Vietnam in 1991.

"Yes" replied Williams.

Webb said, "Vietnam in 1991 was in worse condition than Burma in 2009."

In a  statement entered into the records,  monk leader Ashin Candobhasacara  (right) quoted with approval Sec. of State Clinton's remark, that "We will maintain our existing sanctions until we see concrete progress towards reform.  But, we will be willing to discuss the easing of sanctions in response to significant actions on the part of Burma's generals that address the core human rights and democracy issues that are prohibiting Burma's progress."

Candobhasacara noted, "Sanctions help preserve the natural resources of Burma for future generations.  At present, the Burmese regime is simply looting the coutnry and attempting to sell the resources to the highest bidder.  The Burmese regime is not simply corrupt and skimming profits off the top of international business deals -- it is literally looting the country and keeping all the profits for itself. By placing sanctions on Burma, our country's natural resources are more likely to remain in the hands of the people so that a true representative government and market-based economy can put them to good use."

I think  the environmental argument is very compelling.

However, it may be difficult to show that the pillaging of Burma's resources -- were US sanctions to be lifted -- will be appreciably worse than in other least developed countries (Laos, Cambodia, etc.).     Furthermore, such "pillaging" seems bound to happen regardless in Burma.  That's because Chinese investments in the country continue to expand.   At least in theory, US-owned businesses can be forced to apply US environmental standards to their operations.  This could impact the overall national  standards.  Likewise, in the labor market, in order to retain top Burmese talent, Chinese and local businesses owners may be forced to raise their standards, lest they lose them to US competitors.

Burma is not Vietnam

Live-blogging Senator Jim Webb's hearing on US-Burma relations

"Burma is not Vietnam" read the neon yellow t-shirts worn by dozens of  activists.   

What was the slogan supposed to mean?

"It refers to the lifting of sanctions against Burma," he said, explaining that he didn't think the arguments for lifting sanctions against Vietnam in the early '90s applied to Burma today.  It was a dig at Senator Jim Webb, chairman of today's meeting.   I recalled what Sen.Webb wrote in a NYT op-ed back in August:

As someone who has worked hard to build a bridge between Hanoi and America’s strongly anticommunist Vietnamese community, I believe the greatest factor in creating a more open society inside Vietnam was the removal of America’s trade embargo in 1994. 

"A lot of people you see wearing yellow shirts helped get Webb elected" the activist continued.

The back of the room was packed with people sporting the neon yellow t-shirts.

At least Sen. Webb showed up for the meeting.   That is more than could be said for his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on Burma. In the photos you can see only one seat is occupied.  A veteran of senate hearings, a woman from Human Rights Watch, expressed her surprise to me about this.

How can the US senate be expected to make informed votes if members do not show up to meetings about places like Burma?

I have blogged about Burma since 2006, and if I have learned one thing, it's that its problems are not simple. They are overwhelming.

Prof. David Williams of Indiana University testified that the military commits mass atrocities against its people.  It has displaced half a million.

But it was not always this way, explained Prof. David Steinberg. "In the 1940s people in Bangkok stomped to Rangoon to go shopping."  He added, "Back then, anyone you shared a beer with in old Rangoon would have sworn that Burma, not Thailand or even South Korea, would be the success story."

"One man rule has meant there has been no dissent."  The government had not been making informed decisions.  "Arbitrary rule, based on ignorance, leads to disaster" added Steinberg.

Yet, despite its many horrors, Burma is not North Korea. Thant Myint-U pointed to religious tolerance and hundreds of NGOs as bright spots.  It was also noted that unlike Laos and China, Burma permits an opposition party.

Looking to the future, Prof. Thant Myint-U worried the new generation of leaders coming up through the ranks of the military -- not having had broad experiences -- will have a narrow outlook on affairs.   How to open their minds?

More to come.
___
 Top photo shows two of several dozen activists who turned out for the filled-to-capacity  meeting room.  Middle two photos shows many empty senator-seats. Note, also, the Buddhist monks.   Bottom photo shows the only senator who bothered to show up.   
*****Update:  I decided to investigate why so many senators didn't attend.  My findings are posted here.

How generous was the United States in 2008?

What controversial US industry funnels more money out of the developing world than Washington provides in development aid?

Conventional wisdom, stateside, says the US is a relatively generous country.  As countries meet in Bangkok this week to hash out a global agreement for tackling climate change, America's generosity to the developing world needs to be put in perspective.

According to the OECD:

In 2008, net ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) by the United States was USD 26 billion, representing an increase of 16.8% in real terms. 

NYT (h/t GG) reported on Sept. 9 that in 2008:

Despite a recession that knocked down global arms sales last year, the United States expanded its role as the world’s leading weapons supplier.  The United States signed weapons agreements valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $25.4 billion the year before.

Italy was a distant second, with $3.7 billion in worldwide weapons sales in 2008, while Russia was third with $3.5 billion in arms sales last year . . . The United States was the leader not only in arms sales worldwide, but also in sales to nations in the developing world, signing $29.6 billion in weapons agreements with these nations, or 70.1 percent of all such deals.

American arms dealers pull more money out of the developing world ($30 billion) than the US gives back in aid ($26 billion).  These figures really put US generosity in perspective.
___
Also consider the fact that EU countries  -- the EU economy being of a size similar to that of the US -- gave three times more ODA ($70 billion) in 2008 than the US.   Both US and EU agriculture subsidies  put the developing world at an economic disadvantage.  It is estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about USD$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports.   The above photo, by Jotman, shows a Laotian girl at work in a rice field.   Thirty-seven percent of Laos is covered in unexploded ordinance.  

Prevention of iodine deficiency should be priority

Iodine supplementation is probably the cheapest and most effect way to increase the human capital -- indeed, the wealth -- of a nation. Yet, this simple, clear-cut intervention -- one that addresses the entire range of social and economic problems in one swoop -- seldom seems to top the agenda of national policy makers or international development banks and agencies.

Thailand is known for having been one of the first developing countries to make serious progress in addressing iodine deficiency -- a syndrome that can lead to mental retardation or intellectual impairment.

Like many parts of the world, the soil in Thailand is deficient in iodine, so the only way to ensure children get sufficient quantities of this mineral -- allowing for the full development of their brains -- is through dietary supplementation.

In the West, this is achieved through adding iodine to salt.

However, in Thailand only two-thirds of cooking salt contains iodine. Also, Thai cooking may present added challenges because in many villages not salt but fish sauce tends to be the seasoning of choice. Efforts have been made to get "fish sauce" makers to add iodine. Sources inform me that the fish sauce industry has balked at this idea in the past, claiming iodine will "change the taste" of the sauce.

If you look at a map published in 2001 (coming soon), you see Thailand appears to have been relatively successful in its efforts to provide iodine to the population. But a more recent map (above) shows Thailand lagging behind other ASEAN countries. A 2003 WHO report singled out Thailand and Bhutan as model countries that had "virtually eliminated IDD," noting further that 79% of Thai households consume iodized salt and that Goitre prevalence in Thailand had decreased from 19% in 1989 to 2% in 2001. In 1997, the government even declared a "National Iodized Salt Day."

Were such accolades with respect to Thailand premature? Would the enthusiasm for making rapid progress on the issue dissipate?

It would seem so. More recent figures suggest that Thailand stumbled, failing to sustain its earlier progress.

Although Thailand was the first country in the region to make progress against iodine deficiency, of all countries in ASEAN, Thailand has made the least progress in recent years. This point is illustrated by the adjacent chart by Prof. C Eastman of the University of Sydney. His chart shows that from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s -- a time when all other ASEAN countries were consuming vastly more iodized salt -- Thailand not only failed to match this progress, it would find itself lagging behind poor neighboring countries like Laos and Myanmar!

A 2006 study described the urgent "need for multimicronutrient interventions in North East Thailand." The study of schoolchildren reported that 83% had low urinary iodine levels. A glace at the map at the ICCIDD website (re-posted above) shows Thailand lagging well in behind other countries in the region in treating iodine deficiency.

The problem concerning iodine deficiency in Thailand mainly concerns "the Northern and North-eastern regions where soil does not contain iodine and villagers do not regularly eat seafood" according to a 2006 ICCIDD newsletter. It must be asked whether governments of the post 2006 coup era -- several of which have been under-represented by representatives from the Northern and North-eastern regions -- have shown adequate commitment to addressing this critical problem facing these residents.

Other ways to address the problem of iodine deficiency:

• A few weeks ago I blogged about a project called Cola Life. Perhaps iodine deficiency is something that that soft drink manufacturers could help to address.

• School lunch programs could be another means of delivering iodine to children in Thailand according to a recent study.

• A 2001 study found that a low-cost solution to the iodine deficiency in Thailand might be water iodization.

Implications for China of Thailand's anti-democratic movement

Gideon Rachman, blogging at FT, looks at the implications of the success of the PAD movement in Thailand for China:

The middle-class backers of the PAD hate the fact that under universal suffrage, the votes of the rural poor in the north of Thailand are usually decisive. They see this as a formula for corruption and pork-barrel politics. Hence, their desire to roll back democracy.

The implications for China are fascinating. There too the urban middle-class seem to be emerging as a conservative force, suspicious of democracy and the peasant power that it might unleash.*

Peasants are not what they use to be. Equipped with television and mobile phones, rural people have been witness to the power grab that unfolded in Bangkok courtrooms, government buildings, and airport terminals over the course of the past six months, deposing a democratically elected government.

Therefore, I find it difficult to imagine that today's urban revolt** stands a chance of succeeding for very long.

Whether constitutional democracy will return when leaders supported by the rural countryside eventually triumph, however, is by no means certain. In twentieth century China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, when peasant-backed movements brought down the old elites, their leaders were not kind to the middle classes.

If the Thai middle class allows democracy to fail, it may not return.

*H-tip Sullivan

** It appears to me that what has happened in Bangkok is in essence an elite revolt, but one that has been widely supported by the middle class.

Cambodians and Laotians will be hurt by Thai crisis

Xin Hua reports:

The tourism industry of Cambodia will see a loss of 100 million U.S. dollars this year, if the current chaos in Thailand can't be reversed in three months, Cambodian media on Tuesday quoted minister as saying.

The Thai capital is a regional hub, from where tourists can enter Cambodia, so the situation there can have direct impact over the tourism industry here, Cambodian Tourism Minister Thon Khong told Chinese-language newspaper the Commercial News.

About 1,500 passengers come to Cambodia through Bangkok everyday, making up 30 percent of all daily entry of visitors into the kingdom, he said.

"Each of them is expected to spend 770 dollars per day in the country," he said.

When times were stable, 10 to 12 flights shuttle between Siem Reap, Phnom Penh and Bangkok, but the crisis in the neighboring country has stopped the boom and will lead to loss to Cambodia for sure, he added.

Tourism is one of the pillar industries of Cambodia. Over two million foreign tourist arrivals are expected this year according to the government's original plan, but the number has been scaled down by almost a quarter recently due to the global financial crisis.

Cambodia's GDP was only US $26.19 billion in 2007 (CIA World Factbook). Many Cambodians live on less than a dollar a day.

Needless to say, tourism revenue is also likely to plummet in Laos and -- to the extent anyone visits the country -- Burma. The populations of Burma, Cambodia, and Laos are poorest in Southeast Asia.

In the case of Cambodia and Laos, Vietnam may well find certain of its cities positioned to replace Bangkok as a regional transit hub -- Thailand's loss. Tourism to the region will eventually recover, but whether Thailand will remain the central draw can no longer simply be assumed.

I might add though that tourism has exploded rather too quickly in Cambodia and Laos, and a slowdown in tourism-related development in these countries might have long-lasting ecological benefits.

Photo: By Jotman. Shows Cambodian monks' bath.

US bomb kills 60 Afghan children

The NY Times reports that the UN has "convincing evidence" that a US air strike in Afghanistan has killed 90 civilians, including 60 children.

Air strikes don't win wars. The allied bombing of Germany was not what defeated Hitler; the carpet-bombing of Tokyo did not defeat Imperial Japan; bombing Cambodia, North Vietnam, and Laos failed to defeat the Vietcong; in the 1980s, Russian helicopter gunships firing on targets throughout Afghanistan did not lead to a Russians victory; US air strikes on Tora Bora did not even lead to the capture of Bin Laden in 2001. Precisely what objectives have been accomplished after five years of air strikes on targets throughout Iraq? Bombing is an ineffective way to fight a war.

Moreover, air strikes seem to be particularly counter-productive when the enemy is an insurgency. Money quote from the NY Times article:

How the military came to call in air strikes on a civilian gathering still remains unclear. Two parliamentarians, Mr. Safi and Maulavi Gul Ahmad, who is from the area, said the villagers blamed tribal enemies for giving the military false intelligence.

“According to the villagers their enemies give false report to Americans that foreign fighters were gathering in the village,” Mr. Safi said.

NATO's attempt to win a war in Afghanistan looks half-baked.

Appeasing Myanmar

While the nearly-suffocated survivors of a trip that left 54 Burmese dead were being transfered from hospital to a Thai prison, Thailand's foreign minister was on the phone with his counterpart in Myanmar. He said he hoped for better coordination in the future.

Coordination on immigration? One might inquire as to what that actually entails. "Rangoon has been adamant that Bangkok send lists of Burmese migrant workers for verification by Burma, while Laos and Burma have sent officials to do the head-count inside Thailand," writes the Bangkok Post's Achara Ashayagachat. That's not cooperation. That's an invitation to Thai complicity in Myanmar's human rights abuses.

And Thai complicity seems to be very real. When I interviewed one former Burmese prisoner who had suffered torture (photo), he said he lived in fear of Thai police who might send him back to Burma. This from a man who -- unlike the Burmese migrant workers -- actually has legal refugee status! In wake of the Burma protests of 2007, Thai security officials were reported to have harassed some Burma NGOs in Chang Mai -- at the bequest of Myanmar. (see "Are Thai agents helping Burma's junta?")

Meanwhile, concerning Burmese migrant workers, the Bangkok Post's Achara Ashayagachat makes some reasonable proposals in her opinion piece:

Non-government organisations and the International Labour Organisation have raised concerns about the "slow and expensive" registration system, which fails to allow labourers to change employers, even if they suffer abuses.

They call for a comprehensive labour migration management policy, instead of cracking down on the immigrants and driving them further underground. . . . .

This problem must be immediately tackled through a new round of registration, with immigrant labourers allowed to remain in the country for at least one year. Under the present system, the registration of foreign workers is aimed more at checking their numbers. . . .

Burma, unlike Laos and Cambodia, has refused to cooperate with Thailand in regulating the labour inflow.

These ideas reflect my own opinions on the matter, which I described in this post (which includes horrifying details about how the Burmese died). Also see my post, "Lives of Burmese migrants in Thailand."

Photo: Zaw Nyein Lat, President Burma Political Prisoner's Union. When in the border region, he told me he lives in fear of deportation to Burma by Thai authorities -- even though he has UN refugee status and United States residency status. How is this state of affairs possible?

Did Thai PM Samak order attack dogs to be used on Hmong refugees?

Blogger Fonzi has posted a report from a source claiming the Thai PM ordered that dogs be used against Hmong refugees. Money quote:

“Reliable and multiple eyewitness sources in Thailand have reported that Thai military officials, at the apparent direct order of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, in preparation for his upcoming trip to Laos, used teams of military attack dogs led by armed soldiers to intimidate and maul some 12-13 Lao-Hmong refugees at Ban Huay Nam Khao detention center as brutal preparation before forcing them back to the Communist regime,” stated Philip Smith, Executive Director, of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, in Washington, D.C.

Bangkok Pundit dug into this story further on his blog. Whether or not Samak personally ordered the use of dogs remains an open question in his view. Bangkok Pundit adds that there might well be a connection between repatriation of the Hmong and an energy deal that Thailand recently signed with Laos. He writes: "Now, this could just be a coincidence, but I have suspicions there was a link between the swapping of the energy for the Hmong given the timing."

Index of State Weakness

The Brookings Institute has just published a survey of the developing world which categorizes states by their "weakness."

The study, by Stuart E. Patrick and Susan Rice defines state "weakness" according to four factors: 1) an environment conductive to economic growth; 2) legitimate, transparent, and accountable political institutions; 3) securing territory and population free from violence; 4) "meeting the basic human needs of their population."

The idea is to provide a tool by which to help the international community target any intervention more effectively.

The study's guiding vision bears similarity to the work of British scholar Paul Collier, author of "The Bottom Billion." Collier's main point was that the term "developing countries" obscures huge differences among developing nations. He thinks the world's poorest people -- the Bottom Billion -- should be targeted. And in providing assistance, the West ought to focus on helping these struggling nations build the capacity to help themselves (I blogged about Collier's important book here).

The authors of the present study write:

In some cases, weak states may not be receiving adequate focus or resources. Poverty alleviation should be given higher priority in U.S. policy, because poorer countries tend to be weaker ones, and the consequences of state weakness can be significant for U.S. national security.

Notable in the study is the emphasis on "security" as one of the four measures of state weakness. As Collier noted, without the foundation of peace and stability, efforts to improve social welfare, boost the economy, or -- as the chaos in Iraq suggests -- foster genuine democracy tend to be futile.

Because many readers of Jotman will be familiar with Southeast Asian and Thailand, in the above chart I pasted scores for Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, and Burma. The reader who brought this study to my attention observed:

Thailand is doing better than Russia, and much better than Colombia, but still worse than Kazakstan.

Malaysia's score seems surprisingly high to me -- especially considering recent developments. What is your reaction to the scores? To this approach in general?

Thailand gets a taste of its own medicine

The new Thai PM wanted to divert waters from the mighty Mekong to irrigate Thai crops. Needless to say, the downstream countries -- Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam -- were unhappy about this. Now experts warn that China's big hydroelectric dams on the Mekong may foil the Thai prime minister's plan. "They fear that the dams will lead to a reduction in the amount of water flowing downstream" writes the Bangkok Post.

Would it be so much better if no country messed with the Mekong?

ASEAN, Burma, and the great powers

In terms of the Burma crisis, have great powers influenced positions taken by individual Southeast Asian countries at the ASEAN summit in Singapore? Two of my favorite bloggers think so.

President Arroyo of the Philippines has warned that the Philippine Senate would have “extreme difficulty” ratifying new ASEAN charter unless Burma makes progress toward democracy and frees Aung San Suu Kyi. Greg of Ten Percent writes "This is mostly from US pressure and a mooted ‘free trade’ (shudder) deal. . ."

Meanwhile, Laos and Cambodia have condemned the Western economic sanctions and called on ASEAN member countries to stay out of each other's affairs. Blogger Fonzi at Thailand Jumped the Shark sees "China . . . exercising its power behind the scenes" here.

Burmese and Thais celebrate the end of Buddhist Lent

I took this video last week of an impressive fireworks celebration at a temple in Burma (turn up the volume and you can hear the monks chanting).



Today Burmese, Thais, Laotians and others around Asia celebrate the end of Buddhist Lent.

What is Buddhist Lent? Also called vassa (vasso in Pali, varsah in Sanskrit) meaning "rain," it lasts for three lunar months -- from July to October -- and coincides with the rainy season in northern Southeast Asia. Traditionally during the monsoon rains, Buddhist monks go into retreat. Monks may spend more time in their temples, and may adapt a strictly vegetarian diet. In Thailand or Burma, members of the laity will sometimes take monastic vows for the duration of vassa. More at Wikipedia.

At this moment, in Laos the dragon boat races are over and people are starting to light floating candles, in Thailand people are also setting candles afloat, and the Burmese -- hopefully -- are visiting temples and letting off firecrackers (Don't miss this rather unusual Jotman video!).

Video: Jotman

The Madness of Burma's Junta

Some observations about Burma:

• "Burma is today the least developed country in Asia in all rankings. In some indexes it is lower than Laos, Cambodia and Bangladesh."
• School enrolment is about 50 percent.
• Infant and maternal mortality is the worst in Asia.

The source for this information is Dr. Sann Aung. Elected to parliament in Burma in the 1990 elections, he now lives in exile in Thailand. Dr. Sann Aung's comments were delivered in an interview with The Nation published today in Bangkok. He also said:

In 2006, the military moved the capital. That cost it US$10 billion and that caused inflation. In March the same year, it increased military salaries ten-fold. People became poorer and poorer and then it doubled the price of petrol, and gas by five times. This exacerbated the social and political crisis.

I have posted other disturbing economic data and health estimates concerning here.

I was in northern Burma last year and I had a chance to learn something about the aspirations of Burma's kids. Check out this post.

Two Dangerous American Men

There is growing fear that the Bush Administration just might be stupid -- or crazy or desperate -- enough to start a war with Iran. Top generals in the US military are believe it would be madness for the US to attack Iran; strategic analysts believe war with Iran would be catastrophic to long-term US foreign policy objectives.

However, if Bush does not attack Iran, he will go down in history as the president who not only lost the Iraq war, but turned Iran -- a foe of America and Israel -- into a regional superpower. If Bush is to have any hope of saving his reputation -- that is, if Bush is to go down in history as something other than the worst president in US history-- perhaps he has little choice but to take a huge gamble and invade Iran. Such an attack will most likely prove disastrous not only for US interests but for the world economy. Attacking Iran amounts to a big gamble. It's not sensible for a nation as powerful and secure as the US to make such a reckless gamble, but if you were as weak and insecure as President Bush now feels himself to be, you might be tempted.

The US is lost in a new Middle East of its own creation; it's a situation the present US administration does not have a snowflake's chance in hell of understanding, and coping with effectively. This becomes quite clear if you read an important article by Seymour Hersh published in this week's New Yorker Magazine. Hersh investigates the Bush administration's policy towards Iran and describes the emergence of a kind of Cold War in which the two factions of Islam -- Sunni and Shiite -- confront one another. (Although 90% of Muslims are Sunni, many oil-rich regions of the Middle East are in control of Shiites, most notably Iran and most of Iraq. Predominantly Shiite countries include Iran, Bahrain, and the Hezbollah faction within Lebanon. Although Syria is not Shiite, Syria's leaders are allied with Shiite Iran. Other countries of the Middle East -- Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc -- are mostly populated by Sunni.)

Hersh's article makes it appear that the US has sided with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni states against the Shiite states. This gets confusing because essentially, this means the US is fighting on the same side as Al Quaeda (which is pro-Sunni). The exception is Iraq, where the US supports its Shiite government and where most of the attacks against American forces have been conducted by Sunnis.

Here are some interesting quotations taken from Seymour Hersh's article -- from his interviews with various officials in the Middle East:

• Saudi official: “Today, the only army capable of containing Iran”—the Iraqi Army—“has been destroyed by the United States. You’re now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers.” (Saudi Arabia has seventy-five thousand troops in its standing army.)

• Saudi official: “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”

• Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center, said, however, that the United States “does not have enough pull to stop the moderates in Lebanon from dealing with the extremists.” He added, “The President sees the region as divided between moderates and extremists, but our regional friends see it as divided between Sunnis and Shia. The Sunnis that we view as extremists are regarded by our Sunni allies simply as Sunnis.”

• Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

Hersh raises the alarming possibility that the US is secretly funding covert operations intended to destabilize Syria and Iran. There are echoes of Iran-Contra scandal and also the "secret war" in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam era. But this time it could be worse.

The implication is that secret -- undoubtedly illegal -- covert operations are being run out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office. “There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,” Hersh quotes a four-star US general as saying. It's scary to contemplate so much power in the hands of Dick Cheney. Cheney is one very arrogant bully and actual events have proven him wrong about most every policy he has advocated in recent years. Cheney's dismal track record and the unchecked powers of his office make Cheney just about the most dangerous man on the planet.

Indonesia, the burden is now on your shoulders...

Observing the Thai coup d'etat from Jakarta, Rizal Sukma writes in today's Jakarta Post:

Our democracy is still as fragile as Thai democracy... The fact that (Indonesian) President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono repeatedly warns the military not to get involved in politics implies that the possibility and the worry are still there...

In the aftermath of the Thai military coup, Indonesia should realize that the biggest challenge now is to maintain Indonesia as a successful model of democratization in Southeast Asia. We should be the last bastion of democracy in this region. With the developments in Thailand, antidemocratic forces within Indonesia and in the region now have new ammunition to attack democracy.

...Indonesia has the obligation to stand up and demonstrate that democracy is still possible and preferable. The burden and the responsibility to safeguard democracy in Southeast Asia is now on our shoulders.

The photo above shows the face of a Cambodian boy. If Thailand cannot get its act together, kids in countries like Laos, Cambodia and Burma could the real losers of the Thai coup d'etat. I took the photo on a recent trip to Cambodia. I was impressed by the eagerness of kids to go to school, to learn about the world. But the utter lack of competence displayed by those in charge of government is astounding -- the corruption is that bad. Cambodia has only recently taken its first halting steps towards democracy. Thailand is not just Cambodia's main source of imports, it has served as a model for Cambodia -- a benchmark. Indonesia's burden is a heavy one indeed.

Recent posts: SOUTHEAST ASIA

Recent posts concerning events in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Burma (Myanmar), Brunei, Indonesia, and East Timor.

Search for more: