BURMA'S AGONY

The article I am commenting on is taken from:

TIME Magazine [Heartbreak in China]
May 26, 2008
Pg 26 - 29
By Hannah Beech/Irrawaddy Delta

Saving Burma

Synopsis

The reported events tell of the intimidating militarian styles. Ruling by Intimidation starts with the story of a woman, though fearing that the 450,000- strong military could actually endanger her life for speaking to foreign journalists. After that the writer gives an even deeper insight to the harsh ways the ruling military by describing to us how the major handled matters that anything to do with foreigners. Burma's ruling military were obviously doing their utmost to prevent their inside story from leaking out, even to the extent of gunning down foreign people. The other sections mention that the military junta turn down foreign aid with such ferosity that eventually other countries or even the international aid has to step in to pressurize the junta.

Commentary

The issue mentioned in the article is concerning the way the military juntas in Burma (Myanmar) run the country. Being the most powerful group, the junta is naturally the ruling military group. Instead of having the best interest of the citizens at heart, they instead push out all foreign help. This is done to the extent that other countries like China has to speak up to pressurize the military junta to start letting in foreign help.

The writer's viewpoint is that such a form of government brings minimal benefits to the people. Though the reason for them rejecting foreign aid is unknown to the public, it is definite that the way their government responds to the crises at hand endangers the people. In spite of the country having been hit by a natural disaster, the military forces are not doing anything to alleviate the situation of the locals. Instead, they even go to the extent of denying the people a chance to receive aid.

I feel that having a militarian party rule a country would not be as ideal as having a real government political party rule the country. This is especially so during the years of later developent of the nation. My reasons for this claim is that militarian style governments, would be primarily concerned for the welfare of the army. Their troops, having helped them rise to power, would no doubt come before the citizens in terms of priority. As such, the needs of the commoners would not be taken into consideration.

Of course the pros of this system would be that being in it would ensure stability because there is a significantly lower chance of a threat of paramilitary groups forming rebellions. Also having the military turn against the government would be almost impossible because they were one after all. Therefore, the people would not have to face problems such as the gruesome guerilla warfare between political forces. For example, in Sri Lanka, the civilians were exposed to constant fights between the sinhalese and the LTTE. Thus although they might suffer from natural disasters, they do not face the psychologically taxing killings.

China, on the other hand, has begun to open up in response to globalisation. This can be exemplified with the recent Sichuan earthquakes. Though they were equally affected, China did not face that serious repercussions because they simply were open to foreign aid. Thus although both were dealt heavy blows by natural disasters, the aftermath was much worse for Burma than it was experienced in China. Statistical data back this statement with the fact that people are still dying in Burma (from the diseases) while in China the death toll was more confined.

Isn't it obvious enough that the military junta as a political system, doing more harm than good to the people, is not suitable for a country like Burma? When will their agony be alleviated?