Live data from Hacker News

After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

reuters.com

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.

> It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that. This isn't possible often enough. There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival, from starving their populations (North Korea) to murdering or beating them up on the streets (Tiananmen massacre, Arab Spring revolutions) or…

> There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival

These things only matter in the short run but successful, enduring democratization is a very long game. Look at Taiwan and South Korea - relatively straightforward when looking at them from the outside, and yet they took decades to become stable democracies with real respect for fundamental rights. More challenging cases might take generations.

> Most freedom movements need some form of support from the outside, be it arms, money, logistic or ideologic support.

Most often, the needed support can come from the inside, as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy. Arguably, this is even the best possible case.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#42
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Pull more countries under resolution 377, to put more pressure on Burma around the security council 2. India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything 3. International intervention under resolution 377 4. Surgical strike on the junta leadership without broad UN involvement by somebody brave enough

> India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything Don't expect anything unless thousands of refugees start pouring in India.

Myanmar violence triggers asylum crisis for India's northeastern states

https://m.dw.com/en/myanmar-india-mizoram-asylum/a-57171804

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#43
post #27
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

Are you implicitly assuming that the civil wars in Libya and Syria started without active involvement by the U.S. and other governments and they got involved afterwards?

Of course. Ever heard of CIA getting involved in something ?

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are signs and rumors that a 3rd party (here: China) is already involved, at least in the sense of "Go ahead, we will not do anything". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relation... Libya and Syria: Same here, some 3rd parties are involved anyway. The question is if "the West" (I guess this is what you refer to) should/must/must not get involved as well.

China was opposed to the military junta and preferred the previous government. Their recent diplomatic stance isn't about involvement, it's them calculating that involvement isn't worth it and signaling to the junta that they shouldn't be afraid of involvement.

This is a huge lie. The CN government did not prefer the previous "american puppet" government at all. I don't know where this stupid meme keeps coming from but it has ZERO basis in reality...

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#45
post #35
post #11

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will descend into a failed state with tens of millions affected. It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives?

I feel that Vietnam should get more credit than it did for invading Cambodia to depose the Khmer Rouge.

I agree. In the West this history is too obscure.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China was opposed to the military junta and preferred the previous government. Their recent diplomatic stance isn't about involvement, it's them calculating that involvement isn't worth it and signaling to the junta that they shouldn't be afraid of involvement.

This is a huge lie. The CN government did not prefer the previous "american puppet" government at all. I don't know where this stupid meme keeps coming from but it has ZERO basis in reality...

The previous government was far from an American puppet and signed billions in deals with China.

The Junta government opposed them at every turn and doesn't like foreign investment.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that. This isn't possible often enough. There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival, from starving their populations (North Korea) to murdering or beating them up on the streets (Tiananmen massacre, Arab Spring revolutions) or…

> There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival These things only matter in the short run but successful, enduring democratization is a very long game. Look at Taiwan and South Korea - relatively straightforward when looking at them from the outside, and yet they took decades to become stable democracies with real respect for fundamental rights. More challenging cases might t…

> as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy

For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption, the elites are generally so widely despised by the population that they have to fear to be imprisoned at best and executed at worst, were they to lose power.

It's even worse in countries like the Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or former Yugoslavian member states, where religion, ethnic disputes and sometimes hundreds of years worth of land disputes and squabbles come into the mix.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival These things only matter in the short run but successful, enduring democratization is a very long game. Look at Taiwan and South Korea - relatively straightforward when looking at them from the outside, and yet they took decades to become stable democracies with real respect for fundamental rights. More challenging cases might t…

> as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption, the elites are generally so widely despised by the population that they have to fear to be imprisoned at best and executed at worst, were they to lose power. It's even…

> For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption ... religion, ethnic disputes and sometimes hundreds of years worth of land disputes and squabbles come into the mix.

I don't exactly disagree, but this is why it can make sense to pursue basic state-building ("good government") and liberalization (respect for basic rights and freedoms) well before worrying about electoral democracy, or a transfer of power away from current policy makers. In practice, the latter is essentially useless without the former - but in the long run, more freedom opens up opportunities for more democracy.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#49
post #8
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow what "they sow". It seems that they were ordered by the military to implement surveillance and now they are personally threatened. I cannot comment on their intelligence but maybe you could provide some information.

> I don't follow what "they sow". > I cannot comment on their intelligence but maybe you could provide some information. Western companies in Burma largely collaborated with the junta with great enthusiasm, going above and beyond what a person simply coerced will do. https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/national/bangladesh-blast... They hope to ride this out, and have chummy relationship with the government under junta…

It's more complex than just that. For a while (early to late 2010's), Myanmar was widely seen as being on the path to become a functioning democracy. Engaging such fledgling democracies economically is generally believed to be a good thing.

I know it's easier to just lump everyone into "good" or "evil" categories but it's not that simple.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#50
post #21
post #11

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will descend into a failed state with tens of millions affected. It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives?

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

> After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

What 3rd party involvement?

There are only 2 third parties doing anything.

Russia helping Assad to flatten his own country to the ground

And Turkey trying to at least deny them a complete victory by enforcing the Idlib pocket with its troops, and firepower on the ground.

Post reply on HN