The silenced genocide

It's our fault, the media’s fault. We are experts at making huge deals of a sand grain while failing to realize about the huge mountain in front of us. While everyone -including us- is looking to Pyongyang, silence prevails in other parts of Asia such as Burma.

In Korea there has not been yet a single shot, a single death, nor more refugees or displaced in fifty years. Nevertheless, hundreds of foreign correspondents have traveled to the area to tell that absolutely nothing has happened. In the meantime, the Rohingya suffer a very real conflict that gets silenced.

Burma's case is especially flagrant. There are currently several active conflicts against various ethnic minorities in the country. The Karen, Shan, Kachin and Rohingya are just four of the groups that are currently fighting the government in Yangon.

The Karen are an ethnic group divided between Thailand and Burma. Since 1976 they have been fighting for their own state or, more recently, at least greater self-government. Relationships are clearly better than a few years ago and last week both sides sat down to negotiate. That doesn’t mean they are in good terms.

The Shan’s situation is slightly better. They have some degree of autonomy and its own army, but they are subject to the central government. However, both the Shan and the neighboring Kachin have been abused by the majority Bamar that governs Burma. Unlike with the Karen, tension with these two groups has increased in recent weeks.

But the most significant case is that of the Rohingya. Not only they are different ethnically, as the rest of the other groups, but also on the religious level. The Rohingya, mostly Muslims, have suffered all sorts of attacks against their properties and their people for years by the country's Buddhist majority.

In 2012 these attacks increased exponentially. And they do not respect anything or anyone. In early April, a school with 70 children burned down in what appears to be an unprovoked attack. Thirteen of the children died in the fire.

The seriousness of the issue has led some to declare that what is occurring in Burma is nothing less than ethnic cleansing. However, little or no response has been made by the international community.

It is particularly striking that the Nobel Peace Prize Aung San Suu Kyi has not said anything about it. If we take into consideration how the international media are usually always listening to everything she says, her silence is the more disturbing. The once ardent defender of human rights in Burma seems to prefer silence and turn a blind eye in the case of the conflict with the Rohingya.

The Burmese central government has called the Buddhist New Year celebrations to demand national unity. But in the current situation that is more of an utopia than reality. The main concern for Yangon is to prevent the ethnic conflicts to endanger the much needed flow of foreign investment.

What will happen to the country’s ethnic minorities is secondary. Problems endemic to the region, such as amputees by landmines, forced labor with refugees and sex tourism are already threatening the Shan, Karen, Kachin and Rohingya. And no one seems to care about it.

Read more »

Thatcher's legacy

Margaret Thatcher is dead. But the woman who was probably one of the most influential people after World War II, not only in the UK but in the world, lives on through her legacy. 

Summarize what Thatcher meant would be impossible in just a few words. Years after the Iron Lady left No. 10 Downing Street, the effect of her policies is clear everywhere. Ask to the Scottish and northern English about the dismantlement of their industry, or to the Occupy movement about deregulation of the banks, and her name will likely appear.

  

Glasgow is an example of an industrial city that was literally abandoned to their fate. The once booming industrial hub became an “every man for himself” situation when the Thatcher government washed its hands and decided not to help the industry. Exactly the opposite to what Obama did with Detroit.

  

Thatcher’s decision ended up in rampant unemployment, crime and economic depression. It was so severe that only now the city is beginning to raise above the mud. The miners of northern England didn’t have better luck despite their year long strike.  

Photo: Javier Garcia Marcos/WGMreports

Not only the mining and the heavy industry suffered through her policies over the years. The shadow of the Iron Lady is felt today in all deregulations the UK has had since. From healthcare to banking, to education; no sector was left unscattered. Thanks to Maggie, children in Britain stopped getting a glass of milk with every meal at school.

These deregulations not only were continued by his party, but also by Labour. Some people used to joke that Thatcher's greatest legacy was Tony Blair. Truth is that for better or worse, after her every single politician changed their ways. Both Conservative and Labour, none wanted, knew or could get away from the influence left by the Baroness.

Internationally, Margaret Thatcher was also able to make her mark. As hated or loved as back in Britain, she left no one unimpressed. She was a great friend of both Kissinger and Gorbachev, she helped Pinochet evade justice, she aided the government of Pol Pot in Cambodia and she called Mandela a terrorist.

Meanwhile, the tories are today Eurosceptic mostly thanks to the Iron Lady. No one did more against the EU than her. And from within. It is also part of his legacy the decision to stay out of the euro, which to be honest today seems like one of the best decisions arising from Thatcherism.

In Argentina the Falklands war will be always remember. In domestic terms, with the country in ruins, the war served as an unbeatable propaganda platform for Thatcher, who regained popularity and managed to inflame the patriotic sense.

It was a perfect play for her: the Baroness was reelected for a second term, in which she carried out most of the privatizations of public companies. Only the postal service was spared. After Tatcher, Major, Blair and Brown would finish the job with the centralization of power in London and the loss of autonomy for the municipalities.

For all this and much more is not surprising that hundreds of people went out to the streets to celebrate her death. Hatred for Thatcher and Thatcherism continues in many who even today see her mark on proposals like David Cameron‘s Bedroom tax. Those who idolize her will also have their moment at the state funeral.

Down in History, she will always be the first woman at the helm of the British government, but she never did much to promote the role of women, either in politics or society. When he entered No. 10 Downing Street, 3% of the Commons were women; when she left it was only a fraction more at 6.3%. However, her example was enough to encourage other women to follow suit.

One thing we do need to recognize is that the country's situation when Thatcher took office was miserable. Britain was paralyzed, with even coffins lined up waiting to be buried because everyone was on strike.  The country had an alarming unemployment rate and had been humiliated after having to resort to an IMF loan.

Thatcher managed to lift the country from the ashes, but the price to pay was too high for society. But since according to Thatcher "society does not exist", that was a price that the Iron Lady was more than willing to pay.

Read more »

Nuclear diplomacy

From time to time we hear about the imminent threat that Iran posses to the West. It is usually coming from Israeli or the US. Being Iran as cheeky as it usually is when it comes to its nuclear program, this shouldn’t be a surprise.

Like in a game, the IAEA inspectors and Iran are constantly playing out each other. So far Iran wins. They managed to fool the International Agency several times and with a wide array of tricks. Either by undisclosing secret facilities built buried inside a mountain or plain lying about the program, they have earned a reputation of dishonesty.

Yet the constant nagging about Iran meets always strong arguments against that premise more often than not. In fact, it is usually within the US Pentagon that we get reminded that Iran is not a threat, nor it will be in a near future.

We have so many eyes on the country that building up enough uranium to make a bomb under our noses would be impossible. More precisely; it would be possible, but we would know it.

If that was the case and Iran decided to go ahead and set hell loose, it still wouldn’t be a matter of a blink of an eye. It would take at least a year for that to happen. The last few steps made by the Persian country set them back rather than forward. 

Ahmadinejad talking nuclear/Reuters

Even more, according to analyst Meir Javedanfar from The Diplomat, building a bomb could be a bad move for Iran. Unlike North Korea, who has made of isolation and nuclear diplomacy an art, Iran needs the world and does not need a bomb.

Actually, getting a bomb would mean more sanctions for the country. For an oil-exporter like Iran, difficulties to export oil are very damaging for its economy. And sanctions are amongst the biggest difficulties.

This scenario would mean a bigger strain on the already weak economy of Iran and a more discontent population. That, trouble at home, is what North Korea doesn’t have to worry about but Iran does. And it is what ultimately would deter Iran from seeking the bomb.

It is interesting, however, that while the rest of the world is forced to comply with the sanctions, a selected group of countries are allowed by the USA to bypass that and get the much needed Iranian oil.  

Read more »

War like a videogame

GoPro cameras have found a place in Syria too. The results, however, are kind of surrealist. It almost transforms the video below in a picture taken out of a videogame. Something that, on the other hand, it wouldn't be that weird in a conflict that has seen a homemade tank controlled by a Playstation gamepad or a remote-controlled rifle operated from a laptop.

Read more »

Will it be war in Korea?

Kim Jong-un seems to be finally wearing his father’s shoes. He is even surpassing the boldness of his predecessor. The young one is pushing an escalation of the nuclear diplomacy the North Koreans have mastered for years. However, the dangers come from the lack of knowledge about the new leaders more than from what it may actually happen in the end.

Most of what is happening now has happened before to some degree. The US and South Korea usually have drills in the region. North Korea usually responds harshly to it. And North Korea usually tests every new Prime Minister of the South when they access the office. That is all according to the script.

It wouldn’t even be the first time they exchange fire. As recently as in the past three years, North Korea shelled a South Korean island, which retaliated. The North also -allegedly- sank a South Korean corvette, an act that didn’t have a military response from the South.

There are, however, too many changes to be able to know what will happen next. There are new leaders in both Koreas and in China. The latter, only ally of the North Koreans, recently distanced from them by sanctioning the Kim regime in the UN for their last nuclear test.

But being more isolated is where NK’s strength resides. The Kim dynasty has made of isolation a weapon and it is partially the reason it has survived for so long. A society open to the world, like Iran’s, wouldn’t have been so forgiving of the difficulties it is going through in exchange for nukes.

The speech of threat to the South forms part of that strategy too. Despite the recent lack of food and famine due to a poor harvest, Kim has been able to keep the North’s society united around the leadership by crying wolf in the form of the US and Seoul.

By keeping a constant message of fear, Kim manages to maintain cohesion among North Koreans. This may be more needed than ever before if the rumors of an attempted coup that surfaced on March 13^th are true.

Kim Jong-un, however, has gone a step further with that speech of threat since he accessed the office. He has surpassed his father successfully launching a satellite, test firing another long-range rocket (that failed) and resuming the nuclear program.

These last successful trials (the satellite launch and the nuclear test) may have encouraged the young Kim to impatiently launch threats his country cannot fulfill, like attacking mainland America. The latest moves have been cutting communications with the south, banning access to the joint factory park of Kaesong and pointing the batteries of missiles and artillery to the south.

The truth is no one really wants war. South Korea’s capital, Seoul, would be likely carpeted from the north and little could be done to minimize it. Only during the first hour of conflict, 500,000 rounds of artillery could hit the capital. Conservative estimates suggest a death toll of at least 100,000 casualties only in the city.

North Korea also knows that they would have only 24 hours, maybe 48, until they would be obliterated by the US. The use of nuclear weapons so close to its own population would be suicidal for the north without the intervention of the US. Both Koreas would have too much to lose and little to gain.

Jean Lee, the Pyongyang AP bureau chief and one of the few Western reporters on the ground, said that even amid the latest threats, “Inside Pyongyang, much of the military rhetoric feels like theatrics.”

Business was going as usual and, she noted, “in a telling sign that even the North Koreans don’t expect war, the national airline, Air Koryo, is adding flights to its spring lineup and preparing to host the scores of tourists they expect.” Forcing the south and the US to the negotiation table is what is worth for the North Koreans.

Photo AP

The rest of the actors aren’t any keener to go to war. Japan doesn’t want to be again the target of a nuclear attack and they know they are within the range of North Korean missiles. The US, on the other hand, is fairly safe North Korea can’t hit its territory. But being in withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn’t make sense to get involved in what could be the bloodiest conflict since 1945.

On the other side, China is not interested in a conflict in the area. Focused on the economy, a war in the region would threaten the growth of the country. An influx of refugees inside its north-eastern border is an added problem. Added to that, if North Korea is annihilated, it could mean US troops on its border while Kim’s regime is now a firewall that would be disadvantageous to lose.

All things considered, recent history tells us it is not likely this will escalate into a full blown war. But as Foreign Policy puts it, “for half a century, neither side believed that the benefits of starting a major war outweighed the costs; the worry is that the new North Korean leader might not hold to the same logic, given his youth and inexperience”. Kim Jong-un is not crazy as some draw him, but our best bet is hoping he is not suicidal either.

Read more »