Than Shwe in the news? Sort of.

The entire world is paying attention, or at least pretending to pay attention, to the crackdown on dissident monks in Burma. Missing in most of the coverage is any mention of just who runs the system that caused all this drama in the first place - SPDC chief Than Shwe. The coverage of the unrest in Burma has mostly avoided mentioning Than Shwe by name, preferring to run with "the military junta", "the generals" and so on and so forth. Then again, considering how Burma's top brasshat likes to avoid the limelight, this is somewhat understandable.

For now, Than Shwe remains in charge of the ruling SPDC party despite rumors of ill health and a desperate power struggle with the SPDC's number two man, Maung Aye. It's rumored that the delays in organizing the crackdown on the protesting monks were due to infighting among the generals, which could be construed as yet another sign of Than Shwe's diminishing influence. Nevertheless, Than Shwe's position at the top appears to still be intact, so much so that the United Nations will be directing its ineffectual pleas for "peace" and "restraint" to Than Shwe himself.

Perhaps the United Nations would try a different tack if they actually bothered to learn more about Than Shwe. How do you deal with a man who is, above all else, more of a brutal and monomaniacal kleptocrat than is an actual political leader? I can give you a hint: handing him a petition isn't going to get them very far, nor are "solidarity protests" in Belfast. The fact that the United Nations appears determined to deal with Than Shwe the same way they'd deal with the prime minister of Belgium shows that the international diplomacy bureaucracy still hasn't managed to to read the the essentially atavistic urges that motivate dictators, much less how to deal with them.

The talk of boycotts might scare a country like Belgium, but considering that most of Burma's trade involves heroin, mining and oil, it's a safe bet that Than Shwe isn't going to worry about boycotts. Besides, they only affect the poor. Who cares? There's been some talk about shaming China into restraining Burma with talk of an Olympic boycott, but wait - how will the Chinese know if the boycott is over Burma or Darfur? In the end, it's meaningless, because China has absolutely no intention to tell Than Shwe what to do, and Than Shwe has absolutely no intention to listen even if they did. Finally, a diplomatic relationship built on mutual understanding!

It's almost as if Than Shwe has figured out that there's no point in being a dictator if you're just going to let the rest of the world tell you what to do. Amazing, isn't it?

Ewhsnahtrellik!

The Danish collective known as Surrend have made an art form out of an interesting idea. How do you criticize dictators right under their noses without getting caught by the censors? I have to admit that I might be their newest fan after reading about Surrend's latest escapade, which targeted Myanmar, the country still known as Burma to the rest of the world, and the leader of the ruling totalitarian military junta Than Shwe.

Surrend bought advertising space in the English language Myanmar Times to print what looked like a nondescript ad for Burmese tourism. Touting Burma's tropical sun, friendly people, and so on. At the bottom of the ad was written: "The Board of Islandic Travel Agencies Ewhsnahtrellik and the Danish Industry Besoeg Danmark". And what the hell is Ewhsnahtrellik? Why, that would be Killer Than Shwe when read backwards.

OK, so the idea of printing an insult backwards isn't particularly clever. Considering how tightly the Burmese press is monitored and censored for just these sorts of things, however, Surrend's accomplishment becomes a bit more impressive. I think it goes without saying that someone in the paper's advertising department is having a very long, uncomfortable talk with the police.

Defending the indefensible

High profile Burmese democracy activist and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi just spent her 62nd birthday under house arrest - her 17th such year under detention. Over the past 17 years, I'm sure she's had ample time to consider the nature of her erstwhile friends in Western democracies that (at least ostensibly) champion her cause, as well as that of her jailers, the junta of generals led by Burma's de facto dictator Than Shwe.

Aung San Suu Kyi isn't the cause célèbre she was in the early 1990's, but if anything, political freedoms and human rights have gotten even worse since she won her Nobel Prize. So what gives? Who's got her back now? Frankly, who's got the back of dissidents in dictatorships who are paying the price of speaking out? Why are things getting worse in places like Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe instead of better?

A large part of the problem is that dictators are never at a loss for enablers, both in Western governments and academia. For every US State Department press release denouncing conditions in a dictatorship, or university professor leading a candlelight vigil on the behalf of some dictator's unhappy subject, there are twice as many people urging "caution" and "moderation" towards dictatorial regimes. Why? For a number of ridiculous reasons.

The first is the hoary old realpolitik workhouse of stability. The theory goes that if the world puts heavy pressure on dictators, or worse, removes them altogether, the country will collapse into economic free fall or wanton violence without the strongman holding it all together. In fact, you could even call it the Saddam argument in light of what's going on in Iraq. You've probably even heard this argument from people you know: "Sure, Saddam was a bloodthirsty monster, but gee whiz, without him, those little brown people over there will just kill each other non-stop."

The problem with this argument is that the world's most destabilized places are already dictatorships. To go back to our first example, Burma is already rife with "destabilizing" violence in the form of endless ethnic civil wars, replete with attempts at ethnic cleansing, and innumerable narco-terrorist warlords both on the government and rebel sides. 80% of the world's present armed conflicts are instigated by and between autocratic regimes, and a nearly equal percentage of the planet's armed civil wars are taking place inside countries run by dictators. Preserving the dictatorship does not, has not, and will not restore "stability" to these regimes, precisely because dictators are the ones instigating the mayhem in the first place.

The second argument is that that dictatorships can be eased away from totalitarianism into the warm, fuzzy fold of liberal democracy. You've doubtlessly heard this argument before as applied to China. "Sure, China is a one-party dictatorship, but if they open up to the outside world, political reform is inevitable!" Supporters of this concept point to Spain and South Korea, former dictatorships that are now democracies. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the social and political factors that transformed Spain and South Korea into democracies, and ignores the fact that economic and political co-operation with the outside world didn't play much of a role in that transformation.

In fact, dictators are keener observers of the politics of appeasement than the allegedly enlightened politicians who pay lip service to their ouster. Has Kim Jong-Il suffered one iota for his nuclear gamesmanship? He squeezed fuel, food and countless concessions from the six party talks, and wound up obtaining nuclear weapons anyway. He remains in control of North Korea, and what's more, the sanctions slapped on North Korea after his deceit was revealed largely only hurt his already poor and malnourished populace, a group who Kim already regards with complete disinterest. Similarly, Western attempts for "constructive engagement" with Omar al-Bashir on Darfur are treated as signs of lunacy in Khartoum. Why, it's almost as if dictators think that the sight of powerful Western governments begging dictators pitiably to behave themselves is a sign of weakness.

They're right, of course. Most dictators do not operate in an isolationist vacuum, but their interests always do, and the overweening interest of any dictator is staying in power for as long as humanly possible without being murdered or deposed. Saddam Hussein prided himself for his ability to play the international appeasement game, both during the Iran-Iraq war, the aftermath of the first Gulf War, and during the weapons of mass destruction crisis that led to the laughable oil for food program. Saddam came away from each of these events as the winner, until he suddenly found himself on the gallows.

That, sadly, is the point where the game is up. Removing a dictator does not guarantee freedom or prosperity, this is true. However, leaving one in power guarantees the absence of both. We know this, so the question remains: why do we continue to defend, however weakly, the completely indefensible?

Thai paper: "Than Shwe nearing end"

The English language Thai newspaper The Nation has published a report saying that Burmese dictator General Than Shwe may be fighting a losing struggle to stay in power in the nation now known as Myanmar.

Citing sources close to the ruling military junta, the article states that the general has returned from a two week medical stay in Singapore after fears were raised that he developed intestinal cancer. Apparently, the fears of cancer were ungrounded, but the general is reported to be in generally poor health, and has been visibly absent from high profile events, leading to speculation that he is either dying. Even worse, it appears that it appears certain that he's engaged in a life or death power struggle with the junta's number two man, Deputy Senior General Maung Aye.

Than Shwe's ouster may seem positive, but Maung Aye is certainly no reformer himself. The ruling military junta, which seized power in 1990 in a notorious nullified election, has one of the world's worst human rights records, and is rumored to be a partner in the world's largest heroin trafficking trade. Did I mention there's French oil money involved, too?

Relatively unconcerned with foreign trade sanctions, outrage from human rights groups, and general opprobrium, it appears that the military will remain in power after the dust from their internal squabbles clears. Granted, the usual suspects will continue to draft solemn, strongly worded Letters of Concern deploring This or That Hideous Human Rights Abuse, etc., but when it comes down the brass tacks, the Army is more concerned with internal coups than UN disapproval, and no amount of non-violent external pressure will get them to relinquish power, much less restore democracy, after nearly 45 years of military rule. So much for diplomacy.