Freedom in Burma

is non existent.

Peculiar circumstances have brought the country back in the news. It's leading pro-democracy supporter has been under house arrest for almost two decades and is now on trial again. Freedomhouse.org puts it on its list of "not free" countries. Opposition is not allowed, nor much news from the outside world. This is an understandable temptation. Democracy is threat to the military rulers.

Here's an interesting report on the world's most repressive societies (and no, Texas is not on the list).

The Second Amendment

Does (did?) Myanmar need one? Would it have made a difference?

WWTND?

Before and After

Before

Telegraph UK

After

Mandalay Gazette via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The Clampdown Succeeds

Myanmar's military rulers stormed Buddhist monasteries, kicked everyone off the streets--those they didn't kill, prevented groups of more than five people from meeting, and shut down access to the internet. It seems to have worked.

Though reports suggest that the military rulers are being criticized across the globe, the criticism from the country's key trading partners--India, China and Russia--are not backing words with action. The country is rich in natural resources and none want to lose access to them.

The Clampdown Begins

Soldiers in Myanmar have begun clamping down on the protests. They've been shooting into crowds and dragging away troublesome monks.

It's standard totalitarian procedure. The monks apparently are a strong enough organization within the country that they believe they have the ability to force limits on the country's military rulers--which would make them mere authoritarians.

The rulers, if they are to keep the status quo, must demonstrate that they cannot be limited, thus the clampdown.

So that's were we are.

Monks Protest in Myanmar

Myanmar is on most lists of the world's most totalitarian, repressive governments. Their military leaders take a dim view of opposition in any form. They have been able to operate hidden from view over much of their history, but that may change.

Recent protests by monks have tested their ability to effectively clamp down dissent, both for the sheer size of the protest and because they have all been televised. Though the leadership may have few moral qualms about a broad attack on the monks, it could look bad.

Some have argued that the most effective tool for expanding individuals liberty has been mass communications, especially satellite television, and now the Internet. Little happens in secret anymore. Television coverage of the attacks on civil rights marchers in the 1960s helped build support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this result isn't inevitable. The Rwanda massacres were fueled by radio propaganda, so the sword is double edged.