Suchergebnisse

The British Museum presented a special exhibition called "Burma to Myanmar", which explores the complexities of Myanmar's contemporary art and rich cultural history from the era of dynastic rule through colonialism and military rule. It offers a good start to showcase Myanmar's art and culture, even if it sometimes feels fleeting, disconnected and dissatisfying, writes … Continued

The Burma Baptist Chronicle is a unique text published in Rangoon in 1963 — just 3 years before Christian missionaries were asked to leave Burma — combining stylistic and symbolic elements of Burmese royalty and religion, whilst serving as a commemorative text of American Baptist Christianity in the country. Alexandra Kaloyanides takes a close look at it.   _______________________________________________ When … Continued

Burma's military-run State Administration Council (SAC), which seized control of the country in a February 2021 coup, has offered up the possibility of elections to bring resolution to the chaos and violence that the SAC inflicted on the country. The SAC has neither the political will nor logistical capacity to hold elections—free or otherwise—in the […]
The post Elections in Burma Aren't Coming, But Here's What Is appeared first on International Republican Institute.

Punk rock is acknowledged globally as the in-the-face, anti-Establishment music genre. Through this moving, first-person, and personal ethnography of Sküm, Burma's legendary punk rocker, Tobiasz Targosz tells a multi-layered story of Burma's society, politics, military rule and democracy in recent times, seen with defiance — 'Infernal Damnation' (title of this blog) is the title of one of … Continued

On October 27, the Three Brotherhood Alliance (TBA) launched a coordinated offensive – called Operation 1027 – against Burma's military. The TBA, which includes the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), and the Arakan Army (AA), has gained significant ground in northern Shan State. With the assistance of allied […]
The post As Burma Reaches a Tipping Point, the U.S. Can Help Ensure Democracy Prevails appeared first on International Republican Institute.

In late 2023, Burma witnessed a dramatic shift in its ongoing conflict, with pro-democracy forces making significant military gains against the weakened junta yet facing the challenge of establishing effective governance and political strategy in captured territories. The pro-democracy movement’s success on the battlefield underscores the need to transition to a system rooted in democratic […]
The post Beyond Combat: Shaping Burma’s Future Through Political Dialogue and Democracy appeared first on International Republican Institute.

Journalist and host of CNN's "AC360" Anderson Cooper talks with David about his new book, becoming a self-appointed embed in Burma and Somalia, Donald Trump's relationship with the media, and more.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Based on ethnographic research conducted in early 2019 along a 'corridor' of the Asia Highway 1 (AH1) in Southeast Myanmar part of the EWEC (East West Economic Corridor), this blog post reflects on a presentation given at the 15th International Burma Studies Conference 2023 hosted by the Myanmar-Institut and the University of Zurich, writes Dominique … Continued

October 29th will mark 1,000 days since Burma's military overthrew its democratically elected government on February 1, 2021. In that time, the State Administrative Council (SAC) and the military has unleashed unfathomable brutality against members of the anti-coup resistance movement and innocent civilians, killing over 4,000 individuals, including approximately 500 children. The numbers are staggering. […]
The post Burma’s Undying Flame appeared first on International Republican Institute.

Henry Kissinger will be one hundred
years old in a few weeks and has published five books since he turned ninety.
Along with President Nixon, he futilely prolonged and escalated the Vietnam
War for four years when defeat was already inevitable. But he also received
the Nobel Peace Prize precisely for negotiating the ceasefire for that same
war.     His doctrine also has these two faces. On the one hand, he conceives international politics as the interaction between states seeking power. On the
other hand, he favors the balance of powers so that no one is able to fully
impose its dominance on the others.   In the academic literature, Kissinger's
approach is called "realism" and is widely accepted. The main alternative is
the so-called "liberal" approach, which trusts in the ability of institutions
to prevent wars and keep peace. From there arose the League of Nations, which
failed, and the United Nations and its specialized organizations, which have
had significant success on many issues, but are also currently showing their
insufficiency.    The most accurate postulate of the realists is that the world
is more peaceful when there are multiple powers than when there are only two,
as in the Cold War, or a single super-dominant one, as seemed to be the case with the United States after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.   The success
of the formula requires that the multilateral equilibrium could only be overthrown by an effort of a magnitude too difficult to mount. As a historical example, Kissinger has
analyzed and praised the so-called Concert of Europe that was formed, after
the defeat of Napoleon's France, by Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and also recovered France. According to his interpretation, the Concert
"came close to constituting the government of Europe" and achieved a long
period without European-wide wars. The balance was upset by the unification of
Germany at the end of the 19th century and its consequent aggressive
expansionism, which led to the absurd and catastrophic First World War. Taking
a similar approach, Kissinger continues to praise the construction of the
European Union, which has prevented new general wars on the continent.    During
his time in government, the biggest concern was that communism would end up
dominating the world according to the domino theory, whereby the fall of a
piece like Indochina would be followed by Burma and Thailand, as well as
Indonesia (which, in fact, was very close), and from there, India, Japan, the
Middle East... That's why the Vietnam war extended to Laos and Cambodia. But
this is also the reason for the diplomatic opening to China, to break the
Sino-Soviet bloc and achieve a certain multilateral balance.    The current
interest of the discussion is that the role of the United States as the only
superpower may be less exclusive and exclusionary than it seemed. A version of
political realism in academia tends to analyze international relations "after
hegemony" as a ground for "anarchy", that is, destructive conflicts
and wars. However, the changes around the Ukrainian war can be read
as a new opportunity for multilateral cooperation.    The United States has the
initiative and many economic and military resources, but, paradoxically, it
may have a good opportunity to expand pluralism. In the new situation of
divided government between the Presidency and Congress, the most ambitious
projects in domestic policy are paralyzed, so Joe Biden can focus on foreign
policy, where he has more power, and expand multilateral cooperation.    The
European Union is beginning to develop, for the first time, a spirited common
international policy, in contrast to the dissent during the Iraq war, when the
governments of Britain and Spain were on one side and those of France and
Germany on the other. The rulers of China and India, which are rivals to each
other, have told Russia that the world is not ready for war.    This
configuration with more than three major powers points to a balance of powers
capable of avoiding polarization, since, otherwise, a coalition of two-to-one preludes conflict.     Specifically, the Group of Seven, which is the nucleus
of a latent world government, needs to work more closely with some members of
the Group of Twenty, which includes India and China, so that its decisions are widely
accepted and effective.    Negotiations between the US and the EU for the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in which substantive
agreements had been reached, were paralyzed by Trump, and could now be
revived.    The Trans-Pacific Agreement for Economic Cooperation was also
abandoned by Trump, but the other eleven initial countries went ahead on their
own and ended up signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), to which China has presented its candidacy.
Many in the United States are clamoring for re-entry in what had been its own initiative.    And after the war in Ukraine, a new international structure
will have to be defined, especially for Central and Eastern Europe, in which,
as Kissinger said in a recent interview, "Russia should find a place."    Realism
shows that the seeking for power explains many things, and the balance of power
can prevent a general war. But when there is neither a single dominant power
nor a confrontation between two, "liberal" rules and institutions may be the
best mechanism for peace and multilateral cooperation.Also in Spanish in the daily La Vanguardia-click 

             Previously posted on May 10/22 and Jan 30/23            Kissinger in Washington, May 7, 2022Henry Kissinger will be one hundred years old in a few weeks and has published five books since he turned ninety. Along with President Nixon, he futilely prolonged and escalated the Vietnam War for four years when defeat was already inevitable. But he also received the Nobel Peace Prize precisely for negotiating the ceasefire for that same war.     His doctrine also has these two faces. On the one hand, he conceives international politics as the interaction between states seeking power. On the other hand, he favors the balance of powers so that no one is able to fully impose its dominance on the others.   In the academic literature, Kissinger's approach is called "realism" and is widely accepted. The main alternative is the so-called "liberal" approach, which trusts in the ability of institutions to prevent wars and keep peace. From there arose the League of Nations, which failed, and the United Nations and its specialized organizations, which have had significant success on many issues, but are also currently showing their insufficiency.    The most accurate postulate of the realists is that the world is more peaceful when there are multiple powers than when there are only two, as in the Cold War, or a single super-dominant one, as seemed to be the case with the United States after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.   The success of the formula requires that the multilateral equilibrium could only be overthrown by an effort of a magnitude too difficult to mount. As a historical example, Kissinger has analyzed and praised the so-called Concert of Europe that was formed, after the defeat of Napoleon's France, by Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and also recovered France. According to his interpretation, the Concert "came close to constituting the government of Europe" and achieved a long period without European-wide wars. The balance was upset by the unification of Germany at the end of the 19th century and its consequent aggressive expansionism, which led to the absurd and catastrophic First World War. Taking a similar approach, Kissinger continues to praise the construction of the European Union, which has prevented new general wars on the continent.    During his time in government, the biggest concern was that communism would end up dominating the world according to the domino theory, whereby the fall of a piece like Indochina would be followed by Burma and Thailand, as well as Indonesia (which, in fact, was very close), and from there, India, Japan, the Middle East... That's why the Vietnam war extended to Laos and Cambodia. But this is also the reason for the diplomatic opening to China, to break the Sino-Soviet bloc and achieve a certain multilateral balance.    The current interest of the discussion is that the role of the United States as the only superpower may be less exclusive and exclusionary than it seemed. A version of political realism in academia tends to analyze international relations "after hegemony" as a ground for "anarchy", that is, destructive conflicts and wars. However, the changes around the Ukrainian war can be read as a new opportunity for multilateral cooperation.    The United States has the initiative and many economic and military resources, but, paradoxically, it may have a good opportunity to expand pluralism. In the new situation of divided government between the Presidency and Congress, the most ambitious projects in domestic policy are paralyzed, so Joe Biden can focus on foreign policy, where he has more power, and expand multilateral cooperation.    The European Union is beginning to develop, for the first time, a spirited common international policy, in contrast to the dissent during the Iraq war, when the governments of Britain and Spain were on one side and those of France and Germany on the other. The rulers of China and India, which are rivals to each other, have told Russia that the world is not ready for war.    This configuration with more than three major powers points to a balance of powers capable of avoiding polarization, since, otherwise, a coalition of two-to-one preludes conflict.     Specifically, the Group of Seven, which is the nucleus of a latent world government, needs to work more closely with some members of the Group of Twenty, which includes India and China, so that its decisions are widely accepted and effective.    Negotiations between the US and the EU for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in which substantive agreements had been reached, were paralyzed by Trump, and could now be revived.    The Trans-Pacific Agreement for Economic Cooperation was also abandoned by Trump, but the other eleven initial countries went ahead on their own and ended up signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), to which China has presented its candidacy. Many in the United States are clamoring for re-entry in what had been its own initiative.    And after the war in Ukraine, a new international structure will have to be defined, especially for Central and Eastern Europe, in which, as Kissinger said in a recent interview, "Russia should find a place."    Realism shows that the seeking for power explains many things, and the balance of power can prevent a general war. But when there is neither a single dominant power nor a confrontation between two, "liberal" rules and institutions may be the best mechanism for peace and multilateral cooperation.Also in Spanish in the daily La Vanguardia-click       While President Biden is not clear, and sometimes he is confusing about how the war in Ukraine could end, some other voices in Washington can speak and suggest more clearly. Several of them did it a few days ago at the Financial Times Weekend Festival, which was held, for the first time outside England, at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington.The first surprisingly constructive intervention was from William J. Burns, the current CIA Director. Just a year ago, he came from retirement after a long career as a diplomat, and as such, in his presentation, the conversation with an FT journalist, and the dialogue with the audience, he showed a broader vision than the usual spies. When he was Ambassador in Boris Yeltsin's Moscow in the mid-1990s, Burns already felt that the NATO expansion until the borders of Russia was "premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst." More specifically, to push for NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia was "a serious strategic mistake that did indelible damage" –an opinion that at the time was shared by the governments of France and Germany. In an official encounter, Putin had told him that Ukraine in NATO "would be a hostile act toward Russia."Burns emphasized, of course, that there is "absolutely no justification for the invasion of Ukraine." Yet, he resumed that kind of strategic explanation while dismissing the ideological elaborations that pretend either justify or condemn the attack. In short: Russia has "pushed back" after Ukraine moved westward away from Russian influence.In his view, nevertheless, Putin miscalculated regarding the power of the Russian Army (which was sent to a "special operation" not planned by its generals), about Ukrainian resistance, and with the supposition that the West would be distracted by elections in Germany and France. He tried to explain the recent candidacies of Sweden and Finland to NATO as a deterrent against Putin's other potential attacks in the future. But the Director of the CIA did not utter a word that could be interpreted as supporting Ukraine's NATO membership.Even more thrilling was the participation of Henry Kissinger on "the new world disorder." The former Secretary of State is 99 years old this month, announced a new book of immediate publication, and for nearly one hour was focused, clear, and insightful, also in a dialogue with the audience. Kissinger started by using his academic background and remarking that the foreign policy's main priority of Russia, which is the largest country in the world, has always been to protect its huge territory from invasions. From this perspective, after the Cold War, the country's leadership was "offended" by NATO's absorption of Eastern Europe.Now –he noted— public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation, but by reflecting on the previous failures of the several governments he advised, he lamented that, again, nobody knows where we are going. Kissinger had already opposed Ukraine's candidacy to NATO when President Bush and Vice-president Cheney launched it in 2008. Six years later, at the Russian occupation of Crimea, he warned that Ukraine should not join either the East or the West, but it should function as "a bridge" between the two. He had predicted that otherwise, "the drift toward confrontation would accelerate."Most striking was his warning about the use of nuclear weapons. "I would not make Ukraine's membership to NATO a key issue," he remarked at the Kennedy Center. It would be "unwise to take an adversarial position," mainly because of the horrible danger of a nuclear war. His approach was certainly in contrast with that in the 1970s, of which he was reminded, when the gibberish theory of the "domino" was used to attack one country after another. Bush and Cheney still used that approach in the early 2000s to justify "preventive wars." I got the impression that with aging, intelligent people like Kissinger may feel that it is not worth trying to deceive himself again, and despite his physical frailness (or perhaps because of that), his more mature brain moves in the direction of more honest and clear thinking. His main argument was that in the past, although confrontation was addressed to "preserve the balance of power" between the US and the Soviet Union, at the same time, he also promoted agreements for nuclear arms reduction and control. Nowadays, modern technology would produce much worse destruction, so he claimed for a "new era" in which the governments should take more care about the consequences of nuclear arms and favor diplomacy above all. Kissinger reminded the audience that, in the past, nuclear countries such as the Soviet Union and the United States accepted military defeats from non-nuclear countries, such as in Vietnam and (both) in Afghanistan. Even more now, "we have to deescalate to conventional arms and learn to live with adversarial relations." Kissinger has met Putin more than twenty times and asserted that "there is still room for negotiation" with him. In Spanish in the daily La Vanguardia