U.S. warns Myanmar’s military it’ll be punished for coup

Armadilo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,239
Article
The Biden administration warned Myanmar’s military officials Sunday that it will “take action” if they proceed with an apparent coup against the country’s civilian leaders.

The crisis in Myanmar, also known as Burma, is unfolding just days after President Joe Biden took office, and in some ways it challenges the very heart of Biden’s foreign policy vision.
this seems awful as in the US better not escalate things especially to help people that were involved in the genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the lady that was detained had won a Nobel peace prize, before she fought against the military but then overtime She switched to defending Myanmar in a genocide trial. This just seems like a fucked up situation as we don’t know who is the “good guy” over there, so probably better to do nothing.

 
Last edited:

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,031
User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory Whataboutism
Maybe the US should focus on the attempted coups occurring at home before chastising coups on the other side of the world?
 

Mr Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,910
Seems that their coup isn't like the one in the US, where LARPers and idiots run the show. The military have 'detained' Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of her party at the capital. This could get real bad.
 

kmfdmpig

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,299
ITT many don't read the article. No one is talking about military action. It's a threat of sanctions as a coup against an elected government (even a horrible one like Myanmar's) is not really something anyone should celebrate.
 

fanboi

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,483
Sweden
I mean, a strong US is good to have for these situations since it is a military coup where the leader has been detained.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,597
OP is wild. Blames Aung San Suu Kyi for the genocide but wants the military that actually perpetuated the genocide to be allowed to stage a coup? How is that gonna make things better?
 

NH Apache

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,454
New Orleans, LA
The US is right to warn the military. It is ethically wrong to sit by and not even comment given the history of the military in that country.

The military, which like most of the population is dominated by Buddhists, has a brutal track record in Myanmar, engaging in long-running battles with the country’s ethnic minorities. In 2017, it
waged a vicious crackdown
on the long-persecuted Rohingya Muslims, killing thousands and pushing some 700,000 into neighboring Bangladesh.
From OP's article. Everyone in this thread acting like we can't do two things at once. Economic sanctions to start.
 

fade

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,407
Seems that their coup isn't like the one in the US, where LARPers and idiots run the show. The military have 'detained' Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of her party at the capital. This could get real bad.
Imagine if the US military had a Trump sycophant in the top position instead of this

 

shaowebb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,701
actions = economic sanctions
Isn't Myanmar second only to China in their manufacturing infrastructure?
I know for awhile they were a country folks watched to eventually swing manufacturing to. It was basically east trade pac or China with Myanmar as the answer to China and China desperate to join the pac to not get cut out of deals through a rivalry. Wed always just sorta kept em pissin over maritime borders with each other so china couldnt team up and we could play one against the other to give us better deals.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,668
Anyone know how the arrests of civilian leaders intersects with the genocide happening in Myanmar?
Last I heard the military was pro genocide as were the civilian leaders. From what I heard on the news it sounds like the politicians didn’t do enough to dismantle the old power structure that the military held prior to the civil war.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,122
Won't sanctions just fall on those most hard hit tho

The leaders will take what they want anyway from those below them

But yeah sure, the US hates coups or w/e
 

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,417
Maybe the US should focus on the attempted coups occurring at home before chastising coups on the other side of the world?
Maybe clean your own house first
CIA, a terrorist organisation, probably wish they were first to coup.
A strongly worded statement condemning a brutal and murderous military enacting a coup is hardly deserving of whataboutism. We get it, the US has issues as well.

Also, before anyone chimes in about Aung San, we know she's awful but it doesn't change the fact that you want to, as a democracy, generally discourage military coups
 

Mylatestnovel

Member
Jan 1, 2018
1,430
Some of you need to get a grip.

The Myanmar military are absolutely awful and them assuming power is the worst possible outcome for the people of Myanmar. As others have said, Suu Kyi may have defended the brutal slaughter and genocide that occurred. But the military actually carried it out.

Also : the military still held a lot of power even after democratic reforms. This shows they want total control.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,668
Won't sanctions just fall on those most hard hit tho

The leaders will take what they want anyway from those below them
So we should just act like they’re a legitimate government instead? Why should the US or any other country support illegitimate governments?

It makes it a lot harder for the government to enrich itself and maintain its power when they are cut off from one of the biggest economies in the world.
 

DumpsterJuice

Graphics Engineer
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
4,214
California
These events are horrible, but the U.S. is wild man. We love to police the world and tell others what to do but when shit hits the fan here, they turn that very same attitude off. The people in charge make me want to vomit.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,122
So we should just act like they’re a legitimate government instead? Why should the US or any other country support illegitimate governments?

It makes it a lot harder for the government to enrich itself and maintain its power when they are cut off from one of the biggest economies in the world.
It doesn't have to enrich itself; it just has to survive.
 

BlackNMild2k1

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,273
Bay Area, CA

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,713
UK
A strongly worded statement condemning a brutal and murderous military enacting a coup is hardly deserving of whataboutism. We get it, the US has issues as well.

Also, before anyone chimes in about Aung San, we know she's awful but it doesn't change the fact that you want to, as a democracy, generally discourage military coups
My thoughts are already known on the coup itself in the other thread, but this thread is about USA's response and the cynicism on why they would care about a coup considering how many they've conducted over the last half century. I don't like coups from my own homeland's experience but I have to be skeptical if USA wants to get involved.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,668
It doesn't have to enrich itself; it just has to survive.
Again, it’s a lot harder to survive if you have massive international pressure. Sanctions are part of why we got the Iran deal and South Africa ended Apartheid. These are ultimately capitalist countries and nothing encourages change more than a shit economy.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,122
Again, it’s a lot harder to survive if you have massive international pressure. Sanctions are part of why we got the Iran deal and South Africa ended Apartheid. These are ultimately capitalist countries and nothing encourages change more than a shit economy.
We'll see. Sanctions haven't stopped the DPRK from doing what they've wanted and they've hung around for decades. Nor have they helped the people inside much.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,668
We'll see. Sanctions haven't stopped the DPRK from doing what they've wanted and they've hung around for decades.
Because China and the Soviet Union have been supporting them for decades. Iran and South Africa caved pretty hard when most of the world sanctioned them.
 

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,417
My thoughts are already known on the coup itself in the other thread, but this thread is about USA's response and the cynicism on why they would care about a coup considering how many they've conducted over the last half century. I don't like coups from my own homeland's experience but I have to be skeptical if USA wants to get involved.
Ultimately I think the US should have enacted sanctions or taken a hard line stance regardless who was in power, Aung or the military, but as a rule it's still good to discourage coups. Certainly the US is worthy of cynicism where their foreign policy is concerned but it's worth considering that condemnation here is a good thing independent of the US history. Furthermore, the last 25 years has seen Democratic presidents a lot less likely to engage in active regime change issues than the GOP so it's entirely possible that they'll apply legitimate and needed pressure as opposed to funding an opposition or something similar.
 

NH Apache

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,454
New Orleans, LA
We'll see. Sanctions haven't stopped the DPRK from doing what they've wanted and they've hung around for decades. Nor have they helped the people inside much.
Instead of a snarky response, I was curious about the effectiveness of sanctions.

Council on Foreign Relations:

Are more sanctions the answer?
Many policy analysts see only a variety of poor options; none guarantee the denuclearization of North Korea, and some, if unsuccessful, could make matters worse. Many experts say that before new sanctions are considered, the existing ones should be better enforced.

Various countries and businesses have been found evading military and financial restrictions. Shipping and trading companies; fuel, mineral, and other national resource exporters; overseas employers of North Korean nationals; and financial services companies have been accused of circumventing sanctions. While some entities purposefully shirk sanctions, others may do so inadvertently, according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security that found fifty-six countries have violated [PDF] UN measures in 2018. In recent years, the U.S. Treasury has designated Chinese and Russian banks and information technology companies, as well as Singaporean commodities companies, for facilitating finances for North Korea.

Disagreements remain over how to move forward. Some argue that there is room for far tougher sanctions against North Korea and those who profit from transacting with it. Others fear that expanding sanctions against Chinese entities could jeopardize the U.S.-China relationship and undermine bilateral cooperation on issues such as terrorism and climate change.

Still others argue that sanctions will take years to have a meaningful impact, and that any approach to North Korea will require incremental increases in pressure. Experts including CFR’s Snyder say that sanctions must be implemented in conjunction with other measures, such as diplomacy with Pyongyang and assurances by Washington to its allies in the region.

Meanwhile, enforcement can be improved with enhanced training for authorities inspecting ships in international ports. Filling in the cracks in enforcement could force Pyongyang to change how it allocates its budget. As the United States couples sanctions with diplomatic efforts, “Washington should prioritize developing a roadmap with Pyongyang that lays out a step-by-step approach that provides rewards along the way commensurate with North Korean actions,” writes former National Security Council official Eric Brewer in Foreign Affairs.
What to Know About Sanctions on North Korea | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

Five rounds of sanctions have been imposed by the United Nations Security Council since early 2016, when North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test. At the time, China and others argued that the sanctions would disproportionately affect ordinary North Koreans and could backfire.

Instead, the sanctions seem to be having an impact, with Chinese imports from North Korea falling 88 percent last year. American officials have said that in February, when Mr. Kim and President Trump went to Vietnam for their second summit meeting, North Korea asked the United States to lift these last five rounds of sanctions. North Korean officials have said they sought to lift only the sanctions affecting the civilian economy. The two leaders ended the meeting without an agreement, and negotiations have stalled since then.
North Korea’s State-Run Economy Falters Under Sanctions, Testing Elite Loyalty - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

However, this analysis does not entirely deny the effectiveness of sanctions against North Korea. Energy sources such as oil are directly related to the stability and maintenance of the North Korean regime, meaning that North Korean authorities are likely to be more sensitive to these than to other items. Therefore, despite strong sanctions, the North Korean authorities appear to find loopholes, such as the smuggling of refined petroleum products.
Finding Loopholes in Sanctions: Effects of Sanctions on North Korea’s Refined Oil Prices† (kdijep.org)

Generally, they sanctions are effective, if enforced. The UN and US sanctions have humanity exclusions so generally the fuel and similar sanctions do not impact the working people, only the military and semi-elite.

Would not translate 1:1 but fuel sanctions could have immediate and significant impact. Myanmar does not produce and does not have significant minerals similar to DPRK.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,122
Instead of a snarky response, I was curious about the effectiveness of sanctions.

Council on Foreign Relations:



What to Know About Sanctions on North Korea | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)



North Korea’s State-Run Economy Falters Under Sanctions, Testing Elite Loyalty - The New York Times (nytimes.com)



Finding Loopholes in Sanctions: Effects of Sanctions on North Korea’s Refined Oil Prices† (kdijep.org)

Generally, they sanctions are effective, if enforced. The UN and US sanctions have humanity exclusions so generally the fuel and similar sanctions do not impact the working people, only the military and semi-elite.

Would not translate 1:1 but fuel sanctions could have immediate and significant impact. Myanmar does not produce and does not have significant minerals similar to DPRK.
I appreciate the lack of snarky reply.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,122
I got caught up on "Sanctions haven't stopped the DPRK from doing what they've wanted" which is not accurate. Sanctions have had significant impact on DPRK's ability to obtain and sell product.
Well in that part, as I mentioned above (although not super clearly), was that they've survived for decades, and people who've been under them in the stories we've heard about haven't. If the strategy isn't effective at changing them, and if the strategy actually did harm people in addition to whatever the DPRK is doing over there, then all it would have accomplished would have been to add a stressor on them.

But it's clear there are more details than that, so it was a good post you made.
 

Keasar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,220
Umeå, Sweden
Thought the country name sounded familiar.

On one hand, supporting the people's choice and telling a dictator loving military to fuck off.
On the other hand, the "Nobel peace prize winning" people's choice defended fucking genocide.

Kind of a "fuck them both" situation.
 

RisingStar

Member
Oct 8, 2019
2,225
Whatever happens in the US or not, we should actively be discouraging coups. Myanmar in general is in a horrible state and after the world ignored the Rohingya genocide, I have very little faith that anything will change here either. Especially when the majority of the Burmese population was in support of removing the Rohingya.

I just hope this doesn't create larger breeding grounds of angry terrorism towards Buddhists and the West for what they did to the Rohingya in states like Bangladesh where they fled to.
 

Deadlock

Alt-Account
Banned
Dec 11, 2020
171
No need to step in, I would rather watch them eat each other, both genocidal maniacs who spill Rohingya blood.

I got caught up on "Sanctions haven't stopped the DPRK from doing what they've wanted" which is not accurate. Sanctions have had significant impact on DPRK's ability to obtain and sell product.
Sanctions also target and impoverish the general population, starve them even, while the leadership remains unaffected.

Sanctions on Iraq lead to the lowered standards of the living of millions with the rapid devaluation of the dinar, sending them straight to poverty while many also suffered due to food and medicine shortages, Iran is suffering critical medical shortages and lowered standards of living due to crippling sanctions since the US reneged on the JCPOA, Syria is suffering mass food shortages due to the sanctions while the government there has already won the war, so sanctions are only hurting the civilians where they have to wait 7 hours for a loaf of bread. Sanctions enforced under Pompeo will now also target the Houthis in Yemen, which means the same Yemenis suffering bombardment and starvation will suffer even more starvation.

Sanctions did weaken Saddam's army to the point it was pulverized but at what cost to the general population?


.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,323
Aung San Suu Kyi, the lady that was detained had won a Nobel peace prize, before she fought against the military but then overtime She switched to defending Myanmar in a genocide trial. This just seems like a fucked up situation as we don’t know who is the “good guy” over there, so probably better to do nothing.
A little known secret outside of some extreme cases, there’s not really a “good” or “bad” guy. As a world leader one often has to go with the principal of least harm which is as nebulous as it sounds (least harmful to who) and comes down to judgement calls (incomplete information on multiple parties and predicting the actions of multiple groups). Generally, you end with two factions of people. Those who want to intervene and risk making things worse, and those who want to abstain from getting involved even if it means many may die because the risk of making the situation worse could be too high.
 

Deadlock

Alt-Account
Banned
Dec 11, 2020
171
A little known secret outside of some extreme cases, there’s not really a “good” or “bad” guy. As a world leader one often has to go with the principal of least harm which is as nebulous as it sounds (least harmful to who) and comes down to judgement calls (incomplete information on multiple parties and predicting the actions of multiple groups). Generally, you end with two factions of people. Those who want to intervene and risk making things worse, and those who want to abstain from getting involved even if it means many may die because the risk of making the situation worse could be too high.
Yes, but in this case it's between two genocidal maniacs, ironically the one who won a Nobel peace prize being more genocidal.

So in this case they're both bad.