I have been following the events in Myanmar with great interest too.The growing mass participation reminds me of  the build up in hte former Soviet bloc countries just before the Berlin wall came down. As the masses began to demonstrate, the leaders backed down, unwilling ultimately to use the kind of violence necessary to crush a whole people. The leaders were revealed as 'having no clothes". With the monks coming out to demonstrate, it seems as if they will empower and encourage others. It may well be that there is large scale violence before there is regime change but, in many cases, a vicious crackdown precedes a final regime demise. I remember talking to a human rights activist in Serbia about this and inded the Milosevic regime did carry out a final crackdown before people power overcame it.

In terms of where else religious leaders have played such a role, I think of Poland where the Catholic church played a leading role in supporting Solidarity and the workers. Finally I believe that Aung Su Chi (?) has catalysed opposition to this repressive regime to tipping point. 

BBC News reported ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7014570.stm )

"Burma protesters defy crackdown
Up to 10,000 Burmese Buddhist monks and civilians have defied police tear gas and live bullets on the ninth day of protests against the military rulers.

At least one monk was killed, hospital sources in the main city of Rangoon said. The government has confirmed one death, without giving details.

Witnesses described monks with blood on their shaved heads as police charged at the Shwedagon pagoda in Rangoon."

It's interesting to note that China and Russia are saying that the situation is a purely internal issue. This has always been a difficult debate for governments. This has become more delicate with the actions taken by the Bush Administration since September 11, 2001 - shifting to a position of pre-emptive action and causing governments to be more wary of the action they take in relation to other governments. This has certainly exacerbated decisions about when intervention is necessary. These kinds of debates delayed action in such situations as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and continue to plague the on-going situations in Sudan, Chechnya and all too many places around the world.

One thing is certain, as the debates continue the cost in many lives lost and damaged will be high.

In analysis of events in Myanmar and how to try to influence them, much talk now about role of China and other Asian countries (see e.g. NY Times  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/asia/28myanmar.html?hp, and Burma solidarity groups, http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/links.html).

Yet, much more can possibly be done from Europe and North America as well. Only yesterday ... 'the Treasury Department imposed economic sanctions on 14 identified senior Myanmar government officials' (ref. NY Times article above).

The question here must be... Why only yesterday?

Did the US governement not know all along that these guys use terror to reign their country?

Similar questions can be asked about aspects of EU policy (who have had bank accounts frozen of these thugs but not prevented economic links with the regime-run extraction of natural resources, the proceeds of which flow directly into regime coffers). Why does Sarkozy only now start questioning French oil company Total's activities in Burma, and do Duthc parliamentarians only now call for boycotting Total (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-960473,0.html)?

And Chinese and other Asian companies running this type of economic relations can also be influenced from America and Europe... links exist between these companies and many many western financial institutions (banks, pension funds...).

This type of campaigning has a huge potential which is only little by little being tapped by the human rights community (see e.g. http://www.amnestyusa.org/Business_and_Human_Rights/Oil_in_Sudan/page.do?id=1081005&n1=3&n2=26&n3=1453). It requires (huge) investments from us: not so much into monitoring and documenting human rights violations or in involvement of companies in human rights abuse, but into the mechanisms that move economic relations, sustain repressive regimes financially etc. (Lots of work for librarians!!) And it requires investments in putting the campaigning built on that information much more central in our campaigning.

The world is moved more by capital than by the UN Security Council.

Thanks everyone for their input and perspectives.

I also believe that capital-based motivations are sometimes the most effective for influencing the leaders of a repressive government. But it is interesting to look at the other side of a movement, and see that the citizens, monks, and pro-democracy activists of Myanmar have been similarly influenced and united by one woman, Aung San Suu Kyi. Her silenced leadership has gained her sympathizers all over the world, and when the protestors marched past her house last week, it was a huge symbol that she stepped outside to greet them.

On the one hand, it's depressing to think that people are so motivated by money rather than humanity. But on the other hand, it's inspiring to see one woman peacefully unite a country even when she (and much free media) has been silenced.

I wanted to bring attention to a very interesting opinion piece in the International Hearld Tribune by Shaazka Beyerle and Cynthia Boaz published on October 18, 2007 titled "Saffron Revolution: The power of nonviolence".

They write:

"It was not a surprise that the Burmese junta violently cracked down on the "saffron revolution." The generals had lost all credibility in the eyes of their people, and were left with only one tool of control - repression.

But no matter how many guns and tanks they have, the generals still depend on ordinary soldiers to do their dirty work. History teaches that once enough people stop carrying out their orders, or switch sides, the junta's power will disintegrate.

Through this lens, the saffron revolution isn't over, it has just begun.

Disobedience is at the heart of nonviolent struggle. 'Even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled,' Mahatma Gandhi said. Nonviolent movements succeed not necessarily when there are masses on the streets, but when enough people withdraw their cooperation, refuse to obey, and thus undermine the sustainability of the existing system.

Reports of defiance continue to leak out of Burma. Dissident sources report that opposition posters are appearing in public spaces, on prison walls, taped to helium balloons, and even on river rafts."

They bring attention to a number of great resources we have here on our New Tactics website: Gene Sharp's 198 kinds of nonviolent actions and Turkey's "A minute of darkness for constant light" campaign in 1997 to protest against corruption that began with people turning off lights and ended up with demonstrations by 30 million.

Read the full opinion piece here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/18/opinion/edbeyerle.php

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

Did anyone (other than Nancy P and myself?!) hear the news report on National Public Radio yeserday about children as young as 10 or 11 years old being conscripted in the army in Myanmar. Apparently morale is so low that there are significant desertions and they need to conscript kids. This smacks of desperation. And desperation often signals a dying regime - that is the good news but for the courageous dissidents of Myanmar it can only take too long.

The US under Bush has pretty much marginalized itself by having little influence or contact with the Myanamar regime - conflict resolution does not occur by talking to your friends. And the US use of torture has undermined our credibility on human rights issues in general. But we have to keep Myanmar on the front pages - who knows what is happening inside Myanmar in the last few days? What are the Chinese saying/doing?

Are there any effective tactics that we can take from changes from military to civilian rule in Latin America, Chile, Argentina for example? We need ot exercise some respectful and powerful persuasion on the military regime which will certainly prefer to take the whole country down with it if they are not offered some way to transfer power to civilians while still retaining at least a transition role (Chile?). Any suggestions from our Latin American human rights friends?

Did anyone (other than Nancy P and myself?!) hear the news report on National Public Radio yeserday about children as young as 10 or 11 years old being conscripted in the army in Myanmar. Apparently morale is so low that there are significant desertions and they need to conscript kids. This smacks of desperation. And desperation often signals a dying regime - that is the good news but for the courageous dissidents of Myanmar it can only take too long.

The US under Bush has pretty much marginalized itself by having little influence or contact with the Myanamar regime - conflict resolution does not occur by talking to your friends. And the US use of torture has undermined our credibility on human rights issues in general. But we have to keep Myanmar on the front pages - who knows what is happening inside Myanmar in the last few days? What are the Chinese saying/doing?

Are there any effective tactics that we can take from changes from military to civilian rule in Latin America, Chile, Argentina for example? We need ot exercise some respectful and powerful persuasion on the military regime which will certainly prefer to take the whole country down with it if they are not offered some way to transfer power to civilians while still retaining at least a transition role (Chile?). Any suggestions from our Latin American human rights friends?