Articles: Asia Archives

Russia and Pakistan: Is Russia the More Barbaric?

Filed under: Asia ~ Eastern Europe

On December 27, 2007 Benazir Bhutto, twice the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the leader of the opposition People's Party, and the sure victor in 2008 parliamentary elections, was assassinated in a terrorist attack in Rawalpindi.

Three months before her death Benazir Bhutto appeared before a large gathering of representatives from the American political, economic and intellectual elite. Her presentation simply captivated the auditorium. No matter what the topic, she demonstrated astonishing erudition, clarity of thought and lightning speed in her responses. And all this with a surprising sense of tact, respect for her interlocutors and conviction in her own position. With what grace she carried herself! When the thin scarf that lightly covered her head slipped momentarily to her shoulders, one simply had to see it, the genuinely royal gesture with which she replaced it!

In the hall were several former U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, along with a number of high-ranking officials from the current Administration. The topic of discussion was U.S. - Pakistan relations. Bhutto talked about the mistakes the U.S. had made in this relationship, and what heavy consequences followed from America's support for the military regime - consequences for Pakistan, for South Asia as a whole, and America itself. One of the former U.S. Secretaries of Defense tried to object. Bhutto's response was instantaneous, parrying the objection with several examples. And she did this with such conviction, so perfectly pointing out the horrible failures of the Pentagon's actions in those very years when her questioner was its leader that the latter sat back down with a gloomy expression, not daring to pose any further questions.

At the end of her presentation the entire hall rose and gave Benazir Bhutto a standing ovation. One should note that the American establishment is not easily won over. It has seen it all, and is not known for its sentimentality, especially toward those who publicly flay America for its mistakes. But all five hundred participants in the event (with a total net worth of probably several hundred billion dollars) stood and applauded this brave woman in a white Muslim headscarf, finding themselves enraptured and unable to resist the genuine miracle that had just taken place before them.

One of the U.S. presidential candidates had addressed the same audience a few hours before Benazir. Without a doubt, the possible future U.S. President did not receive one-tenth the applause, attention and praise that was lavished on this former Prime Minister of a foreign country. That same evening, under the deafening roar of applause, the organizers of the conference in almost total seriousness urged Bhutto to run for president of their own country.

I talked for awhile with Benazir Bhutto. Naturally, the discussion turned to the political situation in our two countries, Pakistan and Russia. And naturally as well, we noted more than a few parallels.

Both Pakistan and Russia are large, developing countries with diversified economies and a diversity of internal regions. In both countries the intelligence services were never brought fully under control by a civilian government. In both countries for the past eight years all power has been held by intelligence and military officers. In both countries, all the institutions of modern governance - separation of powers, independence of the legislative and judicial branches, an independent press - have been systematically destroyed. Both countries have had their epic struggles against the regime - in Pakistan from the bar association, in Russia from the Yukos oil company. In both countries the main means by which the regime interacts with is people is brute, demonstrative force. In both countries there are border regions that are poorly controlled by the central government, but which the intelligence services actively use as places to iron out their methods and recruit assassins. In both countries the victims of terrorist attacks are leaders of the press and public opinion – politicians, activists and journalists. In both countries the clients and authors of contract killings are the masters of bullet and bomb.

In Pakistan they killed Benazir's father, the former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, two of her brothers, and thousands of pro-democracy advocates.

In Russia they killed Aleksandr Men, Larisa Yudina, Galina Starovoytova, Nikolai Girenko, Sergey Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Anna Politkovskaya, Aleksandr Litvinenko, Yuri Chervochkin, hundreds of residents of the apartment towers blown up in Fall 1999, members of the audience in the “Nord-Ost” theater raid, schoolchildren and parents at Beslan, and tens of thousands in the Northern Caucuses. In Ukraine they killed Vyacheslav Chornovil, the leader of parliament and leading presidential candidate in 1999, and poisoned the presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in 2004.

Terror is used against leaders of the press and public opinion because people listen to them and follow them by the thousands and millions. Because unlike intelligence agents, public opinion leaders are influential. And not only influential, but genuinely powerful as well -- in their words, their convictions, and the support they receive from millions of followers. In the battle of words, the secret police are doomed. The have nothing with which to oppose the leaders of public opinion except terror. Terror is the weapon of losers, of the defeated, of those who don't stand a chance in normal, peaceful, human life.

The word is the argument of the strong. The bullet - the argument of the weak. The question most frequently asked of Bhutto by participants at the event three months ago was, "Won't it be dangerous for you to return to Pakistan?" Benazir invariably replied: "I cannot not return. They are waiting for me at home." These words reflect the main difference between the leaders of public opinion and the Masters of Cloak, Dagger and Bullet. People await the first. The second need only themselves. The first are flooded with letters. But no one writes to the Colonels (intelligence officers). The first are remembered with gratitude and reverence. The second are cursed for eternity.

NOTE: In the readers' forum (Russian language) that accompanies this article on the Russian newspaper's website, several readers noted another point of deficiency when comparing Russia to Pakistan, namely that while tens of thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets to protest Bhutto's murder, only a few hundred Russians could bestir themselves to protest their own rigged parliamentary elections (and the same can be said for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya).

Social Bookmarking:
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit

Kim Zigfeld · January 13, 2008 7:48 AM · Comments (0) · TrackBacks (0)

When "People Power" Fails

Filed under: Asia

In the past two weeks, the free world has simultaneously cheered on and mourned for the some 100,000 brave Burmese civilians who, spiritually guided by the country’s revered Buddhist monks, took to the streets in an unprecedented show of public protest unseen in nearly two decades. It has been compared to the great 1986 People Power revolution in the Philippines that overthrew the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos from power. Some have even drawn a comparison to the 1998 uprising in Indonesia that saw the toppling of General Suharto.

More recently, the past few years have seen a flurry of non-violent “colored revolutions” topple autocratic regimes in the post-Soviet space, from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine. People power has since become something of a media phenomenon, as pictures and videos from the scene, shot by everyday citizens, flood the airwaves and the internet and capture the imagination of the world. “Democracy is on the march,” I remember, was a common motto of sorts back then. We believed anything was possible – that any authoritarian regime could be wiped off the face of the planet simply by showing up.

The same hopes were expressed for Burma. What began as a simple protest against economic conditions and prices turned into a massive outpour for democracy and end to military rule. They marched hand-in-hand, creating a line miles long at times, being a constant body barrier for the monks who passed through them.

Yet nearing the end of last week, the bullets started flying. Images continued to come out of Burma at lightspeed, but rather than people rallying in the streets, corpses and blood were everywhere. These same brave people were being beaten into submission – if not, then shot – and the supposedly untouchable spiritual core of society, the monks, have been rounded up by the thousands and sent to far away prison camps while their monasteries are destroyed. International outcry has been enormous, but no matter. Everything soon went black, and news has been a slow trickle since.

What we often forget is that while people power and colored revolutions have swept the globe, thrusting old political elites from their thrones, their more tyrannical counterparts have somehow managed to maintain their power for all of these years.

In the 2005 election (a word used loosely here), Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe not only retained power but embarked on a campaign to crush the urban opposition by flattening the homes of an estimated 64,677 families. And who can forget the famous Andijon uprising in Uzbekistan, where Islam Karimov tightened his iron fist by murdering hundreds of people? Lastly, in Belarus, strongman Alexander Lukashenko not only gave himself an astounding 82.6% of the vote, but crushed pro-democracy protests with riot batons and the threat of repercussions for anyone caught participating. Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Burma all make this list as well, employing some of the most brutal tactics known in modern human history to keep power.

The romantic notion of the people versus their oppressors is hard to overcome, but the world is never so kind with such simplicities. If this were actually the case most of the time, the people, faced with a solid and united regime, which generally has a monopoly on the use of massive force, would almost inevitably lose. This is what has been the case in nearly all the tyrannical governments listed above. Comparisons between the people power we saw in Burma and the people power we’ve seen elsewhere in Asia and the rest of the world are inherently wrongheaded in the sense that the conditions that allowed these other revolutions to succeed are completely different from those that caused Burma’s to fail.

The first factor one must look at is the internal unity of the regime itself. In the Philippines, Indonesia, Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine, we saw major splits within the political and economic elites of these countries, thus creating rival centers of power to compete with the current powers that be. The big money, clout, ideas, and leadership of these alternative powers, backed by an overwhelming amount of people giving them street legitimacy, is what deposed these governments.

In Burma, the situation is completely different. After decades of socialist planning and race baiting, the new State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) – established in a 1988 military coup – pursued an aggressive form of crony capitalism. It is a powerful military autocracy, fitted with the latest weapons exported from China, mired in a symbiotic relationship with the ethnic Chinese residents of the country.

Comprising just 5% of the population, the ethnic Chinese control all major commerce and industry, from street vending to stores to hotels to gem mines and to opium fields. All major businesses are co-owned between Chinese billionaire businessmen and the military government. Teak, minerals, and drugs cross the border into China daily, while SLORC officials are paid off every step of the way. It has gotten to the point that the two – the military and the Chinese business community – cannot exist without one another. Their relationship is as solid as steel, which is why it is very unlikely to see the kind of split we saw in these other countries.

The second point I have identified is the willingness and motives of this regime to use force against the people that it represses. Are the powers that be truly inhumane enough to unleash a large, unthinkable massacre in the face of resistance? Yes, most definitely. These ruling elite have billions and billions of dollars to protect; they’re also thinking about their own lives. What started off as a protest against economic conditions must inherently have an anti-Chinese edge to it. Many in the Chinese community fear that all these years of plundering Burma will lead to a massive anti-Chinese backlash much greater than that which occurred in the 1998 revolution in Indonesia, where thousands of charred Chinese bodies laid in the street. Burma models Suharto’s Indonesia in many ways, especially with regards to Chinese cronyism, but to a much worse degree than was ever replicated there. The regime believes that should the opposition come to power, whether right or wrong, every Chinese person and military official will be sent down the river much like they have done to others. Because of this they will continue to shed blood.

The exceptional notion of people power is romanticized in the fact that these people were able to overthrow their oppressors without a shot being fired; but really, what is truly exceptional are the more pacifist actions taken by the governments rather than the people.

The people power and colored revolutions all featured more developed (though obviously still developing) countries where conditions were much different than in Burma or other tyrannies. In terms of a monopoly on force, the aforementioned elite splits gave soldiers a choice to switch sides, and this turned out to be that of the non-violent demonstrators. Furthermore, the crimes of these regimes were not so horrendous as to warrant a near-genocidal backlash or confiscations. They did not, as a general policy, threaten a soldier’s family with death and withhold food if he didn’t shoot at a crowd of people. They had a lot of room to move even without political power. Many of the elites in these regimes simply realized that they could relinquish power and still maintain their massive wealth and influence. They were both logical and, one would hope, at least a little right-headed in not wanting to shoot the demonstrators.

As we witnessed this week, there was very little hesitation on the part of the Burmese military junta to kill as many people as it took to put down the uprising. Whether life or wealth, they simply have too much at stake to give up power that easily.

Outside of the internal dynamics that have been discussed, the third most important thing to consider is the international dynamic. Short of an invasion, Western democracies have little to no influence over the Burmese government, while China practically owns the place. It has repeatedly vetoed resolution in the Security Council aimed at investigating and censuring human rights abuses in the country. Furthermore, the vast shipments of arms that goes to the junta is itself tacit support and a green light to remain in power. China is hungry for the natural resources crossing its borders at bargain basement prices. It wants these all to itself, while repressing the Burmese economy so that it can’t develop a powerful rival manufacturing center of its own. A free, democratic, prosperous Burma is nowhere on China’s agenda, and there is very little that Western democracies can do about it. On the other hand, the people power and colored revolutions all had significant Western and international support that was at least tangible politically and economically.

Unfortunately for the people of Burma, the comparisons between their demonstration and other people power movements just don’t hold. While both featured large amounts of people taking to the streets, the internal dynamics of Burma are completely different from these other, less tyrannical countries where the people prevailed. Rather than winning their freedom this time, another generation, like that of 1988, is being slaughtered like animals. There is simply no indication that this slaughter will end soon or that the Burmese people have the ability to overcome it at this time.

What is heartening, though, is that they were in fact able to muster the courage to demonstrate in such large numbers. Having seen each others’ faces in full view, knowing that they support each other even as their comrades fall due to the actions of an oppressive government they all hate, there is a public solidarity that can now only grow. If the brutality of their conditions makes them stronger, the fervor of their spirituality guides them, and the desire for freedom stays with them than I’m sure that there is at least a glimpse of a possibility that the democracy movement can overcome their obstacles.

I only hope that one day they can, so that I can one day eat my own words.

Social Bookmarking:
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit

Robert Mayer · October 4, 2007 3:31 PM · Comments (13) · TrackBacks (0)