Myanmar: time for int'l (economic) policy

How things will evolve in Myanmar is a mystery, but it seems that the near future, as it was in the 1988 pro-democracy demonstrations, will be written with blood. Recent demonstrations in the country began because the military junta decided, in mid August, to rise fuel prices.

Despite this decision, the growing discontent among Myanmar's people lies in the lack of advancements in terms of political and civil rights as well as in the lack of improvements in the social conditions in a country blessed with nowadays highly profitable natural resources such as oil, gas and precious metals but also with rampant corruption, as stated by a recent report on this issue written by the NGO Transparency International. Moreover, at the beginning of September, a constitutional commission appointed fourteen years ago by the Myanmar's military junta to outline the principles of a new constitution finished its works. The result was really disappointed given the proven anxiety of freedom revealed by the population.

Last day, George Bush said, at the UN General Assembly, that the US would tighten existing economic sanctions on the country. Bla, bla, bla. Unfortunately, the solution seems to lie far away from the UN, and even further from the US or the West. Solution lies within Myanmar's borders. Contrary to Arab countries, this seems to be a bottom-up revolution but international pressure can help.

However, recent years of isolation imposed from this side of the world have been used by other countries from the region to obtain profitable contracts to extract those so-demanded energy primary sources. The principal trade partners of Myanmar: Russia, India, Thailand and other country members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - ASEAN but especially China, should play a major role in this issue. Only a coordinated action from the world can avoid bloodshed

On our side, and given the lack of capacity that we normal dwellers have to impact on these kind of issues in the international arena, we, consumers in developed countries, should investigate and check whether any of our companies is operating there and force them to quit countries with the political characteristics of Myanmar.

Important (and worrysome) increase in world military expenditure...

According to the 2007 yearbook of the SIPRI - Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the world military expenditure in 2006 (around 1.204 billion in current US$) grew by 3,5% with respect to 2005. From 1997 and 2006 the rise has been an impressive 37%. It highlights that:

The continued surge in China’s military spending—which reached an estimated $49.5 billion (in 2005 dollars)—saw it overtake Japan ($43.7 billion) to become the biggest military spender in Asia and the fourth biggest in the world in 2006. India was the third biggest spender in Asia, with $23.9 billion (in 2005 dollars). The USA spent $528.7 billion and Russia an estimated $34.7 billion (in 2005 dollars) on their military sectors in 2006.

Given that USA, Russia and the European Union are the main suppliers, international trade of weapons has also increased. Almost 50% more if we compare the data from 2006 and 2002.

Contrary to what my fellow friend Marc Bou said in a post published in his blog, I do not believe in the idea that the increase in military expenditure is associated to a more peaceful world. It is true that international army forces are increasingly being used to secure fragile states in their way towards peace, it is true that armies are becoming crucial players in countries affected by natural disasters... but the important lack of transparency as well as the lack of regulation in this industry (including its trade) makes me feel really suspicious about this thesis.

It is also true that, as the SIPRI says, most forms of armed political violence appear to be either declining or stabilising, but random violence in the form of terrorism around the world seems to be increasing. More regulation and intelligence, and not more weapons, seems to be the key to fight these new forms of violence.

But above all these reasons, investing just a part of this 1.204 billion US$ in health and education would provide better returns in terms of stability and peace! I'm pretty sure about that!