I'm sure all of you have heard of what has happened in Myanmar by now. The junta is getting hammered both internally and externally for their handling of the protests. Still, if you put yourselves in the shoes of the military, how else are they supposed to handle the situation? They are unlikely to sit back and hand the reigns of the country over on a silver platter seeing how they have already defied international pressure and unprecdently shifted their base of operations into the mountains. It was going to be a matter of time before they started the crackdown on the protestors.
The military had already put in place a curfew, used shields, batons and tear gas on the protestors who were, from reports starting to get out of hand. If you had experienced tear gas you would understand why it should be enough to scatter the crowd. In spite of all this, they still pressed on, trying to take the rifles away from the soldiers. For the military, losing a weapon to the protestors would be a double blow. Firstly, what was formally a relatively "peaceful" protest may turn violent with firearms in the picture. Secondly, the fact that the protestors have managed to strip a soldier of his personal weapon is disgraceful to the military side. So what could they do in such a situation besides the use of force? It was always going to be a lose-lose situation whichever path they took once religion came into the picture. They could either hand power over or take flak for cracking down on the Buddhist monks. Either way, they don't stand to win.
I have to say that I still don't support the use of force on civilians and monks and neither do most of the international community I would think. And yet politics is a very weird thing. Countries without much interest in Myanmar will not hesitate to take action even if it is just an act. Those with vested interests in the country will make some form of excuse for not doing anything. If you read the papers today, it becomes very clear what I am saying. There has always been this double standards globally. Both Pakistan and Myanmar aren't very much democratic at the moment and yet they are treated very differently because of their relative importance to other countries. How fair is that?
The military had already put in place a curfew, used shields, batons and tear gas on the protestors who were, from reports starting to get out of hand. If you had experienced tear gas you would understand why it should be enough to scatter the crowd. In spite of all this, they still pressed on, trying to take the rifles away from the soldiers. For the military, losing a weapon to the protestors would be a double blow. Firstly, what was formally a relatively "peaceful" protest may turn violent with firearms in the picture. Secondly, the fact that the protestors have managed to strip a soldier of his personal weapon is disgraceful to the military side. So what could they do in such a situation besides the use of force? It was always going to be a lose-lose situation whichever path they took once religion came into the picture. They could either hand power over or take flak for cracking down on the Buddhist monks. Either way, they don't stand to win.
I have to say that I still don't support the use of force on civilians and monks and neither do most of the international community I would think. And yet politics is a very weird thing. Countries without much interest in Myanmar will not hesitate to take action even if it is just an act. Those with vested interests in the country will make some form of excuse for not doing anything. If you read the papers today, it becomes very clear what I am saying. There has always been this double standards globally. Both Pakistan and Myanmar aren't very much democratic at the moment and yet they are treated very differently because of their relative importance to other countries. How fair is that?