Culture and politics forum

Thailand, Singapore, and India all have energy interests in Burma. The current junta can't/won't give up control as they would then have to answer to the world courts. Didn't the UN already indict a sitting president of an african country for crimes against humanity. I think Chevron has a large interest there also. So much for sanctions.

"The current junta can't/won't give up control as they would then have to answer to the world courts."

This is not necessarily true. First of all, the arm of the world court is not all that long. For every Charles Taylor sitting in front of the court there are plenty of Abdi Hassan Awale's who are not.

Secondly, a deal might be struck, ala South Africa, in order to make the transition feasible.

":I think Chevron has a large interest there also. So much for sanctions."

The sanctions are directed, not blanket. Telling Chevron or BP they can't invest in oil interests there is stupid. Then, by default, the Chinese get those contracts. Practicality has to play a role in decision making if you want to survive in this world.

I am a strong (not as strong as the Chinese mind you) proponent of the Westphalian State system. I fail to see how that impacts on my points however. The Westphalian arguement doesn't apply to internal dissent.

Bruce

Westphalian State System:

Term used in international relations, supposedly arising from the Treaties of Westphalia 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories. Relations between states are conducted by means of formal diplomatic ties between heads of state and governments, and international law consists of treaties made (and broken) by those sovereign entities. The term implies a separation of the domestic and international spheres, such that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another, whether in the pursuit of self-interest or by appeal to a higher notion of sovereignty, be it religion, ideology, or other supranational ideal. In this sense the term differentiates the ‘modern’ state system from earlier models, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

"The world court is a product of like minded states and is used where an entity can be brought to the court to be made an example of for the pleasure of those like minded states.

No entity gets brought before the world court unless the entity is accepted to have contravened the principle of Westphalia Sovereignty."

This is true if you view the Westphalian system in a very narrow range. But that definition is narrow. In fact, at the moment it is pretty much limited to war crimes. If a state decided not to prosecute a serial killer for whatever reason, the international criminal court would not be some sort of other recourse. Ditto if a criminal flees from one state to another where no extradition treaty exists (but both stats are party to the IC treaty). The aggrieved state doesn't have recourse to the IC.

Lastly, Charles Taylor was compelled to flee Liberia. When he did so, he went to a third party country where he was eventually arrested (Nigeria). This could also happen with members of the Burmese Junta should they be compelled to flee Burma and end up in a state which hands them over (though I am sure most would go to someplace like Laos, where money talks - they have money).

The bottom line is that I don't think the IC would be a major worry for the Burmese generals. It would be their own people and their own courts should those come under the control of another political entity. If things fell apart fast and hard then they could end up like Ceaucescu did. On the other hand, if things transition as they did in South Africa, then they could just leave politics and live a low profile existence. So a peaceful transition with the generals giving up power is probably possible, but I think that will only happen if there is some sort of general amnesty as part of the agreement.

"As I siad "The world court is a product of like minded states and is used where an entity can be brought to the court to be made an example of for the pleasure of those like minded states."

Bruce
I don't disagree with this - but I am not sure how it applies to our particular conversation about the Burmese Junta and the potential for it to relinquish power.

Bruce we were just talking past each other. The limits of this communications medium.

I would not say that outside pressure from other states won't be a factor at all. I think those external pressures are apparent to the regime right now. But I do agree they won't be the decisive factor - that will clearly be internally driven.

Have you been having these gastroenological problems for a long time? Perhaps it's related to gerd. I recommend you consult a physician.