Soob

Robert Kaplan's article at the Atlantic Online illustrates the possible consequences of toppling the Myanmar Junta. The essence being freeing the Burmese people from the iron fist of martial tyranny might well not be a happy conclusion to a tragic event, rather the beginning of a painful and chaotic revolution where marginalization through democracy fuels ethnic/tribal discord.

That struggle may well be peaceful. A government headed by Aung San Suu
Kyi may stop the military violence against the hill tribes in the north
and make peace with the non-Burman parts of the population.
Nevertheless, the ethnic minorities fear that they will continue to be
marginalized in a democratic Burma run by ethnic Burmans.

Of course, despite these likely difficulties Kaplan (rightly) insists a successful democratic revolution should be embraced:

Don’t get me wrong: The United States and the rest of the world must
continue to take a firm stand against the junta and support the Burmese
democracy movement. But if we succeed, we will have to work even harder
to help the Burmese resolve their ethnic conflicts. Burma should
benefit from the lessons we’ve learned in Iraq and the former
Yugoslavia.

My question: Who entails the "we?" What geo-political/military vehicle shall we turn to in an effort to pacify the likely ethnic flashpoint that a free Burma will constitute? The UNSC faces veto via China, NATO's a tad busy and fatigued with Afghanistan (more an ideological fatigue than logistical I suspect) and the US seems limited to tossing money and intelligence into the fray given it's own two theaters of war.

Powered by ScribeFire.