(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
[Burma] Somewhat startling has happened over the past couple of weeks: "Most people" in Norway have now become involved in Burma's democracy struggle. 28. September, even Norwegian politicians and trendsetters wore red clothes, in solidarity with the Buddhist monks' struggle against the military regime in Rangoon.
But the spontaneous, media-backed support contrasts with the lack of Burma involvement in recent years, compared to Iraq, Palestine and Latin America. This despite Burma having had one of the world's worst dictatorships since 1962. Despite the fact that 62-year-old Nobel Prize winner and Gandhi-inspired Aung San Suu Kyi is now making Mandela the rank of unlucky: 18 imprisoned years, despite a democratic election she clearly won in 1990.
The lack of Burma involvement looks all the worse considering how Norwegian companies have long financed the dictatorship: On "red-clothes day", NorWatch published a list of 154 Norwegian import companies since 2005. Among them the Sports House. While the Rainforest Foundation points out that almost all teak in Norwegian leisure boats is taken from the regime's forests. This is how "all of us" are guilty, red t-shirt or not.
Two questions arise: Why are we engaged by some conflicts and not by others? And what will the rest of the world do about the Burma junta?
I mean to see three factors that need to get us involved and that didn't strike in Burma until a monk lay in a pool of blood. The conflict should be able to:
1. Of course, black and white, such as “good vs. bath »: As in South Africa during apartheid. Easier with Mandela vs. Botha than with Zulu vs. Xhosa.
2. Used in domestic context: Like the Israel / Palestine conflict, where supporters / opponents strengthen their own political position by engaging.
3. Have an abuser we can identify with: We rarely protest the victims, more against the abuser. The more the US / NATO is involved, the greater the commitment.
At the same time, there are three turn-off factors. The conflict does not engage when it:
1. Understood as an "ethnic conflict": The Bosnian war of 1992-95 was presented as an almost inevitable, historical, "genetic" conflict – therefore the protests did not come until NATO attacked in 1999. Racism makes "ethnic" especially used conflicts in Africa.
2. Involves Norway: The Oslo process, the Sri Lankan peace trial and Thorvald Stoltenberg as Balkan mediator reduce criticism from opposition, national-centered and foreign-influenced media and a patriotic audience.
3. Be nuanced: When both Eritrea and Ethiopia commit abuse, choosing sides is not easy.
But what should we have done with Burma? I'm struggling. Should the UN / NATO step in, topple the regime and secure democracy? Or should we sing more, like during the Vietnam War?
For every day that goes with the two-child mother Suu Kyi in prison, our contemporary guilt will grow larger in the bright light of the future. In ten years, we will look in the mirror, shake our heads, and ask: Why didn't we do something? ■