To its neighbouring countries and Asean, Burma has a huge potential in the export areas of agricultural, natural minerals + fuels and precious gems. China being its most helpful neigbour (and also stands to benefit the most, given current ties) would not take kindly to meddling in Burma, simply because China itself doesn't take kindly to any 'outside interference' with its own affairs, just like Russia.
IMO, the trend of interference and protection, relative to possible defensive and offensive forces of the various countries really depends on what self-interests, short-term gains and eventual long-term benefits are being protected by each country for the 'greater good'. No doubt morality might play a part but on the global stage, its imagery tends to be more substantial than the substance itself.
To organise an invasion with any chance of success, you'd need an alliance of at least 2 superpowers plus at the very least, a promise of neutrality from most of the developed countries and the most influential countries in Asia, and then you'd have to deal with the prospect of China possibly backing up its neighbour as it also weighs the benefits and disadvantages of whatever actions it undertakes. In short, it's a diplomatic nightmare.
Whoever guides Burma to open its doors gradually will benefit from both its current state and future possibilities, but Asean's peace-loving, non-pressing hands are tied. China is in the best position to lead by example but for now, given Burma isn't depleted of its optimum usefulness on the fronts of natural fuel and precious gems yet, there's no need for China to rush to make them open up and share the current benefits. Given the Olympic torch incidents relative to the recent earthquake where PR is concerned, they've learnt very fast on how to gracefully refuse and do things their way (not forgetting that China has far more resources and better infrastructure than Burma).
A bloody revolution is tempting, but how it comes about is going to be the key, and assassination of the entire top and second tier might be one of the best methods involved (but then it would make one wonder about who takes over). Your middle-road tactic sounds nice, but the usefulness of the UN is in question, especially when the breaking of governmental power sounds unlikely due to the questionable validating process and underlying aims of the recent referendum, which will consolidate the power of the military in the political cabinet. It doesn't help that the citizens of Myanmar have been impoverished for so long plus experienced economic sanctions since 1996(?) but still survive somehow, which makes one question whether the approach is actually working.
So unless there's a change of heart, a great catastrophe or the people can somehow overthrow the ruling heads of the military themselves, Burma is likely to stay as it is for at least the next decade.
no subject
IMO, the trend of interference and protection, relative to possible defensive and offensive forces of the various countries really depends on what self-interests, short-term gains and eventual long-term benefits are being protected by each country for the 'greater good'. No doubt morality might play a part but on the global stage, its imagery tends to be more substantial than the substance itself.
To organise an invasion with any chance of success, you'd need an alliance of at least 2 superpowers plus at the very least, a promise of neutrality from most of the developed countries and the most influential countries in Asia, and then you'd have to deal with the prospect of China possibly backing up its neighbour as it also weighs the benefits and disadvantages of whatever actions it undertakes. In short, it's a diplomatic nightmare.
Whoever guides Burma to open its doors gradually will benefit from both its current state and future possibilities, but Asean's peace-loving, non-pressing hands are tied. China is in the best position to lead by example but for now, given Burma isn't depleted of its optimum usefulness on the fronts of natural fuel and precious gems yet, there's no need for China to rush to make them open up and share the current benefits. Given the Olympic torch incidents relative to the recent earthquake where PR is concerned, they've learnt very fast on how to gracefully refuse and do things their way (not forgetting that China has far more resources and better infrastructure than Burma).
A bloody revolution is tempting, but how it comes about is going to be the key, and assassination of the entire top and second tier might be one of the best methods involved (but then it would make one wonder about who takes over). Your middle-road tactic sounds nice, but the usefulness of the UN is in question, especially when the breaking of governmental power sounds unlikely due to the questionable validating process and underlying aims of the recent referendum, which will consolidate the power of the military in the political cabinet. It doesn't help that the citizens of Myanmar have been impoverished for so long plus experienced economic sanctions since 1996(?) but still survive somehow, which makes one question whether the approach is actually working.
So unless there's a change of heart, a great catastrophe or the people can somehow overthrow the ruling heads of the military themselves, Burma is likely to stay as it is for at least the next decade.