Sorry about the late reply. With regards to a potential invasion to remove the junta heads and installing a new government, it's not so much about anybody in Asia wanting to hurt Burma, but rather the economic and imagery repercussions on the country doing the invading. IMO, whether China moves to defend Burma is very much dependent on what its principles and what it views as needing to protect, given that the geographical proximity of its neighbouring country in an invasion may make China somewhat jittery. Not to mention there's been at least 2 decades spent building a hard-earned relationship of trust and trade between the countries, which would be at stake. To say the chinese won't move is something I wouldn't say (unless I'm misreading you), because it depends on which country is doing the invading and the justification from that country for it.
And unlike the contentious R2P clause in the 2005 UN world summit (which goes that every state has a responsibility to protect its population against crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity) which some have suggested to be invoked by the UN in this instance to bypass the military approval, on what grounds would the invading country have? Some countries have a longer list of universal rights than others, and when does grounds for humanitarian intervention turn into intervention of state affairs?
The promise of neutrality is essential for success, simply because the only proper functioning institute in Burma is an army, plus a terrain that should not be underestimated. Backlash can be in economical and influential terms, if other countries condemn such an invasion as unethical (despite the good it'd probably do). If an invasion were to take place and succeed, the new government would have to be Aung San Suu Kyi's party but even then, would they feel it is feasible to take the rulership based on foreign intervention from a country that would definitely be under ethical fire?
Like some other countries, America refused to be legally bound by the R2P clause because it could compromise the country's freedom to make decisions and simultaneously place national interests at a disadvantage.
It would be an interesting exercise if things turn out the way your scenario sketches, to see which way things would move. The best thing from a realistic POV though, would be China making greater effort to influence Burma, as China is already starting to realise that given its own growing international clout and the global ballgame of checks and balances, moral non-interference of any sort is something it may not be able to adhere to for much longer (one example being the lessening of arms sales to the Tehran government).
Trying not to use the not-quite-applicable 'western Vs eastern mindset' stereotype was something that kinda itched my toe throughout this discussion (given that I'm being irritated by it elsewhere), but that's for another day.
no subject
And unlike the contentious R2P clause in the 2005 UN world summit (which goes that every state has a responsibility to protect its population against crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity) which some have suggested to be invoked by the UN in this instance to bypass the military approval, on what grounds would the invading country have? Some countries have a longer list of universal rights than others, and when does grounds for humanitarian intervention turn into intervention of state affairs?
The promise of neutrality is essential for success, simply because the only proper functioning institute in Burma is an army, plus a terrain that should not be underestimated. Backlash can be in economical and influential terms, if other countries condemn such an invasion as unethical (despite the good it'd probably do). If an invasion were to take place and succeed, the new government would have to be Aung San Suu Kyi's party but even then, would they feel it is feasible to take the rulership based on foreign intervention from a country that would definitely be under ethical fire?
Like some other countries, America refused to be legally bound by the R2P clause because it could compromise the country's freedom to make decisions and simultaneously place national interests at a disadvantage.
It would be an interesting exercise if things turn out the way your scenario sketches, to see which way things would move. The best thing from a realistic POV though, would be China making greater effort to influence Burma, as China is already starting to realise that given its own growing international clout and the global ballgame of checks and balances, moral non-interference of any sort is something it may not be able to adhere to for much longer (one example being the lessening of arms sales to the Tehran government).
Trying not to use the not-quite-applicable 'western Vs eastern mindset' stereotype was something that kinda itched my toe throughout this discussion (given that I'm being irritated by it elsewhere), but that's for another day.