Is it a question of sovereignty?
The right of a people to assert their way of living without exterior interference. We might not like their way. We might think those folks are ‘suppressed’. But do we really know? How?
When the females are kept in ignorance and have no self-determination, the girls have their genitals sliced off and labia sewn together and are bred to breed, are killed for “honor”? Would we know then? Then what?

Posted by: Hamburger | May 10 2008 20:36 utc | 3

Hamburger quotes an extreme example often used to try and justify an intervention. This is a similar ploy as that used by pro-torturers who describe a scenario of the ticking A-bomb to justify the use of torture on the person who knows ‘the disarm code’. Of course that situation has never actually arisen but because it might, torture is used on 12 year old children sold for a few dollars to mercenaries, in amerikan rendition prisons. But just as getting information from a prisoner is not the aim of a torturer, saving a population from oppression is never the real object of a military intervention. It may be claimed to be so but we know that isn’t the case don’t we. In fact I would be interested to hear of any invasion and intervention of a sovereign state which has provided immediate relief to the suffering population.
Why? Well partly because other countries only intervene where they have a motive, usually economic for doing so and that motive always takes precedence over the well being of the locals. Look at Iraq which had been one of the least sexist ME societies, one where urban women did have a chance at education and employment before the USuk invasion, but now because the invaders see their best chance of getting the oil lies with supporting anti-Ba’athist ideologies that is no longer the case.
The other reason is more complex and is the one no one likes to discuss much. What seems from the outside as an inhuman inhumane practise is often the result of centuries of social evolution which cannot just be turned off like a switch. The economic foundations of a society have to change before that society’s long developed behaviours change.
Any attempt to force change will fail and lead to more suffering.

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 10 2008 23:17 utc | 5

to hamburger and other “hr” crusaders,
why dont we go for the biggest game of them all

Posted by: denk | May 11 2008 5:10 utc | 7

Your choice is to join us, and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you….
Analog Version

Posted by: Polly Anna | May 11 2008 5:43 utc | 9

Look at this headline from TIME/CNN:
Is it Time to Invade Burma?
The three last words of the article “give war a chance”, poised as a question for our elites to answer.
Anna missed: ”In the larger sense, what we are seeing is actually a war on culture.”

Posted by: Rick | May 11 2008 7:18 utc | 11

@Hamburger
When the females are kept in ignorance and have no self-determination, the girls have their genitals sliced off and labia sewn together and are bred to breed, are killed for “honor”? Would we know then? Then what?
There is no state on this earth that demands by law genitals sliced off. So what are you saying should someone do against this? Go after some government? Send in the marines to catch the women who do this (yes, the procedure is usually done by women)? Or send some money so schools can be build and teachers payed. I’d prefer the last item. Women rights always follow female education. Less children per women also always follows female education.
killed for “honor”?
Sorry but is a simplistic view to ascribe “honor killing” to non-westerners. When some westerner kills his wife or girlfriend because she went with someone else – what is that? Robbery? No. It is “honor killing”.
We have “honor klilling in our societies – just as others have. We just don’t call them such – we say “domestic violence”. But then we turn around and point to muslims and tell them “honor killing” is bad.
Well – guess what – they know that too.

Posted by: b | May 11 2008 14:32 utc | 13

Hamburger, FYI…
Most Female Genital Cutting Is reli-cultural, not state sanctioned.

Mariana van Zeller takes a look at the tradition of female circumcision in Africa. She travels to rural villages in Sierra Leone with an activist who faces a tough battle to put an end to the practice.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 11 2008 15:38 utc | 15

@ B
I don’t think your analogy, comparing honor killings with western-style domestic violence is exactly accurate. The honor killings are not comparable to love triangles that end in murder or other lethal domestic arguments over sex and infidelity in western culture. On the contrary, honor killings are about enforcing religious/social standards and are sanctioned by the communities in which they occur.
Resentment, jealosy, and rage may lead to murder in domestic relationships in western society; however, in honor killings, it is not unusual for fathers to kill daughters, or for brothers to kill sisters. This is different from revenge for a direct injury; for in honor killings there is, quite often, a transference of a sense of “dishonor” to third parties who are not connected in a personal way to the “offense”.
Also, there are occasions when honor killing has nothing to do with “the heat of the moment” but is the cold performance, done with the understanding that it is a price paid, in order for the “dishonored” family to be accepted in the community.
Honor killing is an outrage and should not be trivialized or glossed over in the name of cultural tolerance.

Posted by: Copeland | May 12 2008 4:47 utc | 17

The honor killings are not comparable to love triangles that end in murder or other lethal domestic arguments over sex and infidelity in western culture. On the contrary, honor killings are about enforcing religious/social standards and are sanctioned by the communities in which they occur.
Sanctioned by the community? How do we know? Do our media report over the court cases in Yemen or Pakistan? From a case in Turkey I personally know of a man who got life in prison for “honor killing” his daughter.
The meme of “honor killing” is abused as Islam-bashing. “Honor killings” happen in all societies. Sometimes they are just crazy murders camouflagd as such. When a muslim kills, you see big headlines and it is marked as “honor killing”, when others do it, it is just normal and there are are other reasons put forward.
Honor killings?
Police: Dad says he killed girl for texting boy

NEW YORK – A father who said he was upset with his teenage daughter for text-messaging a boy has been arrested on charges of killing the girl, whose burned body was found stuffed in the boiler of his apartment building, police said.
The 34-year-old man called police Saturday morning, claiming he had strangled his 14-year-old daughter the night before because of the text messaging and had dumped her body in a wooded area, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
The girl had been visiting Miguel Matias but lived in Pennsylvania with her mother and two sisters.

Does Miguel Matias sound arabic?
Father Kills Daughter, Shoots Stepdaughter

Once on scene, they were met by the 19-year-old woman who was suffering from a gun shot wound to her chin and bleeding bladly. They quickly found 13-year-old Kayla Reynolds lying dead on the front porch with a single gunshot wound to the back of the head and arrested 44-year-old Earl Wayne Reynolds for the attacks.

Indian father kills daughter’s family in Chicago

Chander was arrested by the police and charged with first-degree murder. He told police investigators that he was upset that his daughter had married a man from a lower caste against his wishes.
But Rajesh Kumar’s family in Ambala disagrees with Chander’s claim that he carried out the gruesome act because of the caste issue.
‘He is an alcoholic and used to fight with people and abuse them. He was nothing less than an extortionist. He used to force Rajesh and his wife to give him money. He should be given death penalty for killing three innocent people,’ Om Prakash said Thursday.

Posted by: b | May 12 2008 7:09 utc | 19

understood.
I should have stood in bed.

Posted by: Hamburger | May 12 2008 11:16 utc | 21

I should have stood in bed.
Na – your comments are welcome and help the discussion. I certainly understand your point, but also feel that the worst thing that can happen to people is war. Any humanitarian concern should be guided by “First, do no harm”.

Posted by: b | May 12 2008 13:39 utc | 23

@ B
The world community is forbidden under every circumstance, & under every foreseeable circumstance from intervening against the Myanmar Junta, because your argument can demonstate that war is the worst thing that could happen to Myanmar’s people. Is that the argument? End of story?
What is troubling is that your “leave us alone” argument is too broad, and also, for someone who is not a Myanmar person, and who is not enduring what they endure, you are speaking as if you were one of them. It’s just too easy to be this kind of an advocate. Walk a mile in their mocasins, paleface.
Is the Junta making war on its own people, or what? Who fired the first shots?
I am not advocating any “Operation Myanmar Freedom”: but you seem determined to argue the general, rather than the specific (imperial) case. Any kind of outside intervention against a paranoid regime is more alarming than collective action the world community might try to help the oppressed people throw off their yoke.
I don’t argue for an armed UN action at this moment of crisis (which would be counter-productive); but it is way past time that the world stopped looking the other way, with the Junta, and took a much more confrontational and critical approach.
I admire most of what you advocate b; but when it comes to an issue like this I often feel frustrated with your stance, since you consistently counsel patience for people who are forced to suffer the insufferable under despotism. And also because you typically undermine the ethos and sully the reputation of the one fucking person upon whom a crushed people have invested their hopes. There are times when that really leaves me pissed.

Posted by: Copeland | May 13 2008 3:57 utc | 25

China Hand

Myanmar: Confusion, Fear, Anger…and Opportunism
…in the wake of Cyclone Nargis
So the international community is left with a menu of miserable choices.
Either entrust millions of dollars of aid to a corrupt regime that will undoubtedly exploit some of it to strengthen its own position…
…or spend valuable hours and days trying to push the regime aside to conduct a rescue operation that, without the assistance of the local government, would probably be doomed to failure.
The bitter fact is that this dilemma was, to a certain extent, brought upon the international community by itself, because of the contradiction between aggressive democracy promotion and humanitarian engagement.
…
But what I see in the western media is the cynical and lazy urge for a feel-good narrative of the noble West beating up on the detestable Burmese junta.
The sloppy reporting and irresponsible rhetoric reminds me of the rough justice the press meted out to Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. We all remember how satisfying it was to spread tales, no matter how untrue or unlikely, about that unsavory thug, his evil deeds, and his diabolical plans.
And some of us remember how much blood and treasure could have been saved if we had bothered to be accurate about Saddam’s capabilities, objectives, and intentions.
So, when the US ambassadress contradicts the official Burmese reports of the death toll and says as many as 100,000 could be dead, I’m inclined to give her credence.
But I also wonder: how can she know, trapped in her embassy in Yongyon in the aftermath of a natural disaster that has not only disrupted communications—it has caused entire land masses to disappear?

Posted by: b | May 13 2008 5:26 utc | 27

@Copeland @25
The world community is forbidden under every circumstance, & under every foreseeable circumstance from intervening against the Myanmar Junta, because your argument can demonstate that war is the worst thing that could happen to Myanmar’s people. Is that the argument? End of story?
In principle yes, though something like the Khmer Rouge would probably justify intervention. The UN would have to agree on that.
What is troubling is that your “leave us alone” argument is too broad, and also, for someone who is not a Myanmar person, and who is not enduring what they endure, you are speaking as if you were one of them. It’s just too easy to be this kind of an advocate. Walk a mile in their mocasins, paleface.
I don’t know those mocasins. That is why I argue against intervention. I don’t know the culture, history and social-religious norms behind the system in Myanmar to judge right or wrong. Even if I would read all available western literature about it, I still wouldn’t be sure about right or wrong. I still wouldn’t be sure that intervention is the least possible wrong to happen.
Is the Junta making war on its own people, or what? Who fired the first shots?
I don’t know – that is the whole point. I, and I’ll include most westerners here, lack the knowledge to judge.
I am not advocating any “Operation Myanmar Freedom”: but you seem determined to argue the general, rather than the specific (imperial) case. Any kind of outside intervention against a paranoid regime is more alarming than collective action the world community might try to help the oppressed people throw off their yoke.
Maybe with the beating drums throughout the western media the regime might have reason to be paranoid? Could there be a way of making them less paranoid and therby less supressive? Could there come positive social change in Myanmar by less intervention?
I don’t argue for an armed UN action at this moment of crisis (which would be counter-productive); but it is way past time that the world stopped looking the other way, with the Junta, and took a much more confrontational and critical approach.
What is more confrontational to you? There are already massive economic sanctions on Myanmar, like always – hurting the people more than the regime. So what is more confrontational?
I admire most of what you advocate b; but when it comes to an issue like this I often feel frustrated with your stance, since you consistently counsel patience for people who are forced to suffer the insufferable under despotism.
No I don’t advocate such at all. I argue against intervention from the outside. If the people inside see fit to change their regime, that is fine with me. I hope they think through the consequences though.
And also because you typically undermine the ethos and sully the reputation of the one fucking person upon whom a crushed people have invested their hopes.
Who would that be, Ahmed Chalabi? Oh no, the daughter of a general who first throw in his lot with Japanese fashists and then with British imperialist. Why her? Because she knows English, studied in Oxford and is played up in the west. She would certainly sign the desirable oil and gas contracts.
Look – Maynamar is quite a complicate country with many minorities and lots of natural resources. Any intervention there is highly likely to lead to large civil strive, fighting over the rent from those recources and lots of mix up from the neighbor countries. We can see how this works in Iraq.
There are times when that really leaves me pissed.
Sorry for that.

Posted by: b | May 13 2008 11:00 utc | 29

b (#30)wrote: “There are antropologic stages a patriachic society passes through until it give women the same rights as men. It starts with education, reading ability, lower birthrates, economic value as employee …”
Now I have the tiniest of quibbles. My background is anthropology and I assure you that the idea of cultural evolution (the idea that there exist a set of prescribed stages through which a culture must pass towards becoming “civilized”) is roundly discredited as unscientific and unsound. Cultiral evolutionism has in the past been used to justify everything from imperialism to eugenics. It is certainly a royal road to exceptionalism and no serious social scientist still accepts it.
The qualities you list (viz. education, reading ability, lower birthrates and economic value of the working class) are all what i would call necessarily good and productive things, but they are NOT “stages”. These might be better termed “necessary but not sufficient qualities” for a civilized society to have.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 13 2008 14:47 utc | 31

Ban Ki Moon said yesterday that (i paraphrase summarily and leave aside sec. council arguments) there was no way for the rest of the W, or the UN, following its statutes, to intervene forcibly, even thru position statements, in Burma.
That doesn’t make his declarations ‘right’ following whatever ethics one may adopt; they were only ‘right’ in the sense that they were congruent with UN rules, international agreements, etc.
Those ‘rules’ were a compromise between the rights of different entities; principally, nations and their leaders (elaborated in the 50s. and worked on subsequently, etc.), as the UN was/is built on national representation.
Each nation wants to protect its autonomy, and the bar for external intervention was set high, as is natural.
The US would never accept Japanese or Swiss social services deploying with clipboards and power to change things in the US, as the US puts to *death* retarded teens who may have killed someone; or has millions in prison for nonsense offenses; or uses, btw, torture and extraordinary rendition, negating the Geneva conventions, amongst other things, etc.
Nor can women’s rights activists, of the ‘western’ type, like myself, ever hope to ban breast implants, leg lengthening operations (incredibly dangerous) for women under 25 (just to put some cap on it) in the US or, say, Brazil… not to mention facial plastic surgery, as well as genital surgery, which is *very* common but not talked about, etc. etc.
When Katrina hit, nobody advised, or even mentioned, forcing the US to accept external aid (point made before by b). National sov. was respected, while many sat and wept and chewed fingernails, for the victims.
Between a military junta (e.g. Burma) and a dystopic manipulated tv enthralled society, with a ‘selected’ president who is a puppet, clearly mentally deficient – as many here would agree – or whatever, hard to throw flowers about.
Maybe solid arguments one way or the other can be made. I’m not saying not.
But universality is in question. Tough call…

Posted by: Tangerine | May 13 2008 16:05 utc | 33

@Monolycus – @31
The qualities you list (viz. education, reading ability, lower birthrates and economic value of the working class) are all what i would call necessarily good and productive things, but they are NOT “stages”. These might be better termed “”necessary but not sufficient qualities” for a civilized society to have.
I am certanly not very knowledgeable about antropology, so I’ll defer to you. The statistics show some significant correlation of learning, reading, birth rate, women rights. That doesn’t mean they a causes b causes c. “Necessary but not sufficient qualities” hits it pretty well.
One point I try to make quite often is that we shouldn’t expect others to want to be like us. The first time I really got to this is when I read Emmanuel Todd and his The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems. I don’t totally agree with him, but he has a point on the relevance of historic social family structure to “way of life”. I haven’t read any critics to it and would be thankful for some relevant links.

Posted by: b | May 13 2008 19:02 utc | 35

I think what you point to, jony_b_cool is that much of the “advances” of women in western society are more the results of filling needs and opportunities created by technology and industrialization – squeezing another worker out of the family. As opposed to a naturally (non industrialized) occurring cultural evolution – as say in a matrilineal or matrifocal society.

Posted by: anna missed | May 14 2008 4:08 utc | 37

The Women’s Sufferage movement in America was an extremely militant movement. Since black freedmen were given the vote after the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment gave rights explicitly to “persons”; then why shouldn’t those rights extend to women? This argument was tried and failed in the Supreme Court; and the only thing that would do was an Amendment for women. Tangerine mentions the problem of universality in her excellent post.
Are universal declarations of human rights to be graded according to ethnocentric standards (islamic or western)? Or is there that transcendant place or perspective, in which one meets universality?
There was an immense blowup over the Danish cartoons awhile back, that violated an islamic taboo against any graphic image of God’s Messenger. The “fair use of ridicule” (as Lewis Lapham descibes it) in Western polemics, goes back to Moliere, when Frenchmen could imagine a world where one could poke fun at all manner of Catholic sacred cows, and not be tossed immediately onto a bonfire. Earlier freethinkers had been burned alive in Europe; and admittedly in the ethnocentric view, we tend to think that Monty Python could not have made “The Life of Brian”, if not for a handful of martyrs who died so that we might free our minds.
On the other hand, I admit that Bernhard is right to chastise me this way: with the American addiction to capital punishment. Since I described “honor killings” as “Homicides with explicit social sanction”.
When I wrote my previous posts, my emotions were rampant (to say the least); but there’s something I want to say in a calmer frame of mind. The differences or the *time* which sometimes seems to separate our culture from some forms of islam. We could look at other things besides the death penalty, to describe America as decades behind European culture. Europeans started abandoning this practice shortly after World War II; and that’s a long time ago.
Capital punishment and honor killing are both evils. Bernhard equates them, observes that they are the same. There is probably a way in which both exist because of a certain kind of moral cowardice; people know on some level that it’s wrong, but are unwilling to protest against it and make the sacrifices and take the trouble to end it.
In honor killing it seems that religious belief and a compulsive need to conform and appear righteous in the eyes of the community and being accepted in that same community, forms the basis of the “sanction”. Is this better or worse than the reptilian instinct for revenge and closure that informs capital punishment? I don’t know.
I was not aiming for hypocrisy, only to examine the nature of this practice more closely. Bernhard is certainly right for saying, “Our western societies are certainly not free of gender bashing. We are also only about 100 years, much less in some countries, into one person one vote representation.” On the other hand, the time or difference implied in stoning an adulteress to death, or killing a woman in the name of honor, seems to take us back centuries.

Posted by: Copeland | May 14 2008 8:04 utc | 39