Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Ray,

As far as the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring etc. Now, if that is not of US’ making and it is merely happenstance, then God and Destiny is surely an American manufacture!

I would find it too simplistic to believe that ‘people got disgusted by the system’ and demanded a change!

Just one example to illustrate.

If indeed the Russians got disgusted with the system and changed, then how come Russia’s Communist Party, relegated to the political margins after the fall of the Soviet Union more than 20 years ago, has seen an astounding comeback in elections as voters rebuked Prime Minister Vladamir Putin’s 12-year reign?

You're absolutely correct, and those changes are due largely the DImE in DIME, and it takes time to set the stage for these changes to take effect. There is no other global leader that promotes these changes, quite the contrary the only other legacy and current powers (USSR, China) fought against the trend in hopes of preserving their oppressive governments. You see this now with their responses to Syria, and China keeps North Korea on life support.

[Dayuhan]

There is no other global leader that promotes these changes

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader? Did the Americans in 1776 or the French in 1848 need a global leader to tell them they wanted to be rid of what they perceived as oppressive and degenerate royal families? Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

[Ray]

Bill,

You are absolutely correct.

In the modern context, the States' (Nation) authoritarian and might can hardly be challenged with resistance, armed or otherwise. It will be ruthlessly put down. Sri Lanka crushing the LTTE is a live and modern example of the State's might. And to a lesser extent, the problem in Chechnya.

Why did the Hungarian uprising of 1956 not succeeded?

These matters will never be in the public domain and it will he naive to believe it will be. However, if there is foreign influence and that too from an unchallenged global power, 'peoples' uprising' can effect a change. East Europe is an example. The Catholic Pope played his role as the benign 'cover'.

The same Church that lay low when the Jews were being exterminated by Hitler! Political handmaidens can come from strange sectors!

As far as the Arab Spring catching the US by surprise, maybe this can help that it was no surprise (that is why I say that if one has to keep an unbiased attitude one should Google the views and not only subscribe to those who support one's own favourite hobby horse):

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2012/0...ushing-defeat/

Anyone who is aware of the NGOs and their funding are aware that they also are encouraged to 'assist the viewpoint' of those funding. Nothing is altruistic and it is not a falsehood that there is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Even our pro US PM who has never said a word against the US (he told Bush India loves you Mr Bush! [when the non European world was seething will anger]), was forced to state that US funded religious NGOs were behind the ruckus over the Russian Nuclear power plant being commissioned in Tamilnadu.

In many countries the US Peace Corps was accused of spying. Nothing surprising. There is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Even the Aid given to poor countries are not without strings. See the state of Pakistan. They blow hot, but then they eat crow!

[Dayuhan]

In the modern context, the States' (Nation) authoritarian and might can hardly be challenged with resistance, armed or otherwise. It will be ruthlessly put down. Sri Lanka crushing the LTTE is a live and modern example of the State's might. And to a lesser extent, the problem in Chechnya.

Why did the Hungarian uprising of 1956 not succeeded?

These matters will never be in the public domain and it will he naive to believe it will be. However, if there is foreign influence and that too from an unchallenged global power, 'peoples' uprising' can effect a change. East Europe is an example. The Catholic Pope played his role as the benign 'cover'.

Again this looks like a topic for another thread, but...

I think the impact of foreign influence on domestic rebellion is being vastly overrated here. Rebellions against strong governments that have full command of their armed forces will typically fail. Foreign support will only change that if it takes the form of direct military intervention.

Rebellions succeed when governments lose their mojo. This happens: regimes age, tyrants lose their potency, the populace becomes restive, the military and police apparatus begins to waver in their loyalty. Not all states are mighty, and when the regime or the tyrant grows weak, the mighty become vulnerable. Mubarak didn't fall because foreigners conspired against him, he fell because his own armed forces wouldn't back him when push came to shove.

The presence or absence of foreign support is far from the only variable determining success or failure of a revolution, unless of course the foreign support takes the form of direct military intervention

As far as the Arab Spring catching the US by surprise, maybe this can help that it was no surprise (that is why I say that if one has to keep an unbiased attitude one should Google the views and not only subscribe to those who support one's own favourite hobby horse):

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2012/0...ushing-defeat/

There's nothing here that even remotely suggests that the Arab Spring was a product of US intervention... this piece deals with so-called "democracy NGOs" in the post-Arab Spring environment.

Anyone who is aware of the NGOs and their funding are aware that they also are encouraged to 'assist the viewpoint' of those funding. Nothing is altruistic and it is not a falsehood that there is nothing called a Free Lunch.

Of course, but how effective are these NGOs, really? Certainly they have no capacity to create revolution, nor have they any capacity to make a revolution succeed if the government being rebelled against is not ripe for it. All the NGOs on earth wouldn't bring down a Gadaffi... it took direct military intervention.

Even the Aid given to poor countries are not without strings. See the state of Pakistan. They blow hot, but then they eat crow!

A lot of countries, including Pakistan, accept the conditions for aid, take the aid, and then ignore the conditions or make nothing beyond a superficial and very nominal attempt to meet the conditions. The US is no great puppet master; they get played as often as they play others.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader? Did the Americans in 1776 or the French in 1848 need a global leader to tell them they wanted to be rid of what they perceived as oppressive and degenerate royal families? Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

My post,

You're absolutely correct, and those changes are due largely the DImE in DIME, and it takes time to set the stage for these changes to take effect. There is no other global leader that promotes these changes, quite the contrary the only other legacy and current powers (USSR, China) fought against the trend in hopes of preserving their oppressive governments. You see this now with their responses to Syria, and China keeps North Korea on life support.

In short I agree with myself

Do you really think these changes occur because they are promoted by some global leader?

Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not). People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied). A case in point where people thought they had the support of the U.S. and acted out against a dictator was the Shi'a and Kurds after DESERT STORM.

Did the anti-colonial rebellions that followed WW2 need some global leader to kick them off?

Yes, they needed the ideas of freedom that their educated leaders learned in the West, and they needed foreign support to sustain their revolutions.

Is it so hard to imagine people acting of their own volition, for their own purposes, whether or not those purposes are actually achieved?

Acting on their own volition yet, especially when they believe they have a chance of succeeding. We didn't have to provide armed support to the Poles, only moral, informational and financial (along with the Catholic Church).

We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

[Ken White]

...I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not)...
...
We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

Only change I'd make would be to "almost every time" in the first quoted paragraph. At least insofar as actual versus hoped for results...

[Dayuhan]

Read my post carefully, I said "set conditions" for these revolutions to take place, whether we promote them or not. I would argue most of the time the consequences were unintended. I also said promote, not cause. We have promoted the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world, and given hope to the oppressed (intended or not).

Rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation is as old as tyranny and foreign occupation, which is pretty old. Certainly rebellion against tyranny and foreign occupation dates back to well before the concept of democracy... in fact it dates back to a time when folks in "the West" were still painting themselves bright colors and bashing each other with clubs. Our ideas have likely shaped the rhetoric of rebellion to some degree (the ideas of communism, if not the substance, have also helped shape and inspire many rebellions against tyranny) but I think we're giving ourselves way too much credit if we pretend that there would be no rebellions without our ideas or our promotion of those ideas.

People can act out in anger, but unless they pull off a rapid coup it is unlikely they will be successful unless they receive foreign support. Much like we did during the American Revolution. Never say always, nevery say never, but generally this is the case. Most people won't act unless there is a reasonable degree of hope of being successful. We provide that with information (specified and implied).

Again I think this overlooks a key element in the dynamics of rebellion. Oppressive regimes are typically in a constant state of very low level rebellion. People are constantly pushing the regime. Most of these efforts fail, and most are never even noticed by outsiders, but the populace sees very clearly. They also see when the point comes when the regime fails to push back, when the security forces waver, when the people around the tyrant seem ready to break away. The key element is not foreign support, unless the foreign support comes in the form of direct military intervention. If the regime is strong, foreign support doesn't matter: all the moral support and democratic ideals on earth couldn't make Tiananmen succeed. They won't bring down Assad either.

The key to me is not the foreign support (again barring direct intervention), but rather the moment when the populace perceives that the tyrant has lost his mojo. The aura of invincibility shatters, the barons start looking for a new leader, the armed forces become reluctant to use force lest they be held accountable down the line. Once that perception hits, it snowballs very fast. It's an internal phenomenon and it has little or nothing to do with foreign support.

We should take credit where it is due, and not be overly influenced by our excessively left leaning educational institutions who find wrong in everything our nation does. We are far from perfect, and often not moral, because in the real world nations pursue their self interests, yet quite frequently and more than any other nation we have done a lot of good.

We sometimes take credit where it's not due, and we sometimes assume that all that happens in the world revolves around us and our influence. Recently on another thread I saw a comment that one positive outcome of the Vietnam War is that "we" prevented a communist takeover of Indonesia and Thailand. Didn't say anything, as it wasn't an appropriate venue for dispute, but definitely a bit of the "whoa, say what?" reaction...

[Ray]

Who decides what is an Oppressive regime?

The Chinese don't think that they are under an oppressive regime.

And yet, others do!

Tibetans feel they are oppressed, but nothing happens!

And yet, Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions happen!

And the Mali coup?

[Backwards Observer]

Anjing menggonggong, kafilah tetap berlalu.

RI, China ink $17.4b deals

Indonesia inked dozens of business and strategic agreements in several sectors with China, Asia’s largest economy, during the state visit of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Beijing on Friday.

The signings were made after talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao, in which both sides reaffirmed the importance of bilateral relations.

The agreement covered cooperation in areas including trade, tourism, anti-drug efforts and fisheries management.

In the business sectors, Indonesian companies signed 15 investment agreements with Chinese corporations in Beijing on Friday worth a total of US$17.4 billion.

“The business agreements are an indication of the growing cooperation between the two countries,” President Yudhoyono said in a speech after meeting with Wan Jifei, the head of the Chinese Council for the Promotion of International Trade at a hotel in China’s capital city.

RI China ink 17.4B deals - Jakarta Post - March 24, 2012.

[Bob's World]

Indonesia is a great example. A nation working to solidify their hard-earned independence and sovereignty. They act in their best interests when they make deals like these with China to help them develop their own economy. They also act in their best interest when they seek to balance their relationships with powerful nations such as China, Japan, India and the US. This is what states do.

The US burned a lot of influence in the early years following 9/11 when there was so much focus on the Islamic aspect of AQ's operation. Being the largest Muslim populace on the planet, many eyes turned to Indonesia as a nation we needed focus our security efforts upon. But while certainly some Indonesians support AQ, the AQ message has largely fallen on deaf ears there. Unlike Muslim nations of the Middle East, whose quest for greater autonomy was largely held frozen through the Cold War, states like Indonesia were able to secure an independence largely free of such Western influence and chart their own path. The political message of AQ does not resonate among the Muslims of SEA as it does among Muslims of the greater Middle East. Not because of differences in Islam, but because of differences in the political landscape.

Indonesia does not want to be a radical Islamist state, nor does it want to be a Chinese satellite, nor does it want to be a ward of the US. Indonesia wants to be a sovereign state defined and governed on its own terms. Self-determination at work.

The US need not fear the economic synergy of China, that is what President Obama was talking about as to the future importance of the region. Not that it is a rising threat for the military to contain, but rather that it is rising hub of economic power that the US needs to be fully plugged into. As Chinese influence grows, states like Indonesia will naturally reach out to other partners, such as the US and India, to provide balance. It is in their interests to do so.

[Ray]

While Indonesia may be the largest Muslim nation, they are not the same as one would take Muslim nations to be.

To use a modern term, they are 'cool' and 'hep'.

They do not have the Islamic hangover.

I have an Indonesian Muslim relative and I also had a Muslim Indonesian maid when I was in Singapore!

If they were conservative as Muslims are said to be, then I was more conservative than them.

I would classify them as more hep and cool than us!

The Indonesians are in close defence relationship with India too!

[Dayuhan]

But while certainly some Indonesians support AQ, the AQ message has largely fallen on deaf ears there. Unlike Muslim nations of the Middle East, whose quest for greater autonomy was largely held frozen through the Cold War, states like Indonesia were able to secure an independence largely free of such Western influence and chart their own path. The political message of AQ does not resonate among the Muslims of SEA as it does among Muslims of the greater Middle East. Not because of differences in Islam, but because of differences in the political landscape.

Indonesia had its share of issues with foreign influence during the Cold War.

Like many in the Middle East, Indonesians are willing to cheer and support AQ's fight against foreign intervention in Muslim lands. Also like many in the Middle East, they are quite willing to accept help from Islamist movements where their own local issues (traditionally involving sectarian conflict in Sulawesi et al). Also like many Muslims elsewhere, very few beyond a small core want anything to do with the idea of an Arab-ruled Calihate, or with local terrorism, or with the prospect of having an AQ-allied government.

he US need not fear the economic synergy of China, that is what President Obama was talking about as to the future importance of the region. Not that it is a rising threat for the military to contain, but rather that it is rising hub of economic power that the US needs to be fully plugged into.

Much of today's Sinophobia seems to me curiously unspecific... people seem convinced that we need to fear China but unsure of what they are afraid that the Chinese will do. I sometimes come away feeling that they simply feel bereft without someone to fear.

While Indonesia may be the largest Muslim nation, they are not the same as one would take Muslim nations to be.

To use a modern term, they are 'cool' and 'hep'.

They do not have the Islamic hangover.

I have an Indonesian Muslim relative and I also had a Muslim Indonesian maid when I was in Singapore!

If they were conservative as Muslims are said to be, then I was more conservative than them.

I would classify them as more hep and cool than us!

The Indonesians are in close defence relationship with India too!

One wouldn't want to stereotype, but in general SE Asian Muslims are much less socially conservative than those in South Asia and the Middle East, even in places where Islamic radicalism has a foothold. That of course varies widely with location: an Indonesian Muslim from Jakarta is likely to be a lot less conservative than one from a rural village.

There have been some efforts to impose a more conservative outlook, notably in Malaysia and Indonesia (such as the current proposal to ban skirts above the knee) but the fact that the clerics see the need to try to force such moves is in itself testimony to the reality that the culture does not demand them.