Is Myanmar A Greater Risk Of Political Violence?

Throughout history, instances of genocide, mass murder, and extreme acts of violence are widespread and pervade through every culture and society. As demonstrated by Panh, Lifton, and O’Brien, similar examples of excessive violence can occur in widely different situations. In order for such violence to occur, there first must exist certain systematic factors. In this paper, I will argue that conditions of instability within a country allow for changes in belief and perception, and these changed perceptions leads to dehumanization and the loss of human rights. The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnam War, all follow this pattern to some extent. First, I will compare and contrast the ways in which the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide follow this pattern, as well as explore the separate factors within each and possible solutions to these factors. Next, I will discuss the dramatically different Vietnam War, compare and contrast it to the other two, and explore how the uniqueness of the Vietnam War impacts the possible solutions for the loss of human rights within this situation.

Myanmar Follows Global Pattern in How Ethnic Cleansing Begins was written by Amanda Taub. The article discusses how each country is allowed “national self-determination”. Each country was giving this right to protect the very rights it impacts. The article states that self-determination, not only defines the nation but who allowed to be a part of that nation and who doesn’t belong. As the article states, “During times of political upheaval, when national identity comes under pressure and different groups compete for claims to self-determination… [as a result, the outsiders are subject to] mass violence and even genocide.” The article then goes on to describe what a nation is. The author tries to put into perspective that, while “state” can

Democratic Peace Theory contends that there is a constant peace in society due to mutual profitability and understanding, but Realists typically tend towards the belief that there is a perpetual security dilemma within society and that there is a constant threat of war. Permanent peace seems improbable to Realists, as conflicts are bound to arise due to conflicting interests and opinions, and said conflicts have persisted amongst democracies in the past. Comprehensively, the idea that neither the theory itself or alternative theories can explain Democratic Peace Theories perpetuation could mean that there is no such thing as democratic peace. Theoretically, however, the proposal that said theory explanation is derived from an unaffiliated source. One could argue that said cohesiveness between democracies can be based upon an imperialistic and hegemonic United States. America 's increasing annual power presence created a sense of stability and strength that could be “democratic peace.” The war part could be either coincidence or due to fear of attacking a hegemon. The indefinency of the theory puts its legitimacy into question. If we are unsure of its origins and why it’s in existence, a question remains—is the theory admissible?

In this essay, after defining some crucial concepts, such as peace, liberal and democratic governments, I’ll present arguments that support the idea that liberal democratic states are not inherently more peaceful then other states, but that they are, in fact,

Lives will continue to be lost until treaties are established and international law is strengthened to apply to each and every country. Activists and protesters deserve fair and just treatment, and officials need to be monitored appropriately. The UN has officiated more than 560 treaties, and has an International Court of Justice to carry out the enforcement of human rights (UN). Civil action must be taken, and on a higher level than previous years. Growing discipline for all nations and setting the bar higher for everyone will slowly but surely regulate behavior and settle international relations. In an article from The Hindu, written by Nehginpao Kipgen, an ethnic cleansing is reported taking place in Myanmar during 2017. The government felt they had the power to drive 700,000 Rohingya muslims out of the country, and their actions were depicted as “crimes against humanity” by the UN (Kipgen). The ultimate solution was brought upon by the United Nations security council, and scrutinized the government by ordering them to resolve their wrongdoings and check their authority. This source again shows how international organizations have the power to stop unjust fatalities and unproportional governmental

The conflict in Myanmar is best described under a “soft” rational choice/instrumental approach. The conflict in Myanmar has incredible historical context that can specifically be related to Horowitz’s causal mechanisms of conflict. In an article by Donald Horowitz, he explains the “hard” and “soft” approaches to violence. The conflict in Myanmar can be understood using a “soft” approach because it is apparent that Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar “ can be decomposed into the motives of their members, that they are instruments for the pursuit of those motives, and that their actions need to be explained in terms of individual calculations of utility in specific

Zaw, H.N., & Tun, A.H. (2015). Voting smooth in one-time pariah Myanmar's first free election

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

Numerous scholars have determined an inverted U curve exists between regime type and political violence. In each inverted U relationship, semidemocracies experience more violence than both autocracies and democracies. Each academic explored in the following literature review, however, interprets such findings in a different manner.

My reasoning behind using Burma and Chile, is that these two cases are both similar in the fact that the factions were important in demanding change, but both obtained different outcomes. The reason why I believe that Burma failed in its attempt to become a democratic state, was due to having an enormous amount of participants that were willing to die for democracy, but overall their movements lacked in quality. According to Chenoweth and Stephan, "internal disunity and the presence of multiple armed factions weakened the opposition resistance" (Chenoweth & Stephan p.185). In Burma, its populace knew that they had to protest and riot unjust actions that General Ne Win carried out, the objective of the movements were not clear and neither was

The author of the article presents their theory around the premise of looking at civil conflicts and determining factors as to why some of these conflicts are deadlier than others. The author is looking for an explanation as to why there is a variation in the number of combat deaths in civil wars from 1946 to 2002. Lacina uses the severity of battle violence in civil conflicts as the dependent variable in the test. The independent variables are broken into three groups: State Power which consists of military quality, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the availability of foreign aid and intervention, and the role of rough terrain; the second group is Regime type which is represented as whether the country is a democracy or not; and the last group is Cultural Diversity which is comprised of ethnic and religious polarization. After Lacina runs the experiment she finds that only three of the Independent

The process of decolonization in Southeast Asia was not totally a violent struggle due to the divers natures of the process of decolonization and the fight for independence in the various Southeast Asian nations. Furthermore, although the struggle for the withdrawal of the colonial masters was lined with bloodshed and violence, there were still moments in which peaceful negotiations managed to take place, rendering the process of decolonization in Southeast Asia a largely violent struggle as one cannot say that it was totally violent due to the differing situations that occurred in the different Southeast Asian nations during the process of

In the past two years, a genocide has been going on in Myanmar that little people around the world know about. The victims that have been affected by this mass murder are the Rohingya Muslims, who originated from the subcontinent of India and are a minority group that makes up 5% of the country’s population. Today, the physical and emotional abuse endured by the Rohingya Muslims prevails a prominent issue in the Middle East. Over in Burma, many of the Muslims are murdered, beaten, or attacked by various religious groups, while government officials either stand and watch or occasionally help.

The nation of Myanmar, also known as Burma, is currently under the rule of a ruthless totalitarian regime, guilty of numerous human rights violations and target of intense international criticism. Located in Southeast Asia, on the western border of Thailand and Laos, it has been under military rule since World War II. Burma is mired in socioeconomic crisis stemming from the rule of the military junta, and the citizens are suffering. The environment of Burma is being destroyed, the people are treated inhumanely, and the country is notorious for its contribution to global narcotics. The paragraphs below detail the current situations facing the country, why they came about, and the parties that are to blame for

The present paper's aim is to consider the sociology of development as illustrated in the case study of Myanmar, with special focus on the causes of underdevelopment that can be correlated with the modernization and dependency theories, along with comparing the country of study with U.S.A. in terms of democracy, and finally offering insight into the close relationship between state and religion.