Center for a New American Security

By now most of our esteemed readers will have read about the horrific typhoon in Burma, leaving more than 20,000 dead:

A powerful cyclone that destroyed a vast swath of coastal Myanmar and left many thousands of people dead prompted the country’s military leaders to allow some foreign aid groups to deliver relief supplies on Tuesday. But the ruling junta came under increasing pressure to further open its doors — and even relax its tight political grip — to grapple with the growing disaster.

When Charlie heard about the scope of the disaster (initial estimates were for 10,000 dead), she thought that this was a classic example of an (exogenous) event event that sparks a regime crisis. She's not alone:

The postponement of the [constitutional] vote, a centerpiece of government policy, along with an appeal for foreign disaster aid, were difficult concessions by an insular military junta that portrays itself as all-powerful and self-sufficient, political analysts said.

This of course all comes on the heels of last fall's brutal crackdown on the peaceful mass protest by Burma's Buddhist monks (beautifully written about by George Packer, complete with Hannah Arendt commentary). None of which is to say that this will eventually topple the odious regime in Rangoon. But natural disasters provide 2 things that are relevant to the sport of protest and revolution: 1) space to challenge both the legitimacy and efficacy of the existing government, and 2) opportunities for opposition groups and other non-state actors to deepen their civil society networks and slowly become the second locus in Charles Tilly's "dual sovereignty," ie, an effective and viable alternative to current regime.

(The example that most readily comes to mind here is the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the 1992 earthquake, but there are many others...in fact, leave your favorites in the comments.)

All of which is to say: stay tuned.

PS If there are any veteran Burma watchers lurking amidst our readers, please chime in (you, too, Packer). Your faithful bloggers are woefully lacking in SE Asia expertise.

Update: Charlie asks, George answers:

It now appears that as many as a hundred thousand Burmese might have perished in last weekend’s cyclone. The worst of the destruction is in the Irrawaddy River delta, the country’s rice bowl, and this year’s planting and harvest are in jeopardy.

[...]

An event of this magnitude reveals the nature of a regime....But it’s not surprising to anyone who studies Burma that the military regime is actively preventing aid workers from entering the country. The junta wants the money and supplies, but it doesn’t want the foreigners with their helicopters and expertise, for the same reason that it doesn’t allow journalists to enter Burma: the regime survives by smothering the truth, from its own people and from the outside world. Its sense of threat from the population is so great that the military is refusing to allow monks to shelter refugees in monasteries, fearing a repetition of last September’s peaceful demonstrations. Residents of Rangoon complain bitterly that the troops who were so evident in the capital’s streets during those events, and so ready to beat and kill their countrymen, are nowhere to be found now that millions of people are in desperate circumstances. And yet most of the soldiers have few options and are themselves dirt-poor.

Organizing a protest or boycott has always been a difficult affair. After all, the individual logic simply doesn't add up. For example, "why should I boycott a product that I like when it causes me harm but is unlikely to cause harm to a company or change practices that I don't like? "

(see, for instance, Dogbert's great quip to Dilbert about buying a fuel efficient car)

A new application for Facebook may provide a model by which to change the rules of the game and, when employed as part of a coordinated campaign, change the underlying personal logic of mass protest.

The application, called "Ultimatums," allows users to establish a threshold of people boycotting or protesting that the group believes will be sufficient to change the behavior of their target. Users then pledge to act, but only when the threshold has been crossed.

For instance, a local store places an anti-immigrant sign on their door. Local high school students then develop a protest based on boycotting the store. They use the Ultimatum App and post their ultimatum on Facebook. "Take down the sign, or your store will be boycotted." They can then set a threshold of 2,000, feeling that the small store would balk or fold at this level of protest in the community. The store could follow along to see if its stance is actually bad for business.

Of course, there are problems in the model. No one has proven that a commitment made by all the beautiful, intelligent, and extroverted personalities of social networking sites translates into action by living counterparts in the real world. Also, in the case of the small store owner, he may not care if 2,000 people sign up for the protest if 95% of them are empathetic high school students from a different zip code who have never shopped at the store.

On mass issues, however, such as Walmart and healthcare or the presidential elections, it may offer the ability to mobilize masses of people--and may be able to stimulate change by the threat of mobilization. Beyond that, it offers counterinsurgents fighting in less wired lands (and, of course, their enemies) an insight into how to mobilize people. The logic for an individual family to resist the insurgents does not work. However, if we can gain commitments to participate in self-policing at a certain threshold and demonstrate our ability to meet that threshold, then perhaps we can change the individual logic of fear.

Kip has always been more interested in irregular warfare than insurgency, per se (just as another day he'll go into why he hates the word "counterinsurgency," even as one of its junior proponents). The success of some peaceful protest, and particularly of Ghandi in India and Solidarity in Poland provide some abject lessons on other ways that military power can occasionally be defeated. (If you have not read Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall's A Force More Powerful, I heartily recommend it as a must-read for the now-skeptical-of-Kip's-sanity 21st century counterinsurgent).


Today a peaceful protest of about 20 people erupted in Myanmar long-running conflict to restore (or inhibit from the standpoint of the government) democracy. Burma has an incredibly complex colonial history, on which Kip is insufficiently expert and on which there is insufficient space to outline. Yet in a long struggle for democracy in Burma, Kip believes the jury is still out on whether nonviolent protest will have proven the most effective means of gradual change in one of the world's most isolated countries (probably on par with North Korea)...you know you're in trouble when even China occasionally complains about your human rights record.