Birmanie

[0100011]

Il n'y avait pas de fil officiel. Pourtant une junte militaire tente de garder le pouvoir par tous les moyens et ça commence à ressembler à ce mois de novembre 89 en allemagne de l'est. Des manifs de plus en plus nombreuses, la pression qui monte. Si la Chine accepte de lacher le morceau (pour avoir des jeux tranquilles qui sait ?) ça pourrait le faire.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-…6-959086,0.html

[LaFéeC]

Il n'y avait pas de fil officiel. Pourtant une junte militaire tente de garder le pouvoir par tous les moyens et ça commence à ressembler à ce mois de novembre 89 en allemagne de l'est. Des manifs de plus en plus nombreuses, la pression qui monte. Si la Chine accepte de lacher le morceau (pour avoir des jeux tranquilles qui sait ?) ça pourrait le faire.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-…6-959086,0.html

Mais tu es plein d'espoir dis moi.

Je crains une répression sanglante.

Manque un fil sur le Tibet aussi non ?

[Invité jabial]

Une répression sanglante est possible mais il ne faut pas oublier que les birmans sont très croyants.

Tirer sur des moines dans un pays croyant…. mmmmmmmmh…. c'est vraiment risqué, hein. Vraiment vraiment risqué.

Disons que si répression sanglante il y a, elle devra soit être très très chirurgicale, soit très très sanglante.

Le tout est de savoir dans quel sens bougeront les chinois, et s'ils bougeront.

Je ne crois pas qu'on puisse prédire l'issue à ce stade. Le plus sûr pour la junte est probablement de laisser les choses se tasser en faisant quelques exemples par ci par là chez des gens de tous les jours (et surtout pas des gens connus dont on peut faire des martyrs) mais sans répression de large échelle.

[0100011]

Mais tu es plein d'espoir dis moi.

Je crains une répression sanglante.

Ca dépent, si le régime est si décrié que ça il peut tomber d'un coup. La légitimité est un phénomène étrange. La question est : quand est ce que le trouffion de base dira non à sa hiérarchie qui lui demande de tirer sur la foule ? J'espère que la légitimité des religieux est suffisament forte pour s'opposer à celles des militaires. Et ce sera un exemple de plus qui montre que ce ne sont pas les armes qui commencent ou arrêtent les révoltions mais bien les idées.

[jubal]

Si jamais la junte est renversee ca sera une tres bonne chose pour la birmanie et aussi pour tout les autres pays de l'ASEAN, mais j'ai du mal a y croire apres toute ces annees. Il est possible que ca ne debouche sur rien, comme d'habitude.

Ceci dit l'apparation des moines dans la politique est quand meme notable, sans etre intouchables ils beneficient quand meme d'une certaine protection la bas. Avez vous d'autre exemples ou des moines bouddhistes se sont investi de cette maniere dans la politique ? (a part le tibet)

[Mike]

Une répression sanglante est possible mais il ne faut pas oublier que les birmans sont très croyants.

Tirer sur des moines dans un pays croyant…. mmmmmmmmh…. c'est vraiment risqué, hein. Vraiment vraiment risqué.

Ca a déjà eu lieu en 1988: monastères vandalisés, moines assassinés. Pas des tonnes de cadavres mais c'est arrivé.

[Hobbart]

On se rappellera qu'en 1962, les auteurs du coup d'Etat en Birmanie ont voulu ouvrir une nouvelle "voie socialiste".

On voit ce que cela donne aujourd'hui : l'un des pays les plus pauvres du monde, alors qu'il possède tout pour faire partie des plus riches : du pétrole, du gaz, des pierres précieuses, des temples fabuleux et des forêts de teck que je verrais bien transformées en meubles dans mon salon.

Le pouvoir en place a confisqué l'économie. La corruption a remplacé le libre-échange.

Encore un bel exemple d'échec de la "révolution socialiste".

[Harald]

On se rappellera qu'en 1962, les auteurs du coup d'Etat en Birmanie ont voulu ouvrir une nouvelle "voie socialiste".

On voit ce que cela donne aujourd'hui : l'un des pays les plus pauvres du monde, alors qu'il possède tout pour faire partie des plus riches : du pétrole, du gaz, des pierres précieuses, des temples fabuleux et des forêts de teck que je verrais bien transformées en meubles dans mon salon.

Le pouvoir en place a confisqué l'économie. La corruption a remplacé le libre-échange.

Encore un bel exemple d'échec de la "révolution socialiste".

Ajoutons à cela que la Birmanie est le premier producteur d'héroïne et d'amphétamines. Ce serait bien le diable s'il n'y avait pas une connection entre les gouvernants et les trafiquants, sauf bien sûr si ce sont les mêmes.

[Tobias]

Pas des tonnes de cadavres mais c'est arrivé.

Près de 3000 morts quand même.

Ici, ça en reste "juste" à des menaces et à des arrestations : " trois ans pour quiconque regarde les manifestations, et dix pour ceux qui y participent". Mais la tournure de ces manifestations sera peut-être différente, vu la pression médiatique. La junte hésite encore à user des armes. Enfin, ça pourrait devenir très vite violent.

[Nick de Cusa]

Si jamais la junte est renversee ca sera une tres bonne chose pour la birmanie et aussi pour tout les autres pays de l'ASEAN, mais j'ai du mal a y croire apres toute ces annees…

La seule chose qui est sûre c'est que chaque année qui passe nous rapproche de la chute de la junte.

[L'affreux]

Reçu hier de RSF : un appel à manifester cette après-midi à Paris.

——-- Original Message ——--

Subject: Manifestation BIRMANIE

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:55:31 +0200

From: Reporters sans frontières <>

BIRMANIE

APPEL A MANIFESTER

Nous condamnons une nouvelle répression sanglante

Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies doit agir d'urgence

Pour des sanctions effectives contre le régime militaire

Jeudi 27 Septembre 2007 à partir de 14h00.

60 rue de Courcelles, 75008 Paris

Metro : Courcelles

En présence de Jane Birkin

Des milliers de moines et d'étudiants continuent de manifester pacifiquement aujourd'hui à Rangoon et dans plusieurs villes de Birmanie, en dépit du déploiement de forces militaires visant à imposer par la force l'interdiction de se rassembler. L'armée, la police et des membres de l'Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), une organisation aux mains de la junte, les ont brutalement attaqués, et de nombreux manifestants ont été arrêtés.

Les forces de sécurité entourent les principaux monastères. Nous craignons une répression sanglante comme celle de 1988. Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, présidé par la France, doit appeler la junte militaire à ouvrir un dialogue avec l'opposition birmane pour sortir de la crise. Mais deux membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité, la Chine et la Russie, font obstacle à une telle initiative. Nos gouvernements doivent obtenir de ces deux pays qu'ils ne mettent pas leur veto contre une telle résolution.

En signe de solidarité avec le mouvement de protestation et pour prévenir un nouveau massacre et en appeler à la responsabilité de nos gouvernements, nous appelons à manifester avec les démocrates birmans en exil en France, face à l'Ambassade de Birmanie/Myanmar à Paris.

Contacts :

U Kumara - moine birman

Htin Kyaw Lwin

Virginie Perron - LDH

Gaël Grilhot - FIDH

Info-Birmanie

Anne-Laure Saluden - RSF

[L'affreux]

Ca dépent, si le régime est si décrié que ça il peut tomber d'un coup. La légitimité est un phénomène étrange. La question est : quand est ce que le trouffion de base dira non à sa hiérarchie qui lui demande de tirer sur la foule ? J'espère que la légitimité des religieux est suffisament forte pour s'opposer à celles des militaires. Et ce sera un exemple de plus qui montre que ce ne sont pas les armes qui commencent ou arrêtent les révoltions mais bien les idées.

Oui, espérons que cela finira. L'opposition non-violente menée par Aung San Suu Kyi dure depuis longtemps…

[(V)]

..ca sera une tres bonne chose pour la birmanie ..

Ce sera la Birmanie tout court d’ailleurs. Car pour l’instant, c’est le Myanmar. Et il est tendancieux de parler à tout va de la « Birmanie », alors qu’il y a moins d’un mois les média désignaient encore ce pays par son nom officiel.

[jubal]

Ce sera la Birmanie tout court d’ailleurs. Car pour l’instant, c’est le Myanmar. Et il est tendancieux de parler à tout va de la « Birmanie », alors qu’il y a moins d’un mois les média désignaient encore ce pays par son nom officiel.

C'est le myanmar sur les cartes, mais en thailande et en birmanie tout le monde utilise encore l'ancien nom "burma".

[Chitah]

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070926/140058.shtml

[phantom_opera]

Avez vous d'autre exemples ou des moines bouddhistes se sont investi de cette maniere dans la politique ? (a part le tibet)

Au Vietnam du Sud en 63 pour renverser le gouvernement chrétien au pouvoir.

[L'affreux]

Avez vous d'autre exemples ou des moines bouddhistes se sont investi de cette maniere dans la politique ? (a part le tibet)

En Mongolie en 1989, des moines n'ont pas organisés mais ont soutenus les grévistes de la faim, lorsque le pays s'est libéré du côté totalitaire du régime communiste.

Sinon en Pologne Solidarity s'est largement appuyé sur les prêtres catholiques. En 1905 en Russie le Tsar a failli tomber suite à la révolution en partie non-violente dont un prêtre orthodoxe a été le catalyseur. Gandhi en Afrique du Sud et en Inde avait une démarche simultanément spirituelle et politique. Martin Luther King était un pasteur… La plupart de ceux qui initient des mouvements non-violents ont une démarche spirituelle qui va avec, ou bien sont étudiants.

[Taisei Yokusankai]

Et il est tendancieux de parler à tout va de la « Birmanie », alors qu’il y a moins d’un mois les média désignaient encore ce pays par son nom officiel.

Ce qui est tendancieux, c'est d'utiliser le nom Myanmar, choisit en 1989 par une dictature, non reconnu par l'ensemble de la communauté internationale (USA et UK non, ONU oui). L'opposition insiste d'ailleurs à raison sur leur qualité de birmans vivant en Birmanie. Dès que le régime tombera, la pays reprendra son ancien nom. On m'a appris à dire Congo plutôt que Zaïre à l'époque de Mobutu, je trouve ça sensé et ne compte pas faire l'inverse dans ce cas-ci.

[Mike]

Ca y est, j'ai appris (de source sûre) que plusieurs moines (moins de 10) ont été tués en Birmanie.

[José]

The saffron revolution

Sep 27th 2007

From The Economist print edition

If the world acts in concert, the violence should be the last spasm of a vicious regime in its death throes

“FEAR”, the lady used to say, “is a habit.” This week, inspired in part by the lady herself, Aung San Suu Kyi, partly by the heroic example set by Buddhist monks, Myanmar's people kicked the addiction.

Defying the corrupt, inept, brutal generals who rule them, they took to the streets in their hundreds of thousands to demand democracy. They knew they were risking a bloody crackdown, like the one that put down a huge popular revolt in 1988, killing 3,000 people or more. In 1988 Burma's people were betrayed not just by the ruthlessness of their rulers, but also by the squabbling and opportunism of the outside world, which failed to produce a co-ordinated response and let the murderous regime get away with it. This time, soldiers are once again shooting and killing unarmed protesters (see article). Can the world avoid making the same mistake twice?

In New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Western leaders, led by George Bush, harangued the junta, and threatened yet more sanctions. They have probably already shot their bolt. Western sanctions have been tried and have failed, in part because Myanmar's neighbours have for years followed a different approach. Its fellow members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations waffled about “constructive engagement” while making economic hay in Myanmar from the West's withdrawal. India, too, anxious about China's growing influence, and hungry for oil and gas, has swallowed its democratic traditions and courted the generals.

Comrades-in-armsChina itself has built an ever-closer relationship. The two countries, after all, have a lot in common beyond a shared border. Since the 1980s a wave of “people-power” revolutions has swept aside tyrannies around the world. Mercifully few regimes, and few armies, are willing to kill large numbers of their own people to stay in power. Two big exceptions have been Myanmar and China, whose government in 1989 likewise stayed in power through a massacre.

Yet it is China that now offers the best hope the outside world has of changing Myanmar for the better. Admittedly, it is a thin hope. There are plenty of reasons to doubt China's willingness to upset Myanmar's generals. China's traditional posture, heard again this week, is to oppose any “interference in the internal affairs of another country”. It trots out this formula so often when foreigners criticise its own behaviour that, even if it supports change, it is hard for it to utter more than platitudes, as it has this month, about the desirability of a “democracy process that is appropriate for the country”.

China has also been the chief beneficiary of the partial Western boycott. Myanmar offers two of the prizes China values most in its foreign friends: hydrocarbon resources and a friendly army, willing to give it access to facilities on its coast on the Bay of Bengal. China has become the junta's biggest commercial partner and diplomatic supporter.

Nevertheless there are two reasons why China might now see its own interests as best served by assisting a peaceful transition in Myanmar. The first is that China wants stability on its borders, and it is becoming obvious that the junta cannot provide it. The generals' economic mismanagement has helped reduce a country blessed with rich resources to crippling poverty. Fleeing economic misery as much as political oppression, up to 2m migrants from Myanmar are in Thailand. And it was an economic grievance—a big, abrupt rise in fuel prices—that sparked the present unrest.

The junta has at least succeeded in cobbling together ceasefire agreements with most of the two dozen armed insurgencies lining its borders. But the price has been lawless zones where banditry and illegal-drug production are rife. Myanmar's slice of the “Golden Triangle” on its Thai and Lao borders was for a while in the 1990s the world's dominant heroin producer. It has been largely priced out of that market by Afghan competition. But it has successfully diversified into methamphetamines. The business relies on precursor chemicals coming from China, but, just as heroin from Myanmar brought China addiction and, through shared needles, HIV and AIDS, so “ice” can wreak havoc. Nobody expects any transition to democracy to be trouble-free. But, Chinese leaders must be asking themselves, can it be any worse?

Appealing to the Olympic spirit

China must also be wondering nervously how all this will affect next year's Olympic games in Beijing. Already, protests about China's support for the government of Sudan, larded with comparisons to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, have shown that its foreign policy as well as its human-rights record at home is under scrutiny. Myanmar is justifiably a popular cause in the West. If China proves actively obstructive to international efforts to bring the junta to book, it may provoke calls for a boycott of the games.

It is of course wrong to assume that China can dictate to Myanmar. In the generals' deluded world-view, only they can preserve Myanmar's independence. They will take orders from no other country. China's role is crucial, nonetheless. It must not blunt the impact of measures taken by other countries and provide the junta with a shield to fend off demands to do what it should.

That, at least, is easy to prescribe. It should stop shooting protesters; free all political prisoners, including Miss Suu Kyi; scrap the constitutional guidelines drawn up by its farcical “national convention”; and start serious talks with all groups, including Miss Suu Kyi and her party. The aim of those talks should also be clear: to arrange a transition to civilian, democratic rule. For their part, provided free and fair new elections are held, Miss Suu Kyi and her party should not insist on the results of the election they won in a landslide in 1990 being honoured. And, unpalatable as it is, they should offer the generals whatever incentive they need to go quietly. This all sounds a pipedream. It will certainly remain so if the outside world does not unite around a set of demands, and agree on the sticks and carrots that might make deaf old soldiers listen.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaySt…tory_ID=9867036

On the brink

Sep 27th 2007 | BANGKOK AND YANGON

From The Economist print edition

How Myanmar's people rose up against its regime—and the regime rose up against its people

THERE are reckoned to be 400,000 monks in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), about the same as the number of soldiers under the ruling junta's command. The soldiers have the guns. The monks have the public's support and, judging from the past fortnight's protests, the courage and determination to defy the regime. But Myanmar's tragic recent history suggests that when an immovable junta meets unstoppable protests, much blood is spilled. In the last pro-democracy protests on this scale, in 1988, it took several rounds of massacres before the demonstrations finally subsided, leaving the regime as strong as ever. By September 27th, with a crackdown under way, and the first deaths from clashes with security forces, it seemed hard to imagine that things would be very different this time.

One genuine difference is that, in the age of the internet and digital cameras, images of the spectacular protests in Yangon, the main city, have spread at lightning speed across Myanmar itself, encouraging people in other towns to stage demonstrations of their own; and around the world, bringing the crisis to the attention of leaders as they gathered in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The remarkable images from Myanmar have meant that, for a while at least, a country that has been brutalised and pauperised by a callous and incompetent regime for 45 years has the attention it deserves.

The latest round of protests began last month, after the government suddenly imposed drastic fuel-price rises. At first, the demonstrations, organised by veterans of the students' movement that led the 1988 protests, were fairly small. The regime arrested many leaders and sent plain-clothed goons to beat up demonstrators. It looked as if the protests might fizzle until, earlier this month, soldiers fired over the heads of monks demonstrating in the central town of Pakkoku. Some reports said monks were also beaten and arrested.

In Buddhist tradition, monks are rather different from in the West: large numbers of young men don russet robes for just a few years. So they are more integrated into the wider society, and more influential.

The clergy demanded an apology, setting a deadline of September 17th. The next day, their demand having been ignored, they took to the streets. They also, in effect, excommunicated the military and their families by announcing they would refuse to accept alms from them—a serious matter in a devout country.

Setting out at 1pm each day from the golden Shwedagon pagoda—Myanmar's most sacred shrine—a seemingly endless line of shaven-headed monks, many barefoot, has passed through the streets of Yangon. At first the monks limited themselves to chanting prayers and discouraged the public from joining them. But on September 22nd a hitherto unknown group, the All Burma Monks' Alliance, called on people to “struggle peacefully against the evil military dictatorship”. After this, large numbers of ordinary Burmese joined in, many linking hands along the route of the monks' procession. The monks' chants became overtly political, including the cry, “democracy, democracy”.

At first, the regime dithered. It fired tear-gas canisters at one of the first monks' protests, in the western town of Sittwe. But for the next few days, its forces stayed out of sight. On September 22nd, to their astonishment, a group of monks and laymen was allowed to pray outside the normally heavily guarded home of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) and icon of Myanmar's struggle for democracy. Though Miss Suu Kyi is under house arrest, she was able to walk to her gate and, in tears herself, greet the tearful protesters.

Miss Suu Kyi's public appearance—her first since she was detained four years ago—proved a boon to the demonstrators. On Monday (September 24th) the protest in Yangon was said to be 100,000-strong. Monks waved the red “fighting peacock” flag, the emblem of the students who led the 1988 protests.

That night the regime broke its silence at last. On state television and radio, it warned of unspecified action “according to the law” if protests continued. The next day the protesters defied the threat, staging a demonstration at least as big as Monday's. As on previous days, the young monks were marshalled along the route by older ones with megaphones, followed by a vast throng of ordinary Burmese, and the odd government spy.

Those taking part were enormously moved by the defiance they achieved, as if that were an end in itself. Yet no one The Economist spoke to believed the government would yield; they were marching less in hope than in anger and despair. “I don't think we can defeat the government; I can't imagine what will happen,” said one young woman, “But we hope. We hope for the success of our revolution.”

Soon after Tuesday's march ended, troops and riot police moved in to positions around Yangon. The junta hunkered down for talks in Naypyidaw. That is the remote new capital the paranoid regime has built itself in the centre of the country for obscure reasons (perhaps on the advice of its soothsayers, or in fear of an American invasion, or of just this sort of popular uprising). Britain's ambassador, Mark Canning, went there and met two deputy ministers. He said they were under the illusion that the protests had been stoked by “meddling” foreign powers. Miss Suu Kyi was reported to have been moved to the regime's dreaded Insein prison.

On Wednesday the authorities announced a two-month night-time curfew and troops surrounded monasteries in Yangon. But swarms of protesters again poured on to the streets, defying tear-gas, warning shots and baton charges. The first deaths, including of monks, were reported. On Thursday, troops burst into monasteries around the country to make arrests but, again, this did not stop monks and laymen from hitting the streets, where riot police shot at them.

In 1988, when protests also had an economic basis, monks took an active part. They did so again in 1990, after the regime called an election and ignored the result (a landslide victory for the NLD). But this time they are in the vanguard. Given the reverence they are accorded by the predominantly Buddhist public, they will be harder for the regime to dismiss as criminals and subversives.

It is unclear who is leading the monks' protest movement, says Aung Naing Oo, a political analyst and veteran of the 1988 student movement. But, he says, they seem well organised. Some of the clergy's top leaders on the State Sangha Council have been bought off by the regime. Others, though, seem sympathetic to their young disciples. At the very least, says Mr Oo, it can be assumed that the protesting monks have the blessing of the abbots in charge of the monasteries. The raids on the monasteries seem designed to smash this source of resistance.

The tatmadaw (armed forces) did not hesitate to arrest, beat and jail monks in 1988 and 1990. But this time, not only are the monks (and many Buddhist nuns too) leading the protests, but the numbers taking part are also far larger than before. Furthermore, the army has changed. In 1988 it was mostly professional and had recent experience of waging war against Myanmar's sizeable ethnic-minority militias. Since then its numbers have been greatly expanded through conscription, which means many of today's soldiers are ill-trained peasant boys, whose families will have suffered from the regime's colossal incompetence. Ironically, the army's success in forcing many of the armed ethnic insurgencies to accept ceasefires has left it with few soldiers with much real experience of fighting.

The regime may be trying to calibrate its response to the protests, using limited force at first to quell opponents. That said, it still has elite disciplined units which would be unlikely to flinch if ordered to open fire on unarmed monks and nuns.

If there are any cracks in the junta's unity, nobody outside knows about them. General Than Shwe, the 74-year-old paramount leader, is rumoured to be gravely ill but it is assumed that, when he goes, his replacement will be just as thuggish. Taking account both of the expanded army and of the sizeable ethnic militias, Myanmar is one of the world's most militarised countries, notes Martin Smith, a writer on the place. The junta's leaders, pointing to the country's chaotic period of parliamentary democracy between independence in 1948 and the military takeover in 1962, sincerely believe the army is the only institution capable of holding Myanmar together. They are determined to cling to power whatever the cost.

It is just possible, however, that the regime may match violence with concessions. Earlier this month, it wrapped up, after 14 years, a national convention to draft the guidelines for a new and supposedly democratic constitution. In fact, the new charter would leave the army in charge and political rights severely curtailed. But its precise wording has not yet been decided and the next steps towards implementing it are uncertain. This leaves scope for promises of progress, in the hope that this will weaken the protests.

A bloody dawn?

Few demonstrators would trust such promises. But, combined with a stranglehold on the monasteries, and other repressive measures aimed at whittling down the numbers of protesters, they might be enough to show, once again, that resistance is futile. Back in 1988, at the peak of the protests, even as soldiers were mowing down the crowds, many Burmese felt sure the rotten regime was ready to collapse under the unstoppable force of “people power”, as the Marcos regime in the Philippines had two years earlier.

Even if the regime does crumble and the junta stuffs its bags with gemstones and heads for exile, Myanmar's troubles would still be daunting. Many of the ethnic minorities continue to distrust the majority “Burmans”, even including the democrats. And the NLD has been gutted by years of oppression. Miss Suu Kyi, inspiring figure though she is, is an untested leader who has perforce been woefully out of touch with events.

As in 1988 and 1990 the Burmese people have shown they want to choose their own leaders. In the past they did not fully reckon on the ruthlessness of the people they were up against. One day, as with all tyrannies, Myanmar's will fall. But much blood may flow before that day dawns.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9868041

[Aurel]

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaySt…tory_ID=9867036

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9868041

Bien plus fiable que The Economist, ici.

En venir à faire de l'autopromotion à deux balles, merde alors !

[José]

Tu le vaux bien.

[Nick de Cusa]

Je suis curieux de savoir si on aurait la même vague de sympathie au cas où des imams et des cheiks déscendraient dans la rue pour virer enfin Benali.

[Patrick Smets]

Ca y est, j'ai appris (de source sûre) que plusieurs moines (moins de 10) ont été tués en Birmanie.

ben, franchement, je trouve les nouvelles des derniers jours plutot rassurantes.

Une dizaine de mort pour écraser un mouvement populaire, c'est encore très raisonnable.

[Invité jabial]

Je suis curieux de savoir si on aurait la même vague de sympathie au cas où des imams et des cheiks déscendraient dans la rue pour virer enfin Benali.

La dictature de Ben Ali se comporte de la même manière que la junte Birmane???

[Nick de Cusa]

La dictature de Ben Ali se comporte de la même manière que la junte Birmane???

Ca n'est jamais identique d'un pays à l'autre mais le parti unique tient le pays d'une main de fer grâce à un appareil de renseignement et de sécurité hypertrophié qui ne laisse aucune place à la liberté d'expression. Ils avaient tabassé un journaliste de Libé et ça avait fait du bruit, mais dès que tu ouvres ta gueule en Tunisie, les brimades commencent: menaces, privations, arrestations, violences, sur toi et ta famille. L'internet y est aussi contôlé qu'en Chine.

Tout le monde souhaite la cacher parceque Benali est vu comme le rempart contre le basculement de la rive Sud de la Mediterranée dans la sphère d'influence des (ouuuuuh, frisson) islamistes.

Il ne me semble pas que ce régime est intrinsèquement plus recommandable que le Birman, non.

EDIT: je corrige une erreur. La Birmanie a pratiqué le travail forcé, l'esclavage, quoi. la Tunisie, non.

[Punu]

Ca faisait un an que je n'étais plus retourné au temple zen. Comme prévu, la mère supérieure a fait un speech poético-métaphorique sur nos frères birmans (dont la moitié au moins m'a échappé). Cette femme est encore pire que David Lynch.

[José]

Ca faisait un an que je n'étais plus retourné au temple zen.

Attends…

…je remonte sur ma chaise…

Tu vas au temple ?

[Punu]

De temps en temps, parce que la méditation tout seul, ça ne marche vraiment pas. Par contre, quand tu as 20 personnes autour de toi, tu n'oses pas te lever après un quart d'heure, moment où ça devient vraiment intéressant.

[José]

…après un quart d'heure, moment où ça devient vraiment intéressant.

C'est la même chose pour le yoga espagnol. (Que je pratique religieusement.)