[ad_1]
TOHe first, sheets of paper with Min Aung Hlaing’s face were taped up in the streets, ready to be stamped by angry protesters in Myanmar’s main city, Yangon. The troops quickly removed the pages, only for the resourceful protesters to return with stencils to paint the image of the junta leader on the concrete.
The protest tactic offered some protection against the charging soldiers, who were apparently prohibited from stepping on an image of their commander-in-chief. It was also an opportunity for the public to express their deep disdain for the man who stole their democracy.
Min Aung Hlaing’s decision to take power on February 1 abruptly ended Myanmar’s transition, after decades of military rule, to a more democratic system, and sparked fury across the country. It also presented the military with one of the greatest challenges in its 80-year history, as protesters took to the streets of cities, towns, and villages as large numbers went on strike, paralyzing commerce, banks and businesses. transportation systems.
“It was a massive strategic miscalculation on their part,” said Richard Horsey, an independent political analyst, adding that the military appeared to have severely underestimated the level of public opposition. “But I think they still believe they can win this.”
Faced with opposition from across society, the military has unleashed a campaign of terror and chaos. Protesters are detained, brutally beaten and, increasingly, shot to death. After dark, truckloads of troops swarm through residential areas, firing indiscriminately and throwing stun grenades. Houses are raided every night, and officers go door to door arresting protesters and anyone deemed to be protecting them. Some 1,800 people have been taken, although this is probably an underestimate.
“The level of violence and intimidation they have to impose is creating a source of hatred and opposition that is unifying much of the country,” Horsey added. “They will be able to use the violence necessary to impose their will, but then what?”
The military will remain presiding over a country with multiple and deep crises, he added, with much less national or international support.
Min Aung Hlaing seemed to have thought that the protests would be easier to suppress and that he could win the support of people frustrated with the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, who came to power in the 2015 elections, the first free vote in decades. So far, both assumptions have turned out to be wrong.
“I think the state board of directors [the junta] they probably calculated that there would be demonstrations, but they probably underestimated how sustained and creative they would be, ”said Moe Thuzar, co-coordinator of the Myanmar studies program at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. They also underestimated the potential impact of the protesters’ civil disobedience movement, he added, in which large numbers of people left their jobs, paralyzing the country. In the face of such widespread opposition, the junta is turning to the authoritarian manual of the past.
The brutal use of violence by the military means that there are now far fewer people protesting. Yet many still refuse to go to work, increasingly because they are too afraid to do so when the military is out on the streets.
Min Aung Hlaing took over as commander-in-chief in 2011 when Myanmar began the transition to democracy, under a constitution that gave the armed forces significant powers. He was due to retire soon and it was widely known that he aspired to be president, a position that the Aung San Suu Kyi National League for Democracy (NLD) refused to grant him.
In an interview with Russia Today last June, one presenter praised his leadership qualities before adding that she hoped he “could serve with higher authorities in the interests of the country, the world and world peace.” He replied, “I always have those wishes.”
When the armed forces delegate party was humiliatingly defeated in the November elections, and it became clear that Min Aung Hlaing’s ambitions would not be realized at the polls, the armed forces accused the NLD, without evidence, of fraud. electoral, affirms that it used to justify the coup.
Min Aung Hlaing’s relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi was strained and there was reportedly almost no face-to-face communication, with both apparently fearing what their counterpart was up to. Analysts believe there was anger at what the generals saw as Aung San Suu Kyi’s arrogant refusal to consider her concerns regarding last year’s election, only adding to the military’s fear that they had been marginalized since acceding. to share the power.
In fact, the military had retained enormous powers, including autonomy over defense, and received a larger share of the national budget than health and education combined, as well as retaining its lucrative business networks.
Since the coup, some Western governments have tried to target the military’s financial interests to pressure the regime to act in restraint, although the strike movement is inflicting far greater damage than potential sanctions might hope.
Thuzar said the number of people participating varied between ministries, but in the ministry of natural resources and environment, 56% refused to work, according to one estimate.
“Even if only half of the people in customs at a border trading post, the people who are supposed to process incoming goods, are participating, that slows things down. It affects the supply chain, ”he said. One of the most brutal repressions against protesters was against shipyard workers who had refused to work, apparently paralyzing trade.
“The current situation is testing the unity of the military in a way that has probably never been tested before,” Horsey said.
There is no indication that the generals can turn against Min Aung Hlaing, although divisions are not impossible. Most analysts agree that the military is so opaque that there is no way of knowing if there is disunity. “The only thing that is predictable is that the military has the power to escalate violence and try to end this,” said David Mathieson, an independent Myanmar analyst. “But at what cost?”
