Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article: A1357-W969

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1357-W969

Release Date: February 3, 2021

发布日：2021年2月3日

Topic: Lessons From the Military Coup in Myanmar -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：缅甸军事政变的教训 -- 魏京生

Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)

此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）

Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release. If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request for special delivery to us or visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2021/report2021-2/WeiJS210203onBurmaCoupA1357-W969.htm which contains identical information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lessons From the Military Coup in Myanmar

-- Wei Jingsheng

Another military coup in Myanmar happened, that shocked the whole world. It took people a couple of days to react and begin to condemn the coup almost unanimously. To say almost unanimously is because the response from the Chinese Communist regime seems to be different from the others'. There is a murderous intention hidden in its mud-mixing expression. It seems that it knew in advance that this coup would be beneficial to the Communist Party. Its Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Myanmar right before the coup.

What was the direct cause of this coup? Some people say that it was due to different political approaches, and some people say it was due to a change in the distribution of interests, but these are correct yet not quite enough. Different opinions often occur, and the interest distribution also changes. Are these enough to cause a military coup? The specious media critics are looking for words and fooling readers without catching the most important points.

The real reason is that after the last democratic election in Burma, the Western capitalists hurriedly lifted the sanctions without resolving the independence of its military. These capitalists were doing so in order to seize the Burmese market, yet they planted a hidden danger for the democratization of Myanmar. Of course, Aung San Suu Kyi’s government may have adopted a stance getting closer to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) out of distrust of the West and wanting to step on two boats at the same time.

This included her relying on domestic nationalist ideological trends to boost her own approval rate, so she received the current ultra-high approval rate. However, Adolf Hitler also has a very high approval rate. But was that democracy? The CCP also had a very high approval rate in its early days of coming to power. This early approval makes the simple minded democrats who are full of thinking of the Communist Party confused. In fact, democracy is not only elections, but also includes much indispensable content, and the nationalization of the military is part and parcel.

The nationalization of the military is not only a basic condition for a modern democratic regime, but also a necessary condition for modernization even without democracy. Throughout Chinese history, the nationalization of the military is a decisive condition for the stability of the power of a major country. Many scholars in the past twenty five hundred years have not understood why Confucius put the boundary between the Spring and Autumn Period (771BC-476BC) and the Warring States Period (476BC-221BC) on the divisions of the Jin Country by three other countries. Their various reasons were actually of not to the point.

The division of the Jin Country into the other three countries is precisely the boundary between the privatization of the military and the nationalization of the military. What prevailed in the Spring and Autumn Period was that the army was in the hands of the individual lords. When a war broke out, the monarch mobilized the army from the lords, and the monarch maintained a balance between the lords in other times. When the lords’ armies became larger and larger due to mergers, and the monarch was unable to maintain balance, the three countries divided the Jin kingdom.

Since then, the national system has undergone tremendous changes. The nationalization of the military had alleviated concerns about internal rebellion, and the speed of mergers has been greatly accelerated. However, the wars in the Warring States Period did not become more frequent. In the previous Spring and Autumn Period, wars were more frequent. Of course, the nationalization of the military is not the only factor. Institutional competition was even more important. Freeing the slaves and the privatization of the land were also important reasons leading to strengthening competitiveness.

So since the Qin and Han dynasties (221BC-220AC), the nationalization of the military has been an important condition for social stability. In the subsequent dynasties, apart from being invaded and subjugated by foreign enemies, the privatization of the army led to instability in China and even the destruction of the dynasty. The most typical one was the Tang Dynasty, but also the Han Dynasty. The decline of the Tang Dynasty began when the buffer towns of the military became stronger. The so-called An Lushan Rebellion began with the privatization of the army.

The international community helped Burma solve its election issue. But the international community, including Aung San Suu Kyi herself, did not solve the problem of privatization of the military. Can such a democracy be maintained? Coupled with Aung San Suu Kyi's wrong strategy of trying to “hold the emperor in order to command the princes” (as described in Chinese proverb), and her way of thinking to balance big powers, eventually led to the result of a military coup. For a democratic government, the people are the emperor. But for a military dictatorship, the people are trivial grass on the roadside. In a situation where the army is still privatized and democracy is not yet stable, holding the emperor cannot command the princes, because the princes (of the military) do not approve of “this emperor” (made of people).

On this issue, the CCP is smarter than the Nazis and the Soviet Union. The Nazis and the Soviet Union both had the Wehrmacht for the country, while the CCP only has the full Schutzstaffel for the party. The Chinese army is the private army of the Chinese Communist Party. This is a principle that Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping absolutely adhere to. In an environment where the basic system of the country is not democratic, speculation about the nationalization of the military will not be accepted by the CCP. They understand well that if the army ceases to be a private army of the Communist Party, then it will not be far from a military coup against the Communist dictatorship itself.

(This English version is translated by Ciping HUANG, without any compensation. Wei Jingsheng and the Wei Jingsheng Foundation appreciate her decades of contribution, especially for allowing the use and distribution of her translations of these commentaries.)

Original link of the commentary broadcasted by Radio Free Asia:

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-02032021114312.html

To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2021/WeiJS210202onBurmaCoup.mp3

(Written and recorded on February 2, 2021. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia on February 3, 2021.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org

The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help in any means. We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet.

You are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org

Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well. You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.

For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org

To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:

www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org

for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.

You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or

Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-270-6980

Wei Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:

Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA

You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process your request.

*****************************************************************

中文版

Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article: A1357-W969

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1357-W969

Release Date: February 3, 2021

发布日：2021年2月3日

Topic: Lessons From the Military Coup in Myanmar -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：缅甸军事政变的教训 -- 魏京生

Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)

此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）

如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问：

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2021/report2021-2/WeiJS210203onBurmaCoupA1357-W969.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

缅甸军事政变的教训

-- 魏京生

缅甸再次发生军事政变，让全世界都惊呆了。过了两天才反应过来，开始几乎一致的谴责。说几乎一致，是因为中国共产党的反应似乎和大家不一样，和稀泥的表态里暗藏着杀机，好像他们事先就知道这次政变对共产党有利，王毅外长政变前刚访问了缅甸。

造成这次政变的直接原因是什么呢？有人说是政治路线的不同，有人说是利益分配的改变，都是也都不是。观点不同常有，利益分配也不是一成不变，难道都要发生军事政变吗？没抓住重点，似是而非的媒体评论家们这是在没话找话，忽悠读者。

真正的原因是上一次民主选举之后，在没有解决军队独立的前提下，西方资本家们着急嘛慌地解除了制裁，为了抢占市场，给缅甸的民主化埋下了隐患。当然，昂山素季政府可能出于对西方的不信任，采取了靠拢中共的立场，想脚踩两只船。

这包括依靠国内民族主义思潮，拉抬自己的支持率，所以有了现在的超高支持率。但是，希特勒也有超高的支持率，那就是民主了吗？中共上台初期也有超高的支持率。这让满脑子共产党思维的简单派民主人士想不通了。其实民主不仅仅是选举，还包括许多不可或缺的内容，军队国家化是其中之一。

军队国家化不单是现代民主政权的基本条件，也是不民主但走向现代化的必备条件。纵观中国历史，军队国家化是大国政权走向稳定的决定性条件。两千五百年来的很多学者都不明白，孔子为什么把春秋和战国的分界放在了三家分晋，所说的各种理由其实都不得要领。

三家分晋恰恰是军队私有化和军队国家化的分界。春秋时代流行的是，军队掌握在各领主私人的手里，发生战争时君主向各个领主调集军队，平时君主在领主间维持平衡。当领主的军队由于兼并越来越大，君主不能维持平衡时，就发生了三家分晋，晋国从此消失了。

从这以后，国家制度发生了巨大的变化。军队国家化减轻了内部造反的顾虑，兼并的速度大大加快。可是战国时代的战争并没有变得更加频繁。而之前的春秋时代其实战争更为频繁。当然，军队国家化不是唯一的因素，制度的竞争更加重要，奴隶庶民化和土地私有化，也是导致竞争力加强的重要原因。

但是从秦汉时代开始，军队国家化就是社会稳定的重要条件。之后的朝代除了被外敌入侵亡国，就是军队私有化导致国家不稳定，以至于亡国。最典型的就是唐朝，也包括汉朝。唐朝的衰落就是从藩镇强大开始的。所谓的安史之乱，就是从军队私有化开始的。

国际社会帮助缅甸解决了选举的问题。但是包括昂山素季在内，国际社会都没有解决军队私有化的问题，这样的民主可以维持吗？再加上昂山素季试图挟天子以令诸侯的错误策略，和在大国之间搞平衡的思维方式，最终导致了军事政变的结果。对民主政权来说，民众就是天子。但对于军事独裁来说，民众就是草芥。在军队仍然私有化而民主还没有稳固的形势下，挟天子是令不了诸侯的，因为诸侯不认可。

在这一点上，中共比纳粹和苏联更聪明。纳粹和苏联还有国防军，而中共则是全面党卫军。军队是共产党的私家军队，这是从毛泽东到习近平都绝对坚持的原则。在国家基本制度不民主的环境下，炒作军队国家化不会被共产党所接受。他们懂得，军队如果不再是共产党的私家军队，离军事政变也就不远了。

(本评论的英文版本由黄慈萍翻译。魏京生和魏京生基金会感谢她数十年来有关的无偿贡献，特别是使用和发布此译文的许可。)

本篇评论在自由亚洲电台的原始链接：

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-02032021114312.html