Not long after the series of stormy protests in Beijing and Shanghai in early 2005 over Japan's attempts to whitewash WWII history, I happened to be in an academic conference together with Sun Ge, a prominent scholar of Sino-Japanese history from the China Academy of Social Sciences.

A heated debate among the attendants ensued following a question by a Korean student as to whether the Chinese leadership would be generous enough to allow the denizens to take to the streets against communist rule. Sun, trying to calm the noisy atmosphere, cautioned the audience a Cold War mentality would not be helpful in dissecting tricky issues concerning East Asia.

Later, Sun gave me a further elaboration on her remarks, explaining that the democratisation process around the world since the end of WWII had resulted in moral certitudes on the part of the "free world" vis vis the ideological fascism and stagnation of the rest of the globe, predominantly the communist countries. In her opinion, many failed to notice the subtlety in political interaction between the ruling party and the Chinese nationals precisely because they had been deeply trapped in the free-versus-unfree dichotomy.

To support her observation, Sun told me a widespread and steadfastly growing signature petition movement had come into existence ever since the economic liberalisation gathered pace in 2000, leading to more state workers being laid off and farmers losing their land. The fact that the Hu Jintao administration was now paying the closest attention to rural development since 1978 was indicative of the responsiveness of the communist regime to the petition movement.

Without lending legitimacy to the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, Sun concluded that, in a complex social milieu such as China, it would be unrealistic to expect the Chinese to behave as westerners did in expressing dissatisfaction, which I concurred to some extent.

'Pathetic' Malaysians

The bloody crackdown by the Burmese military regime last month has enraged the world, and the failure of Asean and the regional powers to address the issue is for all to see. To many foreigners, the "pathetic" response of the Malaysian people has been shocking, as they probably expect us to come out in thousands in protest of the brutality of the generals outside the Burmese embassy in Kuala Lumpur just like what has happened in western capitals following the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989.

But do we realistically believe Malaysians would react the same way as others when we have been for decades educated to be a submissive citizenry under the authoritarian Barisan Nasional government? I personally echo the earnest hope of the people in Burma that their nation would be liberated with the help of the outside world, particularly the neighbouring countries. The problem is, Malaysians are at a loss as much of the populace is yet to be made keenly aware of its own civil rights.

(So, when Khairy Jamaluddin appeared outside the Burmese embassy trying to steal the show away, he was practically telling the junta that, come next time, use not firearms to disperse the crowds, but water-cannons and tear gas, as what the BN government here has been doing for years!)

Given such climate of fear, I, for one, am already grateful to some quarters of Malaysian society for the series of small-scale events in remembrance of those who have been made to suffer following the revolt in Burma. Cynicism, sarcasm and a holier-than-thou attitude will only be counterproductive in this regard, as Malaysians need more encouragement, not belittlement.

Neither should one look to the so-called "democratic world" for inspiration when it comes to Burma. I know many hope countries such as the United States and Britain will mete out tough sanctions against the junta in Rangoon, but one must be cautious in order to avoid the situation being manipulated by the major powers.

A reason why the US has seen its credibility as a force for good dwindle drastically is because of the illegitimacy of the Iraq War waged by the Bush administration in the name of liberation. Four years on, more civilians have been killed and millions are displaced. Many of the hawks and neocon lackeys who were chanting the songs of war have since been discredited.

Some are now trying to rebuild their credentials with "objective analysis", writing about potential partition and Blackwater USA (which is not much different from a lawless mercenary anyway), while dodging as to whether they, too, should be held responsible for the humanitarian disaster in Iraq today. Forgive them if they lose the plot when tackling this issue.

Burma can be highly strategic for the US to contain China's rise as a regional power, not to mention its rich natural resources of oil, gas and minerals. Washington has successfully created a sphere of influence east of China, and a US-friendly government in Rangoon in future could further enhance its dominance in Asia.

Full of humbuggery

To further understand how the Bush administration puts national interests before democracy, freedom and human rights, one only has to look at the way it has justified the brutal acts of President Musharraf of Pakistan and the merciless killings of innocent Palestinians by Tel Aviv. In retrospect, one reason why many South Koreans are wary of US influence is because, without US backing, the tyranny of the 1970s and the early 1980s would have collapsed much earlier.

Last week, Derek Tonkin, former British ambassador to Thailand, refused to be drawn when pressed by Zainab Badawi of the BBC if he would call for western companies, chief among them Total of France and Chevron of the US, to pull out of Burma. Tonkin has been calling for tougher action against the junta. Quite clearly, he prefers this done without hurting some western interests, a point well articulated by George Monbiot in The Guardian recently.

Also last week, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee ruled out (again) sanctions against Burma, for the latent fear that such scenario would harm the bilateral ties and drive the junta further into the arms of the Chinese, a concern quietly shared by Asean. Would it not be a thorn in India's back should China get too fraternal with Burma?

Like China, India has huge energy needs and Burma is helpful to some extent. Furthermore, New Delhi cannot deal with its own insurgents in Nagaland and Manipur without the cooperation of Rangoon.

Being the biggest functioning democracy, India's refrain from condemning the Burmese generals is as telling as that of the authoritarian China. No more, no less.

In short, the oppressiveness and brutality of the Burmese regime are horrendous, but it is delusive to believe only the "democratic world" can save the Burmese people from hell, as many of the well established democracies are full of humbuggery as their pseudo brethren such as Malaysia and Singapore.

We must learn from the painful lesson of Iraq, which the emasculated United Nations and the weak and inchoate global civil movement are partially to blame. As for Burma, the world should seek in all honesty a solution to the issue that will not be subject to the manipulation of the major powers, failing which the Burmese people will never be independent in any real sense.