Quote:Mark Skarr wrote:At the risk of this being yet another nitpicking post from the smart-alec policy research minion based in Asia, a few thoughts:-
2008-
Upon the government returning to Thailand, the Prime Minister is arrested on corruption charges.
Bhutan’s first general election ends with it officially becoming a democracy.
Mynamar is hit by Cyclone Nargis. Even with the IWO reducing the strength of the cyclone, more than 100,000 people are killed and millions are rendered homeless. The Blue Demon appears, raising the death toll by another 30,000 before it vanishes ten days later.
Thailand’s new Prime Minister resigns amid political crisis.
On Thailand: If this is a dig at the political uncertainty Thailand's seen in recent years, the real-world stuff really has less to do with corruption per-se, and everything to do with the ordinary people/elites and urban/rural divide in the country. You need to understand the full timeline here. Thaksin is a political outsider and upstart, but very popular with the people. He gets elected. 'Elites' don't like this. Thaksin starts to make poor choices regarding security and the economy. He's eventually kicked out. New 'elite'-backed government comes in - but isn't popular with the people. Elections happen again...and Thaksin's sister gets elected.
In an IST setting, there isn't necessarily any impetus for this. Why would there be a power struggle? All the background stuff I've mentioned above wouldn't have happened. So what's the trigger for a leadership crisis? Finger-pointing for letting the country be badly hit during war with China? It's tempting to always have direct analogues for significant real-world events in the IST timeline, but since this one is all down to particular local politics, it might simply not happen.
Bhutan: I have absolutely no doubt the royal family of Bhutan would be totally chill with handing power over to democratic rule. They are incredibly awesome people. I just kind of doubt that people would actually vote to get rid of the monarchy, even if they stick around afterwards as constitutional monarchs or whatever. People actually like the monarchy, and by and large are pretty happy with the way things are. Mostly, people are really chill and laid back in Bhutan. They don't sweat the small stuff, dude.
Also, education and expertise in Bhutan regarding things like politics and economics is pretty thin on the ground as well. The folks from Bhutan that I've met are incredibly smart, but relatively few have a solid overseas education like that.
You have to understand, Bhutan's pretty much an example of something that's still a functioning old-fashioned kingdom, and there's reasons for that, even if the King is on Facebook and Skype nowadays. No really. He is.
Myanmar, Cyclone Nargis: One of the things with Cyclone Nargis was that the Myanmar military government was pretty resistant to allowing foreign aid and assistance on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. It's entirely possible they may have been stubborn enough to resist IWO assistance as well in the IST world, given that it's a UN agency - they may not have allowed IWO supers into their territory or airspace to do their thing. Because inviting more foreign supers in is bad news, y'know.
It's worth noting that the present state of politics in real-world Myanmar is really genuinely reform and openness-focused; this sort of institutional paranoia thing wouldn't happen anymore. But Nargis was before that change.
-- Acyl