How long, O God, shall men be ridden down,

And trampled under by the last and least Of men?

The 19th-century poet Alfred Tennyson could not watch video-clips on
YouTube of Poland's uprising being crushed, but his response perfectly
captures the sense of impotent rage one feels as Burma's peacefully
protesting monks and nuns are beaten up and tear-gassed by the
country's security forces. It has been 19 years now since its first
great movement for democracy in 1988, and 17 since Aung San Suu Kyi's
National League for Democracy won a clear popular mandate in free
elections. Yet under its Orwellian military regime, this beautiful
land has sunk even further into poverty and oppression. How long, O
God, how long?

As I write, shocking accounts of violence flash across my screen,
including reports that several people have been killed. We do not know
if the protests will persist, as some of the young monks promise, or
be subdued. But two things are clear. Although the minister for
religious affairs, General Myint Maung, rails against "external and
internal destructionists" and the sinister role of "global powers who
practise hegemonism", this was an entirely home-grown protest.
Following sharp price rises in August, the cup of bitterness
overflowed. No one in Washington, London or anywhere else outside
Burma turned a tap. And this home-grown popular protest has - so far -
been as peaceful as can be.

I have before me a joint statement from the All Burma Monks Alliance
and the 88 Generation Students group which begins with a remarkable
sentence: "The entire people led by monks are staging a peaceful
protest to be freed from the general crises of politics, economics and
society by reciting the Metta Sutra." The Metta Sutra reflects on the
Buddhist virtue of metta, or unconditional love and kindness. ("This
is what should be done/By one who is skilled in goodness,/And who
knows the paths of peace.") One demo banner read: "Love and kindness
must win over all".

Who could not be moved by those video-clips, internet-streamed from
digital cameras and mobile phones, showing the rhythmically striding
monks and nuns, in their maroon, pale pink and saffron robes? And by
that one grainy snapshot of Aung San Suu Kyi praying at her gate in
the pouring rain as the monks strode past chanting: "Long life and
health to Aung San Suu Kyi, may she have freedom soon!" It is to this
that the supposedly Buddhist generals, who often parade their piety in
the Pravda-like pages of the New Light of Myanmar, are responding with
gunfire, baton-blows and tear-gas. In effect, they are beating up the
Buddha.

Tennysonian hand-wringing won't help the people of Burma. So what is
to be done? For a start, as many of the world's leaders as possible
should call for an immediate halt to violent repression. The UN
general assembly is meeting in New York. It will probably not be
possible to achieve a swift message of condemnation from the whole
assembly. However, the UN security council was meeting to discuss the
Burma situation yesterday evening - something China and Russia have
previously resisted. Meanwhile, the UN secretary-general has asked for
his special envoy to be allowed back into the country; at the very
least, China must support that.

An old debate has flared up again about the relative merits of a tough
policy of isolating the military regime with sanctions, as opposed to
a policy of "constructive engagement". We probably could have done
more in recent years to engage with civil society in Burma and to show
the generals and colonels the advantages of coming out of isolation.
In the longer term, they do need to understand that negotiating with
Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders, and opening up to the
outside world, would bring immense benefits to their country. They
also need to know that it would not result in them ending up hanging
from lamp-posts or sitting in prison. As Aung San Suu Kyi herself told
me when we talked in Rangoon some years ago (when it was still
possible to meet with her), they might even be reassured that they
could keep at least some of what she nicely called their "ill-gotten
gains". A change of junta supremo from the aged and obdurate general
Than Shwe would be a good occasion for re-starting that conversation.
But such a policy of encouraging peaceful transition by constructive
engagement is not something for today. For today, we need to stop them
killing peaceful protesters.

President Bush has announced tighter sanctions to prevent the generals
and their families travelling to or holding assets in the US - a
sanction the EU has had in place for years. An experienced observer
who knows the mentality of the Burmese military - call it
superstitious or devout, according to taste - suggests that a far more
effective sanction would be for someone to persuade them that beating
up monks will result in very bad karma for themselves, their families,
and their country. That is not, however, a message that one can
imagine a western leader such as Gordon Brown conveying. It requires
not a son of the manse but a priest of the pagoda.

Altogether, there is frustratingly little that western powers can
achieve on their own. Symptomatically, Brown's first positive action
has been to send a letter to the Portuguese presidency of the EU,
urging the EU to take a strong stand. But even the EU and the US
acting together in perfect harmony will make little difference unless
Burma's Asian neighbours start speaking up. Everyone now looks to
China, the biggest neighbour with the biggest involvement in Burma.
China says it wants "stability" in Burma. Certainly it does not want a
bloodbath threatening its business interests there and spoiling the
run-up to the Beijing Olympics. Of late, there have been small signs
that China is concluding that stability in Burma requires change. But
change kick-started by street protests is not the kind that ageing
communist rulers are keen on.

Too little attention is being paid to Burma's other big Asian
neighbour, India. Although it is the world's largest democracy, India
has so far been quite pusillanimous in its relations with Burma's
dictators. It seems more concerned about competing for influence (and
energy contracts) with China than it is about the nature of the
regime. As a result, Burma's rulers have been able to play India off
against China, and vice versa. One thing the United States and the
European Union could do is to suggest rather emphatically to our
Indian friends that this is short-sighted. Ideally, India and China
would also get together to see if they have common as well as
competing interests in the unhappy land sandwiched between them. Two
giants should not be played off so easily by a pygmy.

None of this seems likely to stop the generals from clamping down now.
There is still a chance the repression won't succeed. History is
always open. But even if this round of protests is suppressed, the
world will have been dramatically and movingly alerted to Burma's
plight; Burma's Asian neighbours will have been shaken out of their
sluggish passivity; and we can hope that Burma's non-violent
opposition will itself learn something from the experience, something
for next time. If so, the monks will not have marched in vain.
www.timothygartonash.com