Surely there is only the political?

For the record, I never posted this article, nor had had I read or heard of it when I wrote my own one below on a similar theme -  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382329.html


Parapolitics has a couple of meanings. In the context of this article it is clear that it is the meaning defined by Peter Dale Scott

par a pol i tics (pa˘r ə po˘l ə tı˘ks), n. 1. a system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished. 2. generally, covert politics, the conduct of public affairs not by rational debate and responsible decision-making but by indirection, collusion, and deceit… 3. the political exploitation of irresponsible agencies or parastructures, such as intelligence agencies… Ex. 1. ‘The Nixon doctrine, viewed in retrospect, represented the application of parapolitics on a hitherto unprecedented scale.’ 2. ‘Democracy and parapolitics, even in foreign affairs, are ultimately incompatible.’(2)

which he later redefined as only one aspect of Deep Politics -

“…the investigation of parapolitics, which I defined (with the CIA in mind) as a ‘system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished.’ . . . I still see value in this definition and mode of analysis. But parapolitics as thus defined is itself too narrowly conscious and intentional . . . it describes at best only an intervening layer of the irrationality under our political culture’s rational surface. Thus I now refer to parapolitics as only one manifestation of deep politics, all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.”

"
The collapse of the First Italian Republic in the mid-1990s, involving large-scale criminal influence in government, offers a telling example. It originated as an American parapolitical operation to suborn the threat of communism which parachuted prominent U.S. Mafia hoods into power in post-war Italy “[B]y the 1980s this . . . strategem had helped spawn a deep political system of corruption exceeding Tammany’s, and (as we know from the Andreotti trial of 1995) beyond the ability of anyone to call it off”. Another example… is the CIA-financed jihad against Russian occupiers in Afghanistan that flooded Europe with opium and helped create Osama bin Laden, a modern version of the Old Man of the Mountains, who’s 11th Century followers – the Assassins – “sacrificed for him in order to perpetuate his crimes”
"

The Junta have made money from heroin since forever; how else do you think the drug gangs operate there? Twelve generals and a handful of corrupt business men can oppress 100% of the people and steal almost everything they produce, but they can't control a few drug gangs and aren't interested in the kickbacks?

The drug trade has declined; so what? USuk have no role or influence in ASEAN. Why the Western-centric analysis? China is the regional power and owns the majority of the US debt, along with India and Japan. You think USuk is going to interfere on the doorstep of the only global powers that can bankrupt it overnight?

How about the really simple explanation? The Burmese people are the most oppressed on the planet, without exception; they must be amongst the most oppressed in history. They have subsisted under a brutal military regime for 45 years after decades of struggle for democracy and against British colonial rule. When fuel prices shot up, quintupling overnight for gas in particular and the people could no longer afford food or transport to work, they took to the streets; led by the least touchable of all citizens, the monks.

The hired thugs who dressed up as monks and followed orders to trash the mosques were paid $7 and a meal. Yet you are forced to postulate Dark Forces to explain why there might be an uprising!

Nice that you support the poor little old Junta against the non-existent possibility of interference by USuk, but the Burmese People are more worthy of your concern.

"Nice that you support the poor little old Junta against the non-existent possibility of interference by USuk"

I have listed examples of USuk interference in Burma in my article. I could list more. For you to deny this out of hand, with no reference to the facts, and to suggest I am supporting the junta simply for pointing this out, is both dishonest and counterproductive.

I will be taking direct action against the companies on the Burma campaign dirty list. If youwish to target the Chinese embassy then I hope you also target the Indian, US, Bangladesh and Thai embassies too. In one of your reports you mention the splits within the junta as a sign of hope. I hope you realise having General Maung Aye as dictator, or even as the power behind a figurehead premier, isn't going to be much of an improvement.

I hope you also realise the reason Burma is so well covered in the mainstream now is not because of genuine humanitarian concerns but because the UK has recently disinvested there - where until recently we were the second biggest investor - and the US is now trying to prise Burma from Chinas sphere of influence.

I realise the junta is involved in the opium trade with the CIA. DEA efforts to eradicate it were scuppered by the CIA which used to source most of its heroin there. If Burma is 'liberated' in the same manner that Afghanistan was 'liberated' then the heroin trade there will increase. I am cautious that the so-called saffron revolution is as CIA backed as the so-called orange revolutions.

The comment about the Junta was not aimed at your article Danny; no need to get so huffy about it.

But you are still missing the point that the world is a different place compared to that in the historical evidence you offer. China is not a struggling nominally Communist and almost entirely isolated country. It is an economic powerhouse which has been opening up to the world a lot; even if most people haven't noticed because a lot of the investment is in Africa. Geldof and his cronies successfully managed to divert any intelligent discussion of economics and simply got the majority to support the IMF's genocidal policies in the region.

The other huge difference is that in the last few years the US has been operating an enormous trade deficit to finance its amoral taxation policies, obscene levels of consumption and murder of resource-rich innocents elsewhere. The huge tactical error is in placing nearly all of this debt in the hands of China and the other two huge powers in ASEAN, India and Japan (both nominally free-market democracies). Even the New York Times is starting to question whether the US national debt could be used as a weapon; clearly it can, and it will be sooner or later.

As parts of the world gradually start to trade in euros due to the instability and nose-diving value of the dollar, and as soon as ASEAN develops other consumer markets to make profits from, the US Empire is dead. If they step out of line, they're "back to the stone ages" overnight without a single shot fired.

Your analysis is inappropriate because it assumes a credible US influence in ASEAN where there is none. Some (not all) analyses making this assumption have also managed to be deeply offensive to the Burmese people; Schnews springs to mind. There is a hidden assumption of a naive grouping of tribal peoples who have had no contact with the outside world for 45 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are well aware of the devastating impact the IMF has had on the health of struggling economies elsewhere and of the increasingly determined moves from individual governments to ban the IMF from interference, especially in South America and Africa. The US is even losing its leverage by proxy.

This is why I believe that any analysis which gives credence to significant USuk interference, now or in the foreseeable future, is fundamentally flawed. Any analysis which assumes the Burmese people and their elected leaders are stupid uneducated peasants also manages to be insulting and patronising.

The strongest statement out of the US came early from Laura Bush, who seemed determined to force hubby to do something now that he has no more elections to fraudulently win. Her analysis was very good; she astonished the BBC interviewer. The only Western political figure I've seen yet who has had the sense to immediately and emphatically link the situation to China and warn of the detrimental effect on the Olympics.

PR for Beijing 2008 is probably the only thing that the West can actually do to obtain leverage over China's actions; its the big coming out party that China doesn't want to see ruined. The Burmese resistance and campaigners for Darfur are bright enough to know this.

 http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/2007/09/ultimatum-to-china-due-oct-2-900am.html
 http://www.dreamfordarfur.org/

ymu

The world isn't such a different place since 1996. The CIA hasn't stopped dealing in heroin - Afghanistans resurgent opium crop is proof of that. The last three links in my article overlap, showing a CIA involvement in the Burmese heroin trade from 1950 to at least 1996 - that isn't so 'historical', it is fairly current, and it indicates they do have influence within the junta. I am sure you are aware the British empire had a similarly shameful history there that predated the US by a century.

I agree that the US empire is on the decline as it's political influence in the region, although I think they still have influence in the Philipines, Brunei, Singapore and Thailand which are all ASEAN states. With most British companies disinvested UK influence will be diminshed.

You seem to suggest solely targetting China, and certainly with the Olympics this is a better time than ever to do so. India has also been vying for influence there, with the junta playing them off against each other like small nations used to play the USSR against the US. So India shouldn't be ignored for demonstrations. I've seen reports of Burmese rebels being hounded by Thai and Bangladeshi forces after fleeing across the border and that is worth protesting about.

Personally I like to act locally, which for me means going after the Burma Campaigns 'dirty list' companies. I feel all British companies that don't disinvest fully immediately should be targetted, and all multinationals with concerns here regardless of the size of there Burmese investments ie Texaco garages as well as Total. In short, as many targets as possible. I think you will have a greater chance of persuading China to act if they were alone in supporting the junta. Just now China could rightfully claim 'If we didn't invest there, someone else would'.

Highlighting our own shameful history and ongoing business ties in Burma does not diminsh from you pressuring China, it adds to it. The mainstream and establishment politicians are already pressuring China to act. It's a pity they didn't do so in '88. The day Laura Bush strangles her genocidal husband is the day I'll listen to her opinion on anything.

Cool. We ain't disagreeing except on what matters most right now. And on the extent to which the world has changed in the last 10 years. And on whether we should be focusing on building massive popular support for Burma or exercising our ideological muscles on a sexy new issue, regardless of relevance or the demoralising effect on campaigners and alienation of potential supporters.

ymu

PS: Laura Bush said what Burmese campaigners had been demanding Western politicians say for days before. None had, or have since. You can put your ideological principles ahead of basic humanity and common sense if you like, but it ain't exactly helping anyone now is it?

 http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/2007/09/ultimatum-to-china-due-oct-2-900am.html
 http://www.dreamfordarfur.org/

ymu

IIRC Indymedia was set up to counter mainstream propaganda.

I think it is healthy to ask why the US and UK states are jumping on this particular bandwagon, and what are we not being told.

Of one thing I am certain, neither the US State Dept. nor Gordon Brown are that concerned about people being repressed, or killed.

I think you underestimate how much influence the US still has on the world stage.

Well what a shock, eh?

Are you saying we should not support the uprising because Western politicians are saying we should?

Are you saying you'd object to a concerted international effort to force, say, Israel to withdraw from the OPT because the victory would be tainted by association?

Are you honestly saying that you put your ideological principles and appropriate cynicism about the motives of politicians above the freedom of millions of people who are slaves to 12 generals and a handful of local businessmen?

Do any of you even know how bad the situation is? Millions "living" on a dollar a day; the paid thugs who dressed up in crimson robes and trashed the mosques in a failed attempt to create an inter-ethnic diversion...they were paid $7 and a meal as the bribe to help trash the protests that might lead to their own freedom.

Now there is a phoned through report of live protesters being cremated along with the bodies from massacres of unknown extent; the Junta know their news blackout has been effective just as it was from the start in 1988.

That's how extreme the situation is; it's unimaginable from here yet people are transferring their ready-made ideologies and applying it to a totally different situation.

I'm pretty sure the Burmese people don't give a crap what you think, but they'd probably appreciate it if you could make an effort not to diminish their support-base just exactly when they need it most.

Sources for actual news from Burma:
 http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/2007/09/ultimatum-to-china-due-oct-2-900am.html
 http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/
 http://www.mizzima.com/

"Are you honestly saying that you put your ideological principles and appropriate cynicism about the motives of politicians above the freedom of millions of people who are slaves to 12 generals and a handful of local businessmen?"

Nope.

I think your analysis of the situation is way off beam though.

There's a news blackout so it's all hands on deck to get resistance news out. We'll be wasting our time on that, as much as possible. It's up to you if you want to waste it defending bullshit cut'n'paste conspiracy theories. Noone expects Nirvana to instantly materialise, but there is such a thing as priorities and the conspiraloons have strange ones, IMO.

Resistance channels to watch for real news:
 http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/
 http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/
 http://www.mizzima.com/

Regular key updates on indymedia UK:
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382294.html

You're spot on that it isn't going to be Nirvana.

This has exactly the same ring as the attacks on 'prayer meetings' in Zimbabwe a few months ago. Came out later that the US and UK were supporting the MDC.

Clearly the junta is shit, but cheerleading a western plan to get a neo-liberal pact with the replacement NDL govt. would not really be that helpful in the long run.

 http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=20060926171349ASesuarK7.438296e-02

"The skyrocketing fuel prices are said to be part of the military junta’s economic and financial reform program, coinciding with the high-level mission to Burma by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. "

 http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=91668

Well, its said that the fuel crisis sparked off the protests, and this suggests that it has something to do with western controlled institutions.

"Moreover, one can safely predict that the present media adulation for the protestors would rapidly change if the demonstrations and marches began to take a more radical direction. Unlike the protests of 1988, which involved significant sections of workers, the recent demonstrations have been, to date, largely dominated by monks and students. The entry of substantial sections of working people into political action would not only shake the junta, but would reverberate through the region and internationally."

"The NLD’s basic program, which consists of implementing IMF-dictated reforms to open Burma up to foreign investors, would be just as catastrophic for ordinary working people as the junta’s economic policies."

 http://www.countercurrents.org/amaranath290907.htm

 http://www.counterpunch.org/sale02222005.html

Now, if you've managed to absorb that ....

Being so well informed about the IMF you will know that for a while just about every impoverished nation was forced to take IMF advice because it was tied to international aid. In case you hadn't noticed, a fair few now refuse to let them in based on the experience; others are following their lead.

You might also not realise that the IMF is already interfering in Burma; it was their advice which is widely believed, in Burma, to have led to the fuel crisis which triggered this uprising.

Of course, politicians never change their minds on policy when they get better information and are only ever out to smarm up to the USA and other states that left them and their people as slaves for 45 years without ever lifting a finger.

And you can be absolutely sure that China will be urging Burma to cooperate with US colonialism by proxy, because that'd make loads and loads of sense.

Very convincing analysis you have there. Still not persuading us to jump ship and barrack for the Junta or civil war instead of the resistance and the democratic opposition parties. You do *know* that the government in exile isn't the NLD? You do *know* that it includes multiple opposition parties, independents and the regional ethnic groups. Don't you?

So sorry if it doesn't fit into a lazily cynical viewpoint requiring no additional thought, but then life's like that, when you stop to think about it...

"Still not persuading us to jump ship and barrack for the Junta or civil war instead of the resistance and the democratic opposition parties."

Thats lucky, cos its another one of your ridiculous strawman arguments.

Next week which corporate media propaganda blitz do you think you'll be dancing to?

No need to think it through, just react. Right?

Let's have this debate properly on a thread that isn't just a lot of cut'n'paste theory that doesn't apply well to the situation in Burma, or that consists solely of a load of spurious googled links between ASSK and the CIA...

I'd suggest using the Schnews article as it contains some attempt at political analysis and exemplifies a lot of the ideologically-driven misconceptions that are muddying the waters here. If you'd like to kick it off with a spirited defence of their position, we'll happily respond. If you prefer, we will start it with a detailed critique when we have some time spare to do so.

If you're serious about your position, this deserves more than a bit of to-and-fro on the comments section of a newswire article that has more experienced users of this site not clicking on principle.

Out of interest YMU, who do you mean by 'we' when you say "we'll happily respond" ? Are you in the Young Monks Union ? Can I ask how long you've been campaigning about Burma ? It's just your posts don't sound much like a buddhist monks. If you are trying to build a consensus it helps to be less confrontational, and terms like 'conspiraloons', and 'lazily cynical viewpoints' are damaging.

I'm not even sure when you are criticising Larry Chins arguments in his article, mine, Schnews' or FTPs comments. It may be because you care so much for this issue, that this your you main issue, the suffering of the Burmese people. I hope you recognise even if other people don't agree with your posts it doesn't mean they or I want more suffering for Burma. I haven't even read the Schnews article but I will before you reply to this.

The english saying 'a drowning man will clutch at straws' in India is 'a drowning man ill clutch at snakes'. If Burma is drowning, none of want that, but we don't want to passing them either straws or snakes. USuk influence is certainly on the decline, but it has not disappeared. It is still in complete control of our mainstream media, and the hundred years of years of British then US violent and narcotic suppression of Burma has to be acknowledged. If the CIA were trading heroin with the junta from it's inception until 96 then there is a good chance that they still are. The US government - and figures like Laura Bush - may have carried some credibility if they had opposed the junta rather than supported it, and if they weren't carrying out genocidal policies in many other countries.

One striking scene in the film about Chomsky, 'Manufacturing Consent', compares the column-inches given over to the simultaneous genocides carried out by the US ally Indonesia with the supposedly enemy Cambodia. The Indonesian genocide was barely mentioned. In all that coverage of Pol Pot in Cambodia though, what was never mentioned was US carpet-bombing had brought him to power. And what has been air-brushed from our history is that USuk special forces trained his death squads once he had been driven into the jungles by the Vietnamese. So I am unapologetically cynical of USuk motives in concentrating their media on Burma at a time when USuk forces are killing more in Iraq, and when Israel has been murderering Palestinians and Lebanese without any similar press coverage - and without any condemnation from Laura Bush. Yet even you fail to mention Palestine or Iraq and instead mention Darfur, another conflict +it is permissible+ to mention.

My point is, if your activism is informed by principle, it applies to our states crimes as much as our states enemies crimes, and arguably more so.



Resolution - Thich Naht Hanh

You fight us
because we fight hatred
while you feed on hatred and violence
for strength.

You curse us
because we don't give man a label
and turn a gun barrel on him.

You condemn us
because you can't use our blood
in paying off your debts of greed;
because you can't budge us
from man's side,
where we stand to protect all life.

And you murder us
just because we bow our heads
before man's love and reason;
because
we steadfastly refuse
to identify him
with the wolves.

The Junta have been waging genocidal war against the Karenni, Shan, Chin and Arakan minority ethnic groups with the substantial assistance of the drug lords for decades. They derive substantial income from the drug trade. They do not need CIA encouragement to keep it healthy.

If you have read the Schnews article and can't see what is wrong with it, come back to us.

By "us" I mean a small group of people based in Burma, Thailand, China and the UK who have been closely monitoring the situation via the Thai media and Burmese resistance channels since 8th September and spreading the resistance news reports via the Urban75 boards, blogs and now indymedia. Personally, I knew little before this crisis started, but to our great fortune and his deep regret, one of "us" is a Burmese resident with knowledge of the internal resistance who is now stuck in the UK doing what he can to support his people back home.

I am adding important updates to the newswire and twiki articles whilst the Burmese resident works on a fuller feature article with insight and background to add to the news timelines. Others are monitoring the resistance channels and attempting to get contacts in the mainstream media to carry news that they currently are refusing to touch; most recently a phoned through report of live protesters being cremated along with the dead; a massacre to conceal a massacre but barely anyone outside Burma yet knows of this atrocity. Your help would be appreciated.

We'd also like to add our thanks to the fantastic IMCistas who kindly highlighted the newswire article and have so rapidly converted the comments into additions. And also for highlighting the protest actions happening in the UK; it's tremendously important that the pressure is kept up whilst this news blackout lasts.

Just to quickly point out a few history lessons which you seem to be ignoring.

Russia was in turmoil after a rovolution in 1917 but was a major military power by the mid-1930s and a "superpower from 1945 until the Iron Curtain started to rust
in the 1980s.

The USA was determinedly isolationist until well into WWII; it was Roosevelt's determination to get directly involved, with the assistance of Pearl Harbour, that broke this tradition in 1943. Barely a decade later they were in it up to their necks in Korea and have never looked back.

The British Empire was in fine working order and taking over other imperial lands after WWI and during WWII. By 1948 there was no British Empire left.

If you think that 1996 is recent history in terms of modern Empire, you are wrong. The US owes $8 trillion in national debt, almost all of it held by China, India and Japan; the three huge powers with a common economic union, ASEAN. These nations work hard to maintain the value of the dollar whilst the US is such a critical market for their goods and whilst they need dollars to buy oil.

This is a temporary arrangement; the dollar is still nose-diving despite the efforts of ASEAN and the US cannot continue to invade or sponsor unrest in those countries which switch to trading in euros; Iraq, North Korea and Venezuela were but the vanguard of this sane economic move. China only needs to float the yuan against the dollar to destroy the US far more effectively than any army.

This article explicitly discusses divides within the pro-democracy Burmese opposition movement:
 http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=352

The website itself is the Democratic Voice of Burma, the shortwave radio station broadcasting resistance news from Norway to the Burmese People, and news from the Burmese People to the rest of the world. It is a fantastic resource for anyone looking to educate themselves about the situation and the cast of characters involved.

This is from a recent interview on dawn,com:

Working for the station is a crime in Myanmar, and the staff worry about the safety of their workers and family members. Some staff in Oslo avoid communication with families back home for fear of endangering them.

The broadcaster also sees a role for itself in a free Myanmar. “In the past we were effectively propaganda for the pro-democracy movement,” Win said. “Now, we try to be objective so we can become the independent media of a free Burma.”

 http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/01/int11.htm

 http://www.freeburmarangers.org/Reports/2007/20070921.html

Other reports:
 http://www.freeburmarangers.org/Reports/

Burma is an extreme and extremely complex situation. It is not good enough to simply pull a few ready made facts off the shelf and blindly apply them without thought.

The "depth" of your initial analysis is betrayed by the "depth" of your responses to criticism. First you attempt to deride me as a propagandist for the Burmese monks; you so obviously have no idea of their role in the uprising or indeed how radical the tiny proportion who have so far taken to the streets truly are.

Your most recent missed shot should reveal to everyone quite how desperately poor your research and analytical standards are. How could you possibly read "Geldof and his cronies successfully managed to divert any intelligent discussion of economics and simply got the majority to support the IMF's genocidal policies in the region" and then go on to accuse the author of being an apologist for USuk??!

As a friend commented on reading the Schnews article: 'Kin 'ell, who writes that stuff, 14 year old Stalinist?

"If you have read the Schnews article and can't see what is wrong with it, come back to us. "

You mean this Schnews article ?
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382317.html
Okay, I've read it and can't see anything wrong with it.

Maybe it's because you are an american and you are new to activism that it seems 'wrong' to you ( in the UK we call it petrol not gas).

"Just to quickly point out a few history lessons which you seem to be ignoring...The USA was determinedly isolationist until well into WWII"

This is a lie. The US was determindedly uninvolved in fighting fascism until it was attacked by Japan. It was far from 'isolationist' before that. Ignoring the fact the original 13 states expanded through genocide and war on it's indigineous inhabitants, you are forgetting the wars with mexico, the Spanish-American war and invasion of Cuba, the genocidal US colonisation of the Philipines, the annexing of umpteen other territories such as Hawai, Guam Samoa etc. This isn't an isolationist state at all, it is imperial expansion - ask Mark Twain if you don't believe me.

By Bill Weinberg
Created 09/28/2007 - 22:23

A few days before Burma exploded into the world headlines, the annual US State Department report ranking nations on their narcotics control efforts listed the Rangoon regime as among those not making the cut. Twenty countries were listed as major drug producers or exporters, but only Burma and Venezuela were found to have demonstrably failed to make substantial efforts to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements or cooperate with Washington in accordance with US anti-drug laws.

Governments determined to have failed in anti-drug efforts can face major cuts in US aid, though the president has authority to waive penalties, if it is determined to be in the US national interest. Other countries among the 20 were Afghanistan and Colombia—the largest producers of, respectively, illicit opium and cocaine.

To drive home the irony, at a news briefing Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counter-narcotics Christy McCampbell commended both the Afghan and Colombian governments for their anti-drug efforts, but had harsh words for Venezuela. "We still do work with the police there and do eradication efforts," said McCampbell. "One of our greatest concerns, though, is the corruption there with narco-trafficking. And it is such a transit country. It is just becoming a real hub for drugs moving on through that country. A lot of it is going to Europe. It is not necessarily all coming to the United States. But we need to come to an agreement with them." She said President Bush has waived aid penalties so that the US can continue support "beleaguered democratic institutions in Venezuela."

Of course Colombia, by far the biggest US aid recipient in Latin America, is currently mired in a scandal [1] linking the administration of President Alvaro Uribe to the "illegal" right-wing paramilitary groups—whose leaders are wanted in the US on drug-trafficking charges. Meanwhile opium has boomed in Afghanistan [2] under US occupation.

The report found that Burma, long a top opium exporter, is now the largest source of methamphetamine in Asia. Aid penalties were not waived for Burma. (VOA [3], Reuters [4], Sept. 17) But Burma's scolding by the State Department is also a source of much irony for those who have followed the twists and turns of Washington's relations with the Burmese dictatorship.

Since a 1988 uprising against the 26-year dictatorship of Gen. Ne Win was brutally put down, Burma has been run by a group of generals who took power and installed an even more ruthless dictatorship under the name of the State Law & Order Restoration Council—officially rendered as the clichéd, Ian Flemingesque acronym SLORC. The junta rules by decree. There is no constitution, and martial law restricts freedom of speech and assembly. In the wave of repression after taking power, the SLORC slaughtered and imprisoned thousands of pro-democracy dissidents in the cities and tribal villagers in the mountains. Amnesty International [5] cites hundreds of "prisoners of conscience" and widespread torture. Elections were held in 1990. But when Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy won by a landslide, SLORC had the election anulled and placed Suu Kyi under house arrest. She became the world’s only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner.

The SLORC officially renamed the country "Myanmar" in a transparent play to anti-West nationalism. (The name "Burma" is associated with the British colonial rulers, who departed after World War II.) But the opposition refuses to recognize the name change. The SLORC's human rights record and treatment of the country's numerous ethnic minorities [6] have been even worse than that of the Brits.

Anti-West bluster notwithstanding, until recently the regime was actively courting Western investment and tourism, as well as "counternarcotics" aid. As in Colombia or Mexico, a regime itself in bed with drug traffickers sought "counternarcotics" aid to police rebellious peasant regions.

The regime has long been running a grisly counterinsurgency war against tribal peoples in the eastern mountains along the borders with Thailand, Laos and China. This region is now the most productive part of the opium-growing "Golden Triangle." With tribal armies seeking money for guns—some fighting the SLORC, some collaborating with it—Burma's mountainous east in the '90s became the world's most intensive opium cultivation zone. (It has since been surpassed by Afghanistan.)

The most notorious and powerful of these opium warlords was Khun Sa [7], who defiantly commanded an army of Shan tribespeople and presided over a heroin empire for generations. Although not an ethnic Shan (he was originally dispatched by Burma's government to pacify the Shan in the early '60s), he ruled the Shan country as a de facto independent state, first as head of the Shan State Army [8], which, after merging with rival Shan militias, was redubbed in 1985 the Mong Tai Army (MTA). The Rangoon regime, in turn, cultivated the United Wa State Army (UWSA) as a proxy force to fight the MTA—with the region's lucrative opium harvest as the goad.

In January 1996, Khun Sa peacefully surrendered to SLORC troops. Ensconced as a permanent "guest" of the military in Rangoon, he was protected by the SLORC from extradition to the US. "He paid millions to a general to guarantee his peaceful retirement after his surrender," an officer of Khun Sa's army told the Associated Press. Presumably, this sum exceeded the $2 million US reward offer. (BurmaNet News [9], Jan. 14, 1996)

Shortly thereafter, The Economist cluelessly reported on economically-isolated Burma’s "mysterious boom," with new skyscrapers sprouting in Rangoon and economic growth rates catching up with Southeast Asia's "feverish norm." Aung San Suu Kyi, who was released from five years of house arrest in 1995, said, "The so-called boom is an artificial one." (BurmaNet News [10], April 12, 1996)

Although said to be in ill health, the once-mighty Khun Sa was still peacefully residing in military custody in Rangoon in 1999, when his former followers last had contact with him. (Shan Herald News Agency [11], May 29, 1999)

The prosperity was fueled by the SLORC's outlaw enterprises. SLORC-connected timber companies raped the eastern rainforests, using slave labor that tribal villages were forced to supply. SLORC troops massacred and forcibly relocated Karen and Mon tribespeople who dared to resist.

Top among SLORC outlaw enterprises, of course, was the opium trade. As rebellious regions were pacified, the bigger the SLORC's slice of the heroin trade grew. Presumably, the deal cut between the SLORC and the Shan army after Khun Sa's surrender mirrored those cut in 1989 and 1993, respectively, with the Wa and Kachin armies—allowing economic and military autonomy in return for official recognition of Burmese sovereignty over their territories. The Wa and Kachin opium trade, of course, happily continued—only this time with the SLORC getting a cut of the profits.

Burma has been found ineligible for US aid due to "insufficient narcotics control" every year since the SLORC coup. But the West continued to play ball with the junta. Despite the supposed "decertification," the DEA maintained an office in Burma and cooperated with the SLORC in supposed "counter-narcotics" efforts, pulling off the occasional big bust for show purposes. ("Current Situation in Burma [12]," US State Department, June 2002) The DEA has actually protested Burma's decertification, continuing to see the SLORC as the "good guys" and the tribal armies as the "bad guys." The unseemly inter-agency squabbling even resulted in a lawsuit by former DEA Burma chief Richard A. Horn against the State Department and CIA, who he says bugged his phone and generally thwarted his efforts to coordinate with the SLORC's supposed "opium crackdown." (Narco News [13], Sept. 7, 2004)

While most Western corporations succumbed to pressure from human rights activists to pull out of Burma, the US refused to impose trade sanctions such as those in place against Cuba or Iraq. The US remained the fourth-biggest investor in the SLORC regime.

In an Orwellian move, the SLORC changed its name in 1997 to the State Peace & Development Council (SPDC), attempting to clean up its nasty image. The PR makeover didn't appease the international human rights community, but was convenient propaganda for a return of Western "counternarcotics" aid to the brutal dictatorship.

In 2003, Washington labeled the UWSA a narcotics-trafficking organization and announced a $2 million bounty on the head of its leader, Wei Hsueh-Kang. Simultaneously the SPDC/SLORC turned against its former ally, and began supporting the Shan against the Wa. Entire Wa villages were destroyed and relocated under the guise of opium eradication. (Reuters [14], Sept. 10, 2007)

That same year, Aung San Suu Kyi was again placed under house arrest—where she remains to this date. Ethnic cleansing campaigns also continue to this day [15]—now mostly directed at the Karen people. The US finally imposed sanctions on Rangoon in 2003—but only after the US firm Unocal had completed construction of a pipeline to export gas from Burma's Yadana fields to Thailand. The pipeline cuts right through Karen and Mon territory, and Unocal was forced to settle [16] in an international lawsuit charging the firm was complicit with ethnic cleansing and forced labor.

With Asia's geopolitical lines redrawn since 9-11 and international human rights groups bringing pressure to bear on Washington, Rangoon has increasingly thrown its lot in with China—which has blocked moves to censure Burma over rights abuses at the UN. (VOA [17], Jan. 13, 2007) The new State Department narcotics report is the clearest evidence that the junta has finally been cut loose.

But, as we know all too well, demonizing dictatorships is as much a function of imperial realpolitik as coddling them. Burma's tribal peoples and pro-democracy dissidents alike will have to beware of becoming pawns in the ongoing shadow war for oil and opium.

See our last posts on Burma [18] and Venezuela [19].

Source URL:
 http://ww4report.com/node/4488

Links:
[1]  http://ww4report.com/node/4092
[2]  http://www.ww4report.com/node/4343
[3]  http://voanews.com/english/2007-09-17-voa46.cfm
[4]  http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1735435020070917
[5]  http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA160192005
[6]  http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/burma_ethno_1972.jpg
[7]  http://ww4report.com/node/2412#comment-285743
[8]  http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80201
[9]  http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199601/msg00082.html
[10]  http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199604/msg00077.html
[11]  http://www.ibiblio.net/obl/reg.burma/archives/199905/msg00595.html
[12]  http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2002/11264.htm
[13]  http://www.narconews.com/Issue34/article1063.html
[14]  http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BKK83023.htm
[15]  http://www.ww4report.com/node/4487#comment-307294
[16]  http://www.ww4report.com/node/4474
[17]  http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-01/2007-01-13-voa2.cfm?CFID=196403265&CFTOKEN=54205888
[18]  http://ww4report.com/node/4487
[19]  http://ww4report.com/node/4484

Thanks for that; thoughtful and well researched piece.

One thing you might want to tighten up is the Shan State Army reference. There are two with confusingly similar names; the Southern Shan State Army (SSS) is the paramilitary wing of the regional drugs trade and complicit in genocide against the Shan. The Shan State Army (SSA) - sometimes "Shan State Army-South" - is the Shan Peoples army, determined to drive the drug lords out of their territory and gain independence for the multi-ethnic Shan territory. The Shan people and SSA have issued solidarity messages of support for the ethnic Burmese people in their uprising .

Thanks again for posting that.

References and extracts:

The people of the Ho Mong area live under the oppression of both the Burma Army and their local proxy the Southern Shan State Army (SSS). The SSS are led by Maha Ja, a Wa warlord who controls 300-500 troops and who has been given partial authority over this area by the Burma Army. The SSS is also involved with the Burma Army in narcotics trafficking in the Ho Mong area.

The living situation for the people is feudal with the people able to make a bare living, but under the domination of the Burma Army and SSS they have no real control over their lives. Please see excerpts of two cases of abuse, rape and murder that occurred in this area at the bottom of this report. These are from two reports we have sent out earlier. (*Note the Southern Shan State Army (SSS) is a proxy army under the control of the Burma Army while the Shan State Army (SSA) is a pro-democracy resistance organization.).
 http://www.freeburmarangers.org/Reports/2007/20070921.html


Message of Solidarity from the People of Shan State
Shan State, Burma
27 September 2007
dashed line

On September 27, 2007 hundreds of Shan, Pa'O, Palaung, and Lahu villagers gathered in a internally displaced persons site in Shan State, Eastern Burma as an act of solidarity with those demonstrating in the larger cities of Burma. Villagers expressed their common desire for the restoration of a free and democratic Burma, in which people of every ethnicity are guaranteed fundamental rights. Much of Shan State continues to be a warzone, where the Burma Army regularly commits atrocities against the civilian population, and any act of overt civil disobediance would most like result in a swift and brutal punishment. The villagers who gathered today announced their unity of heart and purpose with those demonstrating in the larger cities against this oppression.

Ethnic peoples of Burma have been under direct attack by the dictators for years. They hope that the demonstrations in the cities of Burma will draw international attention and help for those under attack. They also hope that all the oppressed people of Burma will soon be free.
 http://www.freeburmarangers.org/Reports/2007/20070928.html

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html?c=on#c181871

>>If you have read the Schnews article and can't see what is wrong with it, come back to us.

> You mean this Schnews article ?
>  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382317.html
> Okay, I've read it and can't see anything wrong with it.

How many times do I have to comeback ?

You oppose the slaughter in Burma and in Darfur ? Okay.
You target China exclusively ? Mmmm.
And you call Darfur 'genocide' ? Probably is.

You've still not mentioned Iraq. Afghanistan. Palestine. You know, the stuff USuk is most responsible for.
Aren't you worried by DictatorWatch recommending the US constitution to ASEAN countries ?
Is USuk such a spent force yet ?

Do you know ? I coined USuk as a word, probably here. I should've copyrighted it , or copylefted it or something.. I wanted to highlight both the UK compliticity and culpability, but also it's third rate rank in the American Empire. That empire has peaked as you say, but it regimes are vicious in their decline as in their growth. Often ingeniously so.

If you are new to the Burmese cause are you really qualified to call proven1990's Central Intelligence Agency involvement in the heroin trade with the current Burmese regime, as testified to by an agent of US Drug Enforcement Administration ?

Which south east asian slaughter led to this verse ?



Your eyes are made of the six elements –
earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness.
They are made of these only, but they are beautiful.
Should I make them mine?
Should I try to make them last for a long time?
Should I try to record them?
But I know that what I can record would not be your true eyes.

Your voice is made of the six elements, but it is truly lovely.
Should I try to make it mine? Should I record it?
But I know that what I can hold on to or record would not be your true voice.
What I get may only be a picture,
a magnetic tape,
a painting,
or a book.

Your smile is made of the six elements,
but it is truly wonderful.
Should I try to make it mine?
Should I try to make it last for a long time?
Should I try to own or record it?
But I know that what I can own or record could not be your true smile.
It would only be some of the elements.

Your eyes are impermanent.
Your eyes are not you.
Yes, I have been told, and I have seen it,
yet they are still beautiful.

Just because they are impermanent,
they are all the more beautiful.
The things that do not last long
are the most beautiful things -
a shooting star, a firework.

Just because they are without a self,
they are all the more beautiful.
What does a self have to do with beautiful eyes?

I want to contemplate your beautiful eyes, even if I know
that they do not last even if I know they do not have a self.

Your eyes are beautiful.
I am aware that they are impermanent.
But what is wrong with impermanence?
Without impermanence, could anything exist at all?

Your eyes are beautiful.
I am told that they are not you, they have no self
But what is wrong with the nature of nonself?
With self could anything be there at all?

So although your eyes are only made of the six elements,
although they are impermanent,
although they are not you,
they are still beautiful,
and I want to contemplate them.
I want to enjoy looking at them as long as they are available.

Knowing your eyes are impermanent,
I enjoy them without trying to make them last forever,
without trying to hold on to or record them
or make them mine.
Loving your eyes, I remain free.

Loving your eyes,
I learn to love them deeply.
I see the six elements which they are,
the six wonderful elements.
These elements are so beautiful.
And I learn to love them too.

There are so many things I love-
your eyes, the blue sky,
your voice, the birds in the trees,
your smile, and the butterflies on the flowers.
I learn each moment
to be a better lover.
I learn each moment
to discover my true love.

Your eyes are beautiful.
So is your voice, your smile,
the sky,
the birds,
the butterflies.
I love them. I vow to protect them. Yes.
I know to love is to respect.
And reverence
is the nature of my love.


or this :



It could've been Manhattan on the day the market fell
And it could've been a candy-store in Kandahar as well
And she might have been a Muslim, but it's kind've hard to tell
When your body's ground to zero and your skin's been fried to hell


So tell me it's the war to end all war, or don't tell me nothin'
'Cos if this sacrifice was not for peace, it was not worth making.
Seems to me, you did your best to put your hand in the hornet-nest that bit you -
Just when it hit you - There's other people hurt as much as you.
And grief is no excuse for what you do.


High-flyers at the corporation's daisy-cutting edge
They hold each other's hands and plummet from the window ledge
And the monitors have melted on the coffee-deal which meant
5000 farmers wondering where their livelihood just went.


America, my family, the whole world feels your pain …
And before this war is over, you'll make sure we do again.
Even as the tower tumbled on that fire-fighting team
We wondered who you'd barbecue for puncturing your dream

So tell me it's the war to end all war, or don't tell me nothin'
'Cos if this sacrifice does not bring peace, then it was not worth making.
Seems to me, you did your best to put your hand in the hornet-nest that bit you -
But it still don't it hit you - There's other people feel as much as you.
And freedom's no excuse for what you do.

I am not an Islamicist, religion's not my thing,
But they're friendlier than Christians and I like the way they sing,
And I want my sisters free to burn the burkha if they choose
Then lie awake and calculate what weight they need to lose

So tell me it's the war to end all war, or don't tell me nothin'
'Cos if this sacrifice don't change the world, it was not worth making.
Seems to me, you did your best to put your hand in the hornet-nest that bit you -
When will it hit you - There's other people need as much as you.

And greed is no excuse for what you do.

You're beautiful, big-hearted, and in many ways you're free
And you're smart enough to get the world how you want it to be
So it's hard for me to tell you what you shouldn't have to hear:
Your nation is that terrorist most human beings fear -

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Columbia and 'nam,
Cambodia, Grenada, Chile, and Afghanistan,
Palestinian and Iraqi, and some more you never knew -
United states of people who deserved as much as you

So tell me that you don't support this war, or don't tell me nothin'
'Cos if this song of mine don't change your heart, then it was not worth singing.
But I believe you did your best, chasing life and happiness,
Never wondered never guessed, how the news had been suppressed
Of a never-ending killing-fest, rip the kid from the Mama's breast,
Shrapnel thru her daddy's chest while we're all singing "Glory Hallelujah!" -
I'm talking to ya, somebody made a killing in your name.
So take your power back, or take the blame.

I'm from the UK. I am not new to activism and you are making it up as you go along. It's not making your original argument look any better researched.

I'm new to Burma as as issue, Danny. As is almost everyone. Try stopping to do some research and actually understanding a situation before jumping in with your size 12s. It's very poor "activism" to do otherwise.

"I'm new to Burma as as issue, Danny. As is almost everyone."
I suppose if you don't consider 1996 recent history then 1988 must seem aeons ago. The Burma Campaign started in 1991.

"Try stopping to do some research and actually understanding a situation before jumping in with your size 12s. "
So, as part of my research, explain what is wrong with the Schnews article like you promised to.

You're good at belittling everyone who doesn't see things your way, arent you ymu?

You've declared schnews to be children, Chin to be a junta supporter, the USA to be a spent force (guess we don't need to give a worry about Iran eh?), countercurrents to be counterpunch (you can't even have clicked on the link - its a yellow page), yourself to be a spokesperson for some urban75 group, and bandied around terms like "opinionated little ideologues". and "facile" as if you have all the answers.

Meanwhile I note that the mood on the urban75 thread has turned to pessimism, that a lot of people have died, and that there doesn't seem to be any kind of positive outcome for the Burmese people at all.

USuk still seems to me to be the thing that we should be dealing with urgently, as for starters, USuk have no ability to persuade anyone else that we have better models to offer. Because we don't.

And however much you think the USuk empire is fucked, it is still doing a whole lot of damage, and still expanding its powerbase.

Of course I don't support the junta, but nor am I keen to cheerlead the transition to a neo-liberal economy that may well be the inevitable outcome of a succesful revolution.

If and when it comes out that the USuk was behind the uprising (as claimed by the junta at the UN), you're going to look pretty damn silly.

 http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=24927&nav=&

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

I realise you like to just write stuff off the top of your head Danny, but we take our analysis seriously, The response has been drafted and will be posted when others have had a chance to comment and contribute to it. We're not in the habit of going off half-cocked when writing about other Peoples' struggles.

"If and when it comes out that the USuk was behind the uprising (as claimed by the junta at the UN), you're going to look pretty damn silly."

You are repeating Junta propaganda on indymedia? Do you have any idea how hilarious that is to the Burmese? Personally I find it obscene, but they'd likely be too busy laughing their asses off that anyone could be that naive.

Get a grip.

 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382661.html

.... that there was no USuk involvement in this uprising?

History shows that it is a standard tactic, why are you so certain that they've changed their spots now?

I think you'll also find that I suggested it as a possibility before the junta addressed the UN, so its not about repeating their propaganda, its about looking at how the USuk behaves all the time, and wondering what the hidden agenda is here.

'The first-order prediction of a propaganda model is that constructive bloodbaths will be welcomed (with perhaps some clucking of tongues and thoughts about the barbarity of backward peoples), benign bloodbaths ignored, and nefarious bloodbaths passionately condemned, on the basis of a version of the facts that need have little credibility and that may adopt standards that would merely elicit contempt if applied in the study of alleged abuses of the United States or friendly states..'

So, having just seen your response the the schnews article, the question has to be this:

If the USuk are such small time players in the unfolding mayhem, what exactly do you think all your efforts are going to achieve?

Now try and curb your sodding arrogance ffs.

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18485.htm

"If the USuk are such small time players in the unfolding mayhem, what exactly do you think all your efforts are going to achieve?"

We are trying to counter the Junta-imposed news blackout. You might not be aware of it, if you're relying on the mainstream media, but the fact that the world are (were) watching was (and is) an enormously important source of hope and determination for the people struggling against near impossible odds in Burma.

The 1988 uprising and massacres, where they first used the fear tactic of burying or cremating protesters alive, was not reported until months later. This uprising seemed sure to succeed because news did get out, and lots of it. Now they've shut down the Burmese internet and expelled or killed the journalists and they're burning protesters alive once more. There is not a hint of this in the mainstream media that the vast majority of the external support-base actually reads. People simply assume that the lack of news means the people have given up; they haven't, but if we just forget about it they might have to.

This is what happens in oppressive regimes, it's how they keep people oppressed; no power and no voice keeps hopelessness alive. This is the driving principle between many solidarity efforts; the western media are only interested in western-centric stories. So we must make it clear that the people in the west are pretty fucking interested in not letting this story off the front pages. You can sneer at the mainstream media all you like - bunch of stenographic cunts deserve it - but failing to use them when needed to win what is, essentially, a numbers game is ideologically-driven suicide.

The fact that China is starting to open up, investing heavily in Africa and challenging the Monroe Doctrine in South America, preparing to burst onto the world stage in a blaze of olympic glory next year is exactly what gives people in the west some leverage. They care about their public image these days, and we are trying to use that to support the people of Burma in their struggle.

If that's OK with you, obv.

It's also entirely beyond us why anyone thinks there might need to be an external reason for the uprising. The building of the Junta's shiny new city carved out of the jungle nearly bankrupted the country; then the IMF interfered and people could no longer afford food. That's not enough of a reason for people to take to the streets? The uprising was tactically led by the radical monasteries, defying orders from the bought-off abbots. The monks know that they are safer than the average protester and that the inevitable violence used against them would inflame the people far more than violence against the 8888 resistance (because propaganda does not work when you try to claim that the monks are underming peace and progress for Burma).

Anyways... We posted the response to Schnews because you (implicitly) declined to start the article yourself with a defence of their viewpoint. As you clearly think we're a couple of ignoramuses who know fuck all about real politik (one of us is a mere ignorant peasant from Burma, after all) perhaps you could respond there? You left us to get the ball rolling, so now it's over to you.

It's a good article on the hypocrisy of the West. No argument there. No doubt they will continue with plans to invade Iran - the propaganda in the mainstream media is so intense it's obvious that they will unless we can find a way to stop it - or something else happens to land them back to earth with one almighty bump.

(Personally, I think Burma may be the first link in the chain which will cause this crash-landing, but we'll see - a lot depends on what happens next and why.)

The article isn't actually claiming to be about Burma though is it? It's about Western hypocrisy given their fucking over of the ME and elsewhere. It doesn't actually say "and they're doing it in Burma too", now does it?

We have never once said that the US is a force for good as opposed to the psychotically dangerous propaganda-driven global bully it so obviously is. I personally have said I think it's in the familar death throes of a dying empire. Oddly, your only response to that was to say it is a "mainstream analysis" unworthy of indymedia. You're entitled to your opinion, but I've only offered independent sources to back up my opinion. This topic has been alive and well in the alternative media for at least 4 years, but you dismiss it as irrelevant (and therefore obviously mainstream, by default?)

It is a simple fact that USuk do not have direct political influence in Burma any more. The world is a very different place compared to 10 years ago. Apart from anything back then they'd got their national debt under control and the dollar reigned supreme as the international trading currency; it maintained it's value because everyone needed it to buy oil.

Since then the euro has emerged as a major competitor to the dollar; Iraq, North Korea and Venezuela switched to trading in it and OPEC threated to follow. Meanwhile, Bush has cut taxes for the rich and spending for the poor and gone into military overdrive invading/undermining these countries because they threaten the petrodollar that props the debt-ridden economy up.

It's not only the classic pattern seen at the end of every recorded empire in history (massive foreign debt, neglect of social issues at home and military overreach abroad), it's made them dangerously vulnerable to their creditors - China, India and Japan; every single one of them in ASEAN and with more direct interest in Burmese politics than any other state.

But yeah. Why was that article relevant? I ain't seeing it. And what's your objection to the one we referenced in the response to Schnews?

"Oddly, your only response to that was to say it is a "mainstream analysis" unworthy of indymedia. "

No that was my response to your quoting a fucking Bush at us. I specifically said that I disagreed with your argument that the US was a spent force, and that clearly aint mainstream analysis.

I've come to the conclusion that you have taken leave of your senses, and despite projecting it onto Danny, it is you that is alienating people left right and centre.

"Oddly, your only response to that was to say it is a "mainstream analysis" unworthy of indymedia. "

No that was my response to your quoting a fucking Bush at us. I specifically said that I disagreed with your argument that the US was a spent force, and that clearly aint mainstream analysis.

I've come to the conclusion that you have taken leave of your senses, and despite projecting it onto Danny, it is you that is alienating people left right and centre.

ftp "


Yeah, it's fucking awful when someone who gets global media attention says exactly what the Burmese resistance have been asking us to make sure gets said and reported. Fuck, I bet the campaigners for Darfur are fucking pissed off that months after they started campaigning with the slogan "Genocide Olympics" the media actually started reporting it. Gutting, eh?

ymu

Can you please explain to me why the National Endowment for Democracy funds Mizzima.com and the Democratic Voice of Burma?

thanks