Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Schnews on Burma: a response

ymu & purves | 02.10.2007 14:35 | Anti-militarism | Repression | Social Struggles | London | Sheffield

The only thing to say about the title is we’re glad it won’t be easy to find if you’re googling for information on Burma. The actual details of the uprising are clearly unimportant to the authors or it might get more than half a scanty paragraph before USuk is invoked and the true purpose of the article is revealed.

Not that we’re big fans of the psychotic global thuggery of USuk, but isn’t it pretty obvious why politicians give lip service to human rights when scenes likes this hit the mainstream media? It’s not like Burma are USuk allies. Hell, USuk even criticises Israel’s human rights record occasionally (ie when Israel’s crimes actually get mainstream media coverage); doesn’t mean shit, now does it?

The Burmese resistance have been asking people outside to pressure our governments to speak out and pressure China to act. So people put the pressure on. And now that they have finally responded to these calls (in a mealy-mouthed hedging their bets and saying fuck all kind of way), it’s time to be clever and cynical. Again, don’t get us wrong – we despise them too, but where is this argument actually trying to go?

The obscene amount of trade originating in Europe is of course worthy of our disgust, but let’s face it, capitalism is global these days; only people still have borders and laws to obey. Why the under-reporting of the support for the regime from China? It is, obviously, a great deal more than $600 million in trade. It’s kinda like quoting US trade with Israel without mentioning the huge amount of financial aid, weaponry and military training, not to mention diplomatic cover and vetoes in the UNSC. China is the only global power with any real political influence; the US cannot afford to go shitting on the doorstep of it’s main creditor. The resistance have issued bitter communiques condemning the abuse of the UNSC veto on behalf of the Junta by China and Russia in January 2007, but Schnews only care to discuss USuk’s (barely existent) influence.

Of course, it could just be piss poor research and a lack of background knowledge. Aung San Suu Kyi has not been under house arrest for eleven years, as they state; it’s seventeen years now. They have picked up on the fact that she was imprisoned in 1996 but seem to remain unaware that this was after only a brief period of restricted “freedom”. She was originally placed under house arrest in 1990 after her party, the NLD, won 82% of the vote in elections called after the 1988 uprising.

We’re not at all clear what Schnews has against the Burmese Peoples’ desire for democracy, a struggle which began long before the British Empire pulled the thugs out in 1948. Is it only because Western politicians are calling for it, so it has to be wrong? Or are they seriously demanding that the uprising be put on hold until the People have become ideologically pure enough for Schnews to countenance their freedom? No? Then what are they actually saying here?

It’s the insinuations about the NLD that really display the shallows of their research as well as their “analysis”. They appear to think that the Burmese opposition is a single party, the NLD, waiting to impose a single party state on Free Burma. The National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma is a pluralist democratic government in exile, formed in the aftermath of Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest and the imposition of harsh military rule by the Junta. The NCGUB is led by Sein Win of the Party for National Democracy (PND) and includes members from the National League for Democracy (NLD), the Chin National League for Democracy (CNLD), the Democratic Organisation for Kayan National Unity (DOKNU), the Arakan League for Democracy (ALD), an independent and additional state representatives of the Karenni, Shan, Chin and Arakan Peoples.

So many parties and a federation of states, all working for democracy, and naturally there are disagreements over policy and approach, and plans for the future. These are openly discussed and debated on  http://www.ncgub.net/ and on the Democratic Voice of Burma radio broadcasts and its website ( http://english.dvb.no/).

So Schnews are being wilfully ignorant and somewhat facile? Yes, but what about those last few lines? Do they assume that the People of Burma, let alone the NCGUB, are unaware that it was IMF advice that led to the fuel crisis that triggered the uprising? It is extraordinarily arrogant to view the Burmese people as innocents; a grouping of primitive tribes who remain ignorant of global political and economic forces. In common with most oppressed peoples, the average pre-schooler could run rings around the average Western politician (or lazily cynical Western ideologue, come to that).

The Karenni, the Shan, Chin, Arakan and the other ethnic groups have pledged solidarity with the ethnic Burmese against military rule. They stand united alongside the radical 8888 resistance and the democratic opposition parties who have never given in to bribes and have pledged to call fresh elections as early as possible.

How’s about we forget about trying to take a standard off-the-shelf USuk analysis and trying to make it fit Burma? Right now the priority must be finding ways to counter the Junta-imposed news blackout and actively support the enslaved Peoples of Burma in breaking down the walls of their centuries-old prison and uniting in peace rather than in war.

=====
News from the resistance is being kept up to date as far as possible in the media blackout here:  http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UKBurmaActions

On China and the US:  http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10080

ymu & purves
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com/

Comments

Hide the following 37 comments

you suck

02.10.2007 16:26

You self-important, contradictory, aggressive and posts are incredibly damaging to the cause you claim to espouse. You attack arguments other people haven't made and refuse to answer basic questions. You blame all of Burmas problems on China, just China, and shrug off any other blame with 'but let’s face it, capitalism is global these days'. You even praise Laura Bush criticisms of Burmas human-rights without the slightest self-consciousness. You admit to having not known anything about Burma until recently, which means you did nothing to help before and now you act like your analysis is the only one worth reading, like some manic self-appointed messiah. Luckily, there are genuine activists who have a better grasp on reality whose thoughtful positions directly contradict your puerile jingoistic rants.

 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=44&ItemID=13934

It is not that nothing can be done at all – to begin with, how about kicking the illegitimate military regime out of the UN seat it continues to occupy and replacing it with the country’s elected government-in-exile? Why should Burma continue to be a member of ASEAN or for that matter, by default, also of the Asia-Europe Meeting or ASEM?

What about international sanctions on foreign companies doing business in Burma- including dozens and dozens of Western companies apart from those from Asia? Why should large oil companies like the US based Chevron, the Malaysian Petronas, South Korea's Daewoo International Corp or the French Total continue to be involved in Burma without facing penalties for their support of one of the world’s most heinous dictatorships?

The answers to these elementary questions are quite elementary too- it is Burma’s abundant natural resources and investment opportunities that really matter. Which government really gives a damn for corralled Burmese citizens desperately battling a quasi-fascist regime that is open to foreign enterprises and shut to its own people.

Following the bloodshed in Burma the new French President Nicholas ‘Napoleon’ Sarkozy for instance grandly called on French companies to freeze all their operations in Burma. Close on his heels Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner clarified however that the French oil giant Total, the largest European company operating in Burma, will not pull out for fear they will be ‘replaced by the Chinese’.

Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister also expressed ‘outrage’ at the Burmese government’s despicable behaviour but was mum about UK companies merrily investing away in Burma. Between 1988 and 2004 companies based out of British territories invested over £1.2bn in Burma, making Britain the 2nd largest investor in this supposedly ostracised country. The sun it seems has not only set on the British Empire but–on its way out- also deep fried the conscience of its politicians.

The Japanese government, another monument to global hypocrisy, shed crocodile tears at the cold-blooded killing of Kenji Nagai, a Japanese journalist shot by a Burmese soldier after he had fallen to the ground while photographing a fleeing crowd of protestors. Mustering all the courage at its command Tokyo asked for an ‘explanation’ and got the response ‘ooops….very sorry” from the Burmese Foreign Minister who must have also muttered ‘that was easy – Moroni San’.

On the question of cutting off aid to the murderous Burmese regime of course the Japanese made their position quite clear- ‘ it is too early’ for such action. They are probably politely waiting for the regime to murder an entire posse of Japanese pressmen before doing anything - Burmese deaths being of no consequence anyway.

The most predictable rhetoric of course came from US President George Bush who while announcing a slew of sanctions on Burma’s military leaders incredibly said, “I urge the Burmese soldiers and police not to use force on their fellow citizens”.

Wait a minute, that is what the Burmese soldiers and police are trained and paid to do- shoot fellow citizens- so what was the point Bush was trying to make? As usual only he and his Maker- from whom he claims to take instructions directly- knows.

Bush could have maybe uttered better chosen words but none of it would have been credible coming from a man with a record of war mongering and mass killings in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush own regime’s systematic destruction of international human rights norms have robbed it of the right to lecture even something as low as the Burmese junta about anything. A sad situation indeed.

What about Burma’s old friends like Thailand, Singapore or Malaysia who in a surprise indictment of their fellow ASEAN member expressed ‘revulsion’ at the use of deadly force against innocent civilians? Their statement was welcome no doubt but comes at least two decades too late to be of any real meaning.

Burma’s military rulers have already milked the dubious ASEAN policy of ‘constructive engagement’ for what it was worth to shore up both their regime at home and claw their way back to recognition abroad. In the early nineties when the Burmese generals were really down and out it was ASEAN who offered them succour and friendship while chastising those who called for democracy in Burma as being ignorant of ‘Asian values’.

All this leaves China and India, two of Burma’s giant neighbours, who for long have showered the Burmese junta with investments, aid and sale of armaments and whom the world now expects to use their ‘influence’ over the generals.

China’s active support for the Burmese regime is not surprising at all for a country with its own sordid record of suppressing democratic movements at home and shooting civilian dissenters. I don’t however think the Chinese are really worried about Burmese democracy triggering off another Tiananmen-like event in their own country- not immediately at least and not as long as Chinas’ consumerist boom keeps its population hypnotised.

In fact the Chinese, pragmatic as they are and conscious of protecting their many investments in Burma, may also be among the first to actively topple the Burmese junta if they feel that the tide of protests for democracy is about to win. Their future position on Burma will surely seesaw like a yo-yo depending which cat, black or white, is catching the mice.

Of all the countries around the world the most shameful position is held by India, once the land of the likes of Mahatma Gandhi but now run by politicians with morals that would make a snake-oil salesman squirm. India likes to claim at every opportunity that it is ‘the world’s largest democracy’ but what it tells no one, but everyone can see, is that its understanding of democracy is also of the ‘lowest quality’.

Why else would the Indian government for instance send its Minister for Petroleum Murali Deora to sign a gas exploration deal with the military junta in late September just as it was plotting the wanton murder of its own citizens. In recent years India, among other sweet deals, has also been helping the Burmese military with arms and training- as if their bullets were not hitting their people accurately enough.

It was not always like this though. The "idealist" phase of India’s foreign policy approach to Burma dates from when Indian Prime Minister Nehru and his Burmese counterpart U Nu were close friends and decided policies based on trust and cooperation. After U Nu’s ouster in a military coup in 1962, successive Indian governments opposed the dictatorship on principle.

At the height of the pro-democracy movement in 1988 the All India Radio’s Burmese service for instance had even called General Newin and his men ‘dogs’ (very insulting to dogs of course). With the coming of the P.V.Narasimha Rao government in 1992 though it is India that has been wagging its tail all along.

The "pragmatic" phase of Indian foreign policy toward Burma since the early nineties meant throwing principles out the window and doing anything required to further Indian strategic and economic interests. An additional excuse to cozy up to the military junta was the perceived need to counter ‘Chinese influence’ over the country.

In all these years however there is little evidence that India’s long-term interests were better met by "amoral pragmatism" than the "muddled idealism" that had prevailed in the past. In fact, what emerges on a close examination of current Indian policy is that, for all its realpolitik gloss, the only beneficiary is the Burmese regime itself.

Take the myth of India countering China which, according to Indian defence analysts has in the last two decades gained a significant foothold in Burma, setting up military installations targeting India and wielding considerable influence on the regime and its strategic thinking. They say that India’s strong pro-democracy stand in the wake of the 1988 Burmese uprising provided a window for countries like China and Pakistan to get closer to the Burmese generals.

Indian and other defence analysts, with their blinkered view of the world as a geo-political chess game, forget that the then Indian government’s decision to back the pro-democracy movement was not a "mistake" born out of ignorance, but an official reflection of the genuine support for the Burmese people among Indian citizens.

The second myth that propels the Indian foreign ministry to woo the Burmese generals is that by doing so India can get Burma’s support in curbing the arms and drugs trafficking that fuel the insurgencies in the Indian Northeast. This argument assumes that the Burmese junta is both willing and able to control the activities of Indian ethnic militants and Burmese drug traffickers along the border. In the case of drug trafficking from Burma there is reason to be worried—groups close to the regime benefit directly from the trade.

fan


We have been publicising calls for economic boycott, that was never the point

02.10.2007 17:01

I clearly do suck as noone seems to get the point and that can't be anyone's fault but my own. I take full responsibility for that and apologise to anyone who has been offended. I'm trying to do my bit by getting resistance news out to the more widely read activist channels; I'm fact-checking with a Burma resident who has taught me an enormous amount about the situation and the context to the uprising. He will be publishing a fuller article shortly, he just has limited access to IT facilities at the moment.

To clarify:

Of course proper economic sanctions should be applied. That's why we posted the Burmese resistance's ultimatum to China along with a list of their boycott targets:

"the radical resistance, based around the 88-generation and student activists overseas, have issued an ultimatum to China, alongside bitter criticism of the non-interventionist policy of ASEAN and the abuse of the UNSC veto by China and Russia to prevent action by the UN. If the PRC fail to act, they are asking for a global boycott of: Beijing Olympics 2008; Total, Unocal, Petrona, Finas, Elf, Daewoo and all products "made in China" or "made in Russia". The full text of the communique may be found here:  http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/2007/09/ultimatum-to-china-due-oct-2-900am.html.


Our problem (and my issues with red mist, for which I apologise again) is with the plethora of apparently ideologically-driven analyses from activist sources which ignore the real situation or facts on the ground. Other articles on indymedia are claiming that it's a CIA-driven plot, or repeating the Junta propaganda/suck-up-to-China claim that it's USuk interference. This is not just implausible in our view, it is actively damaging to the Burmese people and their struggle. Activist media sources essentially saying that the Burmese resistance are tools of the West and that we should not support them...yes, it upsets us. A lot.

Schnews did not go anywhere near that far. As far as we can tell, they're trying to make the same point as this article:  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18485.htm

The difference is that the information clearing house article is clear that it is about Western hypocrisy and does not attempt to smear the Burmese resistance by vague association or imply that the Burmese people are stupid and unaware of what has happened in South America and parts of Africa vis-a-vis the IMF in recent years. Something China has been actively supporting, by the way - to the impotent dismay of the US.

Anyway, I hope that helps to make our position clearer.

ymu
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com


more bullshit

02.10.2007 18:29

"Activist media sources essentially saying that the Burmese resistance are tools of the West and that we should not support them...yes, it upsets us. A lot."

Quote it please.

So that we can all see it.

Or have you just invented it?

ftp


Thailand is Burma's biggest trading partner

02.10.2007 18:35

Natural gas from Myanmar, which generates 20 percent of all electricity in Thailand, keeps the lights on in Bangkok. The gas, which this year will cost about $2.8 billion, is the largest single export for Myanmar’s impoverished, cash-strapped economy. Thailand’s gas imports highlight the difficulty facing China, India, Singapore and Malaysia, among other countries, as they vie for Myanmar’s hardwoods, minerals and gems — and access to its market of 47 million people.

Largely because of the gas deal, Thailand now accounts for more than 40 percent of Myanmar’s total exports and has become its biggest trading partner, not China, as is widely reported. “Thailand and Myanmar are increasingly integrated, increasingly dependent on each other,” Mr. Kudo said. As a result, “I don’t think that Thailand is applying any very serious pressure on the military government.”

NYT
- Homepage: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/world/asia/02asia.html


What?

02.10.2007 18:53

Burma has resources that corporations want, sanctions won't work because they'll be ineffectively policed by Governments that relentlesly pursue their own idea of self interest.

That and the fact that sanctions will hurt the people further. It is crazy to place support on this weak policy tool.

If sanctions were to be imposed completely and the Burmese economy to utterly collapse, with the military getting no food or water, then perhaps a revolt would be at hand. But what sort of revolt would that be? Topple one tinpot tosser for another?

The lack of strong solidarity and action in the West, is partly at fault for the current wave of protests failing, once again, Western people fail to hold 'their' complicit Government to account, that and the tactics used by the monks, unfortunately they seem to have underestimated the military junta, surprising really.

Freeburma


Am I misunderstanding these statements?

02.10.2007 19:14

"Activist media sources essentially saying that the Burmese resistance are tools of the West and that we should not support them...yes, it upsets us. A lot."

Quote it please.

So that we can all see it.

Or have you just invented it?
===============
"International narcotics agenda behind Myanmar instability"
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html
---

"Burma, Opium & the CIA"
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382329.html
---

"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. "
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html?c=on#c181789

"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."
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html?c=on#c181800

""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."
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html?c=on#c181802

Next week which corporate media propaganda blitz do you think you'll be dancing to?
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html?c=on#c181810

"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."
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382341.html?c=on#c181917
---

"However her party has little control over the uprising. In fact they’ve been pleading from the sidelines for the gatherings not to become an excuse to topple the regime, preferring the adoption of sanctions by the international community to bring the junta to the negotiating table."

"The question is: when the military junta eventually have to step away from government (although not necessarily power), will a free and newly elected Aung San Suu Kyi sign on the dotted line with the IMF and World Bank? And will there be a deal for Western support or will she think a little more carefully about the historical precedent and tell foreign investors where to shove it? Answers on a postcard to the usual address...."
 http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news604.htm#1,


ymu
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com


Liar

02.10.2007 20:12

"Activist media sources essentially saying that the Burmese resistance are tools of the West and that we should not support them"

You quote my article on the CIA involvement with the juntas drug trade as proof "Activist media sources essentially saying that the Burmese resistance are tools of the West and that we should not support them". First off, I am not an activist media source.

Secondly, my article was factually correct, or at least you haven't corrected a word of it so far. Yet I never said we shouldn't support them as you falsely claim, I said I was planning direct action. So why lie ?

You seem to be hijacking the issue to misrepresent, smear and attack activists and boost your own ego while promoting a blind pro-capitalist agenda. Blame that on your 'red-mist' anger-management issues if you want, but until you get that sorted you are a complete liability.

Danny


ymu - completely misunderstanding statements

02.10.2007 20:33

Every single one of them. Well done!

My concern throughout has been to understand why the media, politicos, ICG and the National Endowment for Democracy (who fund Mizzima) have been reacting the way that they have over this.

Its you who thinks anyone who asks questions must be supporting the junta, or that they must think that all Burmese are tools of western imperialism. That appears to be your arrogance, and your certainty that you are right and every one who isn't agreeing with you is some kind of junta bod.

You've quoted me pretty damn selectively as well:

The answer to the question:

""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?""

was Nope.

This isn't quoted:

"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."

and you've completely ignored the counterCURRENTs article, which carries the same assertions.

Remember - the one you didn't even click on?

I'm damn sure that Schnews don't support the junta, nor are they saying "Don't support the Burmese people" - I certainly am not, and nor is Danny.

What is clear is that the uprising has made things worse, and that the junta acted entirely predictably.

If you can't see why that makes me wonder if the organisers were lead to expect something different to happen, then so be it.

But you've got so much wrong its unbelievable......

ftp


Once more ...

02.10.2007 21:15

Danny, as you must surely know by now, I don't dispute your motives or your facts - only their relevance 11 years later whilst the Burmese people are once again rising up to try and oust the brutal Junta and a handful of business cronies who keep them enslaved. Like it or not, the world has changed since 1996. USuk are hypocritical, psychotically violent, immoral and amoral global criminals ; but they have absolutely no political power in this particular situation at this particular time. This is not South America, or even Zimbabwe; it is Burma.

Only China can resolve this because only China is powerful enough to intervene decisively. As someone else has already pointed out, sanctions are a very weak tool and are also a very controversial issue within Burma and the opposition movement itself; the arguments are discussed publicly on the resistance channels. This is a useful brief article:  http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=352

I am not and have never been an apologist for USuk, however hard you still seem to find that to believe. I'm just pointing out that they're not relevant in this particular struggle in 2007. We included a reference below the response to SchNews, but here's a another one published in 2005 which exaplains the situation rather well also.
 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=8384

10 years is one hell of a long time in international politics. I remember 1988 very very well, just as I remember the astonishment and joy when the Berlin Wall fell, or when Mandela was finally released.

It is simply a mistake to apply an outdated 1988 (or 1996 or even 2000) understanding of the world to the current uprising because there are different geo-political dynamics in play. The British are the principal culprits if we're looking to assign blame, and the US has kept the regime and their proxy paramilitary drug lords in business for decades; it does not change the fact that China holds all the cards right now.

The news of the massacres of protesters in that 1988 uprising was horrific when it finally got out months too late to be of any use to anyone. I was furious then and I'm furious now. The situation has been almost impossible to tackle at the activist level because Burma has been so incredibly isolated, the people so violently suppressed, and genocidal military rule there has been protected by every single global superpower there has been in the last 200 years. The difference this time is that the internet means the news gets out immediately; or did until the Junta successfully cut public access to it over the weekend.

The resistance has one single card which it has been playing over and over for months - as have campaigners for Darfur - China finally gives a shit about it's public image and is free to act decisively to stop the Junta murdering protesters; but only if it becomes politically more desirable than their preference for not acting. That's something only we can do - or more accurately, force our media to do. Spreading unsubstantiated rumours about USuk backing for the uprising is not likely to motivate the skilled and experienced activists who use indymedia as a resource to set aside any time for Burma; neither is suggesting that it's all a plot by the monks to seize power and establish a theocracy.

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

ymu
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com


I never said I thought your arguments were internally consistent

02.10.2007 22:36

"Its you who thinks anyone who asks questions must be supporting the junta, or that they must think that all Burmese are tools of western imperialism. That appears to be your arrogance, and your certainty that you are right and every one who isn't agreeing with you is some kind of junta bod.

You've quoted me pretty damn selectively as well:

The answer to the question:

""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?""

was Nope."

Well, you wanted quotes. You wrote them and left them for others to interpret; that's how I interpreted it. If I misunderstood you, any chance you could stop for one second to reflect that you might have misunderstood me? No?

This started because I took great exception to the unsubstantiated cut'n'paste theories on the newswire about the CIA being the covert force behind the Burmese uprising; about as convincing in their arguments as this load of old flannel.  http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/09/operation_niche_the_conviction.php
It's guilt by vague association with known facts and nothing else.

There's no analysis and no acknowledgement of the huge changes in the world in recent years. There is an absolutely crystal clear implication for anyone who bothers to follow the US global shenanigans that this is another Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

Again, if things are so desperate that people can be bribed to trash their own potential revolution at the cost of $7 and a meal (the bribe for the thugs that shaved their heads and dressed up as monks to ransack non-Buddhist holy places)...when there's an obscenely rich city built for 12 generals and their <100 business cronies, carved out of the jungle using slave labour and nearly bankrupting the country...with IMF stupid greedy fucker economics adding to the mix...to the point that millions of people literally cannot afford to buy food...why on earth would anyone need to hypothesise about USuk being behind it?

Explain, please. Why is USuk such an obviously important factor in all this that SchNews felt it was the right focus for their article, as did SPGB blog? Neither of these suggested a USuk plot, they just focused on USuk to the exclusion of all else. Here, the newswire is full of "CIA wot dunnit" articles; and when I challenged these analyses you had to find loads of different ways to "prove" that it's not implausible, in a remarkably large proportion of your posts on the topic, even to the extent of quoting Junta propaganda statements to the UN; even pointing out that the Junta let the IMF in is as if it proved that the opposition were likely to follow suit if they win this. Huh?

Why? It's making no sense whatsoever to me. Yes, they're hypocritical fuckwits - that doesn't mean they're behind every upheaval happening anywhere in the world, and especially not this one.

ymu
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com


polite conversation

02.10.2007 22:50

The CIA and the junta were dealing heroin in 1996. Neither group has progressed morally since then so it is safe to say this probably still occurs in 2007. I feel that is relevant to the situation and not just as history, but I have not said I think the monks or activists are involved in this trade, just that US motivations aren't always what their first lady states. I suspected, but never knew until FTP just pointed it out, the the NED have been involved behind the scenes. I regard the NED as nefarious as the CIA. "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" - Allen Weinstein of the NED.
There are times when the west has encouraged and promised support to popular uprisings only to renege on their promises and leave the innocents to suffer - Hungary in '56 and Iraq in '91 for example. 'Fool me twice, shame on me'

You say China has a major role to play in the situation and that is certainly true, but it also seems a one-dimensional and partisan critique. Until this thread you have had no criticism for nation but China. If China disappeared off of the face of the planet tommorow, Thailand would still be the juntas biggest trading partner, India would still be selling it all the arms they could buy, western corporations would still be stripping it's resources with effectively forced labour, Bangladesh and Thailand would still be harrassing Burmese rebels on their borders and seizing money from refugees, the US would still be buying it's opium. In my view that makes these embassies and companies equally valid targets. You initially seemed to disagree with that tactical argument. You seemed to be arguing not just to prioritise targetting China, but to do so at the exclusion of all other action. I'd say it is arguable that appealing to China's better nature, even at a time when it is hosting the Olympics, is a doomed policy. I've not heard any Tibet activists saying 'Why not free our nation as it will be good PR for the Olympics' and in Tibet there is really no one else toblame but China.

You have found plenty of time to criticise Schnews and other activists. Pacifist monks versus bloody dictators is a no-brainer morally. That is no what we are discussing and to suggest otherwise is at best an overly emotional error. That is perfectly forgivable at times of trauma and slaughter. I felt revulsion for everyone in the UK at the time of Fallujah.

You ask of the Schnews article "Why the under-reporting of the support for the regime from China?"
Well, the fact of Chinese support for the junta has hardly been under-reported in the mainstream media has it ? It has certainly been mentioned more in the MSM than the support of Thai, Indian, US, UK, Bangladeshi etc. Part of the job of citizen-journalism is to fill in the gaps that the mainstream leaves, to look at things from a different angle.

You say that there are different geo-political dynamics in play today than in '96. There is also a continuity. The only dynamic you've cited is the US debt being owned by China, and that was the case in '86 never mind '96 albeit to a lesser degree. The Reagan administration deliberately built up US national debt to anyone that would buy it to fund his tax-cuts and foreign invasions.

My own geopolitical influence isn't what it was. At most, I'm going to spraypaint a couple of the BurmaCampaigns 'Dirty List' companies, that sort of thing. Even that tiny contribution you nearly persuaded me to drop with your insults. The slaughter in Burma isn't my main issue, the USuk genocide in Iraq is simply because I feel more responsible for the greater slaughter there. Other activists have their own priorities and you won't persuade them with vitriol or contempt. You may not be from the Young Monks Union, but if you use that acronymn then you would better represent their cause if you spoke with their humility. Ascribing false arguments in a debate is counterproductive. Using deliberately offensive and vulgar terms should be saved for those with real power. I'd especially like to get to that English shit on the dirty-list who said Aung San Suu Kyi is the one oppressing the Burmese people - if you get him somehow for me, I'll try harder to do something as big in return.

Danny


Does this help to explain why offence might have been taken?

02.10.2007 23:18

Couldn't get this pic to load up, but it might help to explain just how Orwellian Junta rule is. These signs are ubiquitous - this is one helpfully provided in English...

 http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc16/stranget/35654481.myanmar_0_mandalay_020_IMG_5729_crop.jpg

We realise it's not malicious or intentional, but it's unbelievably offensive anyway - because it's fundamentally the same sort of propaganda the Junta have used for decades. All we're asking is that people research the situation carefully at such a critical time for the Peoples of Burma when external support is the only hope they have of succeeding. Without people on the outside willing to keep the pressure up, the uprising cannot succeed. The courage of these people is extraordinary given what happened in 1988; they need support not cynicism.

Burmese Bloggers without Borders was established on Sunday to try and help combat the news blackout. They posted Pilger's 1996 film. Compulsory viewing, IMO. Exactly the same brutality is being reported on the resistance channels, but it's not being widely reported because, it seems, not enough people are outraged enough to get it reported. That's just depressing and demoralising and...fuck it. Whatever. We had an excuse in 1988; there are no excuses this time.
 http://bbwob.blogspot.com/2007/10/burma-land-of-fear-by-john-pilger.html

ymu
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com


If you have a good argument, why do you keep making things up to support it?

03.10.2007 00:54

Danny, this is from the second post in that other comment section - the first one I ever addressed to you directly.

"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."

I've also referred to USuk from the very first post - I didn't pick that habit up from the fucking Daily Mail.

Yet you repeatedly claim that I am an jingoistic naive apologist for the West. Just as you accused me of being from the US after I'd already said I was from the UK. This stunning deduction was based on the fact that, referring to the different price rises of different types of fuel in Burma, I used the word "gas" which you assumed meant "petrol". It did not, it meant gas - as in the non-liquid non-solid fuel so many people use, even in the UK.

It doesn't bode well for the rest of your arguments if this is the typical accuracy of your conclusions even when you have all the relevant evidence right in front of you.

And of course, you resorted to the good ol' patronising "new to activism". I ain't gonna get into a pissing contest, but wrong. Again. It's having any real information from inside Burma that is new to me. That's why I'm checking my facts before posting, not to mention offering contemporary sources. Blair wasn't even in government in 1996,. let alone fucking Bush. In 1997 we were celebrating the end of the Tories. The world has changed a fuck of a lot since Portillo lost his seat, in case you hadn't noticed.

ymu
- Homepage: http://thinkwell-daz.blogspot.com


Excellent article on ZNet: global hypocrisy and external supports for the Junta

03.10.2007 01:37

 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=44&ItemID=13934

Thanks to whoever posted this as a comment to the feature on Burma. How the fuck 6 billion people have been persuaded to let the cunts keep getting away with this is completely beyond me. Unutterably depressing.

doonan


ahimsa

03.10.2007 11:16

I was hardly 'making up' that you were new to activism, I was simply guessing from you saying that Burma was a new issue to you, and from your language. Your terms "Nice that you support the poor little old Junta" , "conspiraloons", "apathetic cynicism" , "lazily cynical viewpoints" and "exercising our ideological muscles on a sexy new issue" hardly endeared me to your posts. Loaded and impolite language turns discussions into slagging matches, and experienced organisers ( not that I am one) tend to avoid that. To quote a wise person, "if you have a good argument, why do you keep making things up to support it"?

Now I don't know who you are, so I judge you from your tone and your emphasis. You did mention Geldof and the IMF, but you also slagged Schnews and praised Bush. You mentioned Darfur and Burma but failed to mention Iraq where our nation is much more culpable in more deaths. You failed to criticise DictatorWatch patronisingly extolling the virtues of the american revolution to the Burmese. Your analysis also failed to mention the shameful historical and current USuk role in Burma, and wrote this off as utterly irrelevant without argument. So I did jump to the conclusion you meant petrol instead of gas, because by that point I was looking at your posts for american spelling and grammatical pointers. In short, a CIA propagandist would have approved of your posts.

I am not accusing you of being such, I wouldn't have taken the time to write the 'polite conversation' post if I thought you were, I was wanting to summarise arguments that had been raised but not addressed. If you don't have a problem with that post, then fine. If you wish to debate any of that post, then please speak as you yourself wish to be spoken to in return - as any of the monks would.

Danny


shut up, shut up, shut up!

03.10.2007 13:59

with the constant bickering and sniping and backbiting!!!

i'll admit i only got half way down the comments when i had to stop or go insane....

maybe thousands have been slaughtered & you are choosing to spend your time whingeing at each other; so quick to jump on the defensive, to attack someone for not having the in-depth, accurate, perfect historical knowledge that you do....

no wonder we're up shit creek

get a f*ckin grip and start thinking about the bigger picture

& maybe consider having your 'how high i can piss' arguments in private & off this f*ckin site!

despairing!


simplistic bullshit

03.10.2007 17:04

for fuck's sake - let's say the protesters were being helped by america ... (some "help" if after forty years the junta are still in power, after being ignored for many years, getting far less coverage than countries in, say, the middle east) ...

whilst i can understand your reservations i don't personally think such arguments are valid ... let's say the junta are overthrown, even with american help this would still be a far better situation for the burmese people than the one we've got at the moment ...

as for using this situation to have a go at china, i haven't really seen all that much evidence of that tbh, i think most people here are genuinely concerned about the situation and want to help ...

and let's face it, after years of not hearing ANYTHING about burma from the media, right now they need all the exposure they can get.

for gods sake


pawn crackers

03.10.2007 19:04

Well, simplistic bullshit is what you titled it and simplistic bullshit is what you delivered.

"let's say the protesters were being helped by america"
And let's say the junta are being helped by america. And lot's of bloody juntas are being supported by america, and lot's of democratic governments undermined. Mind you, Laura Bush hasn't commentd on those cases has she ?

"as for using this situation to have a go at china, i haven't really seen all that much evidence of that tbh"

No ? You've not noticed much evidence that China is being soley held responsible for the Burmese junta's actions - honestly ?
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382698.html?c=on#c181970

While your own country is committing genocide it seems cowardly to focus on any other countries crimes. When there is evidence that conflict is being stoked, funded and manipulated by your own state then you cease to be a dissident and are effectively an unpaid agent of your state. You would be as well signing up to fight for queen and country at once.

It is the equivalent of German citizens in 1944 campaigning about the British Imperial brutality against the indigenous aboriginals of Australia, with the encouragement of the Nazis and complete with supporting quotes from Eva Braun. While they would have an undeniably valid point, they would also be morally and intellectually bereft for ignoring their own countries far worse sins that they could actually do something to prevent.

If you want to support the people of Burma then do so without supporting the CIA or the NED please.

4dogsSake


re: simplistic bullshit

03.10.2007 21:33

Thanks 4dogsSake for that - its good to know that others understand what this is about.

Part of the simplistic bullshit was this:

"even with american help this would still be a far better situation for the burmese people than the one we've got at the moment ..."

which seems to me to be rather dismissive of the many immiserated and pauperised peoples who live under US approved neo-liberal economic regimes.

The fuel crisis in Burma seems to have been triggered by an IMF demand that the Junta stops subsidising fuel, and were Burma to move onto a full structural adjustment programme, it is quite possible that life could get even harder for the people of Burma, as even more economic reforms are demanded as payback for the support that the party in waiting has received..

The underlying assumption that one murderous regime is better than another murderous regime doesn't really stand up to scrutiny if you stop and think about it for any length of time - you come to realise that they have exactly the same effect.

Another part of the simplistic bullshit was this:

"i think most people here are genuinely concerned about the situation and want to help ..."

which might imply that those concerned about the role of USuk are not genuinely concerned about about the situation - and that would be an incorrect assumption. The question of course is "How can we help?" and thats where I suspect that the difference between a liberal and someone more radical might become most clear. Signing a petition/ writing to an MP/ threatening to boycott the 2008 Olympics/ Marching from A - B with a placard might allow some to feel that they have helped, but for others it will seem like a pointless exercise which mainly serves to allay the guilt of the person undertaking the action.

Furthermore, there are already many situations that we need to be concerned with, and it is worth remembering that people died in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan on the same day that the Junta opened fire in Burma, and that those deaths were under reported or simply ignored by the media, even though they were the DIRECT responsibility of the murderous regime of the USuk. Those deaths should not be forgotten, nor should they be ignored.

Finally, the simplistic bullshit ended with this:

"and let's face it, after years of not hearing ANYTHING about burma from the media, right now they need all the exposure they can get."

and of course it is a good thing that the news is getting out, and that people are paying attention, but if the underlying reason for wanting the exposure is that people should use it to act on, then it seems necessary that there is a space where people can think through how best that action can be focussed, and what the targets are, and why.

And that isn't easy as we have seen on the Burma threads that have been running on Indymedia over the last few days.

We DO need to take action in support of the Burmese, but in doing so we have to be sure that the targets are appropriate, that the aims are clear, and that we know what the role of our regime is in the whole affair.

Then perhaps we can provide meaningful support to the people of Burma, and hopefully ongoing support.

As for myself, I have used my regular nick, people thus know who I am and I want to answer a specific charges against me:

ie: That I have simply repeated the propaganda of the Junta. My answer to that is that either they lied when they said that there had been outside agitation, or they did not. Saddam was a cunt, but I believed him when he said that he had no WMDs. If that was his propaganda, it was more truthful than the propaganda of Bush and Blair. I think that there are indications that this uprising was engineered with input from USuk, and the fact that 3 of the main "Burmese resistance" news sources are NED funded adds some weight to that. So does the USA's specific statements of support for the NLD. The USA doesn't support political parties that aren't useful to it - end of story. I don't buy the ymu analysis that USuk is a spent force that has given up on its mission to control as much of the world as it possibly can, especially when it comes to places where there are reserves of fuel. In this instance I am more inclined to think that there is truth in the Junta claim, even though the generals are tyrants who deserve nothing more than total revulsion (and ideally a bullet in the head each!). I specifically do not believe the propaganda of Bush (that he wants freedom for the Burmese) nor of Brown (that he supports the right to peaceful protest).

At the end of the day, I prefer the analysis of Schnews to that of ymu and the urban75 brigade.

If anyone has ideas for actions against appropriate targets, and appropriate aims for them, I'm all ears.



ftp


Is it plausible that the Burmese could be worse off under democracy

03.10.2007 23:56

"The fuel crisis in Burma seems to have been triggered by an IMF demand that the Junta stops subsidising fuel, and were Burma to move onto a full structural adjustment programme, it is quite possible that life could get even harder for the people of Burma, as even more economic reforms are demanded as payback for the support that the party in waiting has received.."
--------------------------------

I completely understand what you're saying, and it's absolutely true to say that a half-way compromise is frequently more damaging. The Oslo Accords spring to mind.

Burma seems to me to be a very different situation from other cases that could be cited, from the Middle East, through Africa and on to South America. It is resource rich. Much of this is wasted by the permanent state of war against the many ethnic minority states within Burma but there is still a lot of production. The economic value of this production is already being realised by collaboration with neo-liberal capitalism.

The problem for the Burmese people is that around half of the proceeds are spent on the military and almost all of the rest stolen by the Junta and just a few dozen businessmen who they favour. The country is already in the thrall of capitalism, but the profits are in the hands of a small band of criminals who enslave nearly all of the population, including those they pay relatively well to do the dirty work for them. There aren't many people amongst the 50 million population of Burma who would actually be worse off if the opposition win.

This is illustrated, for me anyway, by the extraordinary statement on Monday from the Karen National Union, representing a people who have been brutally oppressed and forcibly displaced by the Burmese military for decades. It's quoted at the end of the feature article on the front page:

"People from all different walks of life in Burma have to join in with this fight. Everyone, including government employees and soldiers. Because it's only a handful of [military] uniformed people who are destroying our country while the rest of the soldiers [of the lower ranks] are being mistreated in the same way as civilians and ethnic minorities.” --Padoh Mahn Shah, Secretary of the Karen National Union (1st October, 2007)

The situation seems very extreme from here. ZNet does not even seem to have a separate section for Burma, one of the most brutally repressive regimes on the planet. I'm not sure anyone outside of the area really has a concept of reality in a state where virtually 100% of the population are living as slaves and soldiers guard tourists to ensure that the people cannot talk freely to them.

This article suggests that democracy might not turn into a neo-liberal nightmare for the country. "Is Washington losing South America to democracy?"  http://www.countercurrents.org/sa-nelson120106.htm
It seems at least possible that China may force the Junta out if it becomes more politically acceptable than continuing to support them and noone seems to have any better ideas so far. I find it hard to believe that this could be a bad thing for anyone, even if an ideal outcome is unattainable in the world as it is today.



doonan


"Is it plausible that the Burmese could be worse off under democracy"

04.10.2007 01:02

Evil Goddess
Evil Goddess

Well, that was a thoughtful post under a terrible title.
Suggested alternatives :
'Is it plausible that the British could be worse off under democracy'
or
''Is it plausible that the Burmese could ever be allowed a democracy denied to the rest of us'


"It is resource rich. Much of this is wasted by the permanent state of war against the many ethnic minority states within Burma but there is still a lot of production. The economic value of this production is already being realised by collaboration with neo-liberal capitalism. The problem for the Burmese people is that around half of the proceeds are spent on the military and almost all of the rest stolen by the Junta and just a few dozen businessmen who they favour."

If the Burmese were all well paid but living under the same political oppression, would that be acceptable ? That is what you seem to be saying. The primary problem with slavery is not poverty, it is the lack of free will, the lack of self-determination. People starve under all sorts of government. They will also die to be free - which is a fact well known to the CIA / NED.

"ZNet does not even seem to have a separate section for Burma, one of the most brutally repressive regimes on the planet."

Domestically brutal perhaps. The US is undoubtedly more brutal globally than any other nation. How many millions of Iraqis have the Burmese junta genocided recently ? So which of our government agencies are justified to criticise ?

"It seems at least possible that China may force the Junta out if it becomes more politically acceptable than continuing to support them and noone seems to have any better ideas so far. I find it hard to believe that this could be a bad thing for anyone, even if an ideal outcome is unattainable in the world as it is today."

Were Indonesians similarly blessed by US support for Suharto ? You would have thought so from western media coverage at the time, but those ingrates seem to disagree now.

Do you know the NED/CIA hand out annual Democracy Awards to such 'international heroes of the people' such as Presidente Vincente Fox ? It is modelled on the 'Goddess of Democracy' statue that was erected in Tiananmen Square. Ironic or just sick ?

Danny


Not sure what you're trying to say

04.10.2007 03:00

I didn't specify economically well off, although it would undoubtedly be true. Not spending 50% of the budget on a military that is fighting no foreign wars has implications some way beyond money in people's pockets. A successful revolution in Burma would also wipe out the drug lords operating in the ethnic states and ruining lives there and across the borders. It's about how the government spends money as much as how much of it is not siphoned off from the workers who earnt it.

As there is no true democracy on this planet, I'm happy if you'd like to mentally insert scare quotes and call it "democracy", but I think it's a mistake to think of this idealised and largely unachievable system of government as inevitably linked to neo-liberal capitalism. Capitalism is anti-democratic and right now it's winning but that's not necessarily inevitable. "Democracy" itself is not the problem, it's just the neo-liberal Orwellian propaganda association that tars it with the same brush. In my opinion, anyway.

The countercurrents article makes this point quite clear, I think. The democracy movements in South America are a threat to US interests there. The article argues that war is the only option left for the US to regain Monroe-esque control. Obviously they'll be planning it, but there's only so far they can push their luck and finances, not to mention the credulity of the US population (although admittedly, the latter does appear to be near infinite).

I'd prefer global revolution to gradual reform myself, but I think it's counterproductive to refuse reform in order to make individual lives better in the short term. Of course, it is important to check that reform will indeed have that effect. I think in Burma it's hard to argue that it could possibly get any worse. The neo-liberal vultures are already feeding off the people so there's really no harm in them having freedom even if the post-revolution society is still deeply unfair.

doonan


precis

04.10.2007 13:27

"I didn't specify economically well off"

With respect, your first two paragraphs differentiated Burma from other subjectated countries solely for it's economic resources and production.

"A successful revolution in Burma would also wipe out the drug lords operating in the ethnic states and ruining lives there and across the borders."

If you mean the overthrow of the junta would end opium production there, well, that is what they said about Afghanistan being freed from Taliban rule, and that was a lie, the complete opposite of what happened. Besides, opium production continues even in nominally democratic or post revolutionary countries within the golden triangle.

"I think in Burma it's hard to argue that it could possibly get any worse."

It is tempting to say that about a lot of places but it is blindly optimistic. Things have worsened in Burma recently. Maybe in the short term things have to get worse before they can get better. However maybe another doomed revolt has been encouraged by US security services behind the scenes, not for the benefit of the Burmese people who are suffering for it, but for the political machinations of the western elite. The CIA encouraged revolts for democracy in Hungary in '56, in China in '89, and in Iraq in '91, promising support they knew they had no intention of delivering on. If 'the free world' elite really wanted democracy in Burma, they wouldn't allow trade there even if China did.

"The neo-liberal vultures are already feeding off the people so there's really no harm in them having freedom even if the post-revolution society is still deeply unfair."

I'm hardly arguing freedom is harmful, just that we should beat the vultures off the people rather than follow their platitudes. This may seem like nit-picking to you but I hope you agree accuracy is important, and I hope you agree it is not a matter of argumentative machismo to prove 'who can piss highest' as has been alleged. I'm not trying to score points, I'm trying to make relevant points and I'm sure you are too. I think how differences are tactical nuances but I think we have to recognise and highlight how the Burmese people are being manipulated by the dishonest state strategems funded by the NED. The reaon I got involved in this argument is YMU seemed to have suggested only targetting China with every other target being irrelevant - YMU has since stated that wasn't their intention. Most actions away from the Chinese embassy have targetted Total, which is fine. My primary concern is to scatter all the vultures you describe however you label them, and not just from Burma and I have no reason to doubt from your words that that is your primary concern too.

Danny


ace to hear this discussion as disagreements shedding light . . . .

04.10.2007 14:18

. . . . as a spin-detector im with the monks "oversensitised" attitude - the burma junta, with those "warbux opinion influencer types" that seem to play "tail wag dog WITH them ARE very wide across ALL the "media" on this one . . . . in t6he same way that a certain old tory "treasurer" semi-bought himself a small nation for the UN seat there were rumours that a bunch of dodgy criminal ex-covert op fraudsters of the "Minderbinder"persuasion were looking for a getaway base to use the internet against people "backhome" from - nepal had a few odd things happen to its regal types, but if that WAS trying something - it failed - if there are rumours of odd "luxury bunkers" there, perhaps the monks have disrupted the old shites "endgame".

. . . . specifics, seethe premature "doom doom gloom gloom" spin thrown at the tale, then the VERY sudden way it leapt out of the prioritisations in the "usual" papers despite ongoing UN meetings, UN ambassador out there too . . . .

. . . . but for absolute cheek, see the way che vro n escapes from the eco no mists news cover about the corporate involvements DESPITE(?) the ongoing sponsorship competition with that magazine. I agree people HAVE tried to whip up the "coldwarwivchina" bit, but in

ACTUAL fact , seeing as china DOES seem to have put quite a lot of "backroom" pressure in support of the UN blokes meeting with people - (YESITDOESNEEDMUCHMORE) - it could have got that mentioned as the "good news" tales we aint heard, much, such as
MAJOR DESERTS JUNTA
REFUSES TO SHOOT MONKS
PEOPLE PUSH TROOPS BACK FROM MONASTERIES WITH CATAPULTS
etc, when these "bits" of the news were "buried" under the "gloomgloom" bits.

PS - if the troops are kept going despite the severe social religious pressures - with the "local" methamphetamine factory product - the precursors/materials for that drug come mostly from china, smuggled. I dont usually argue in favour of strengthening "customs" either, but . . . .
. . . .
. . . .

keep it up - good arguing - all, expect + happy to see all at demos -venceremos


When did the CIA ever promote democracy?

04.10.2007 14:51

With respect, your first two paragraphs differentiated Burma from other subjectated countries solely for it's economic resources and production."
------

I pointed out that 50% of the profit vas spent on the military. It wasn't a throwaway remark. They're not just well paid tourist guides. You assumed economically well off. Not what I wrote, and even so, the point should surely be clarified adequately by now?

------
"If you mean the overthrow of the junta would end opium production there, well, that is what they said about Afghanistan being freed from Taliban rule, and that was a lie, the complete opposite of what happened. Besides, opium production continues even in nominally democratic or post revolutionary countries within the golden triangle."
-----

Last I looked, Afghanistan was occupied by and at war with the US and their so-called coalition. It's nowhere near enjoying the benefits of either "democracy" or "revolution". It'd be highly unlikely that the drug trade would not be flourishing under these circumstance.

Meanwhile, in Burma, the revolution has been joined by the ethnic armies who have been fighting for decades against the Burmese army and the paramilitaries running the heroin business in their states with the elimination of the drug trade as a stated aim. If the revolution was successful, the relatively small paramilitary groups wouldn't have a hope without the Burmese Army on their side. It is likely that others would try to take their place in such a lucrative trade, but the current crooks would be run out of town and the ethnic states do not want the heroin gangs operating in their lands.

------
"It is tempting to say that about a lot of places but it is blindly optimistic. Things have worsened in Burma recently. Maybe in the short term things have to get worse before they can get better. However maybe another doomed revolt has been encouraged by US security services behind the scenes, not for the benefit of the Burmese people who are suffering for it, but for the political machinations of the western elite. The CIA encouraged revolts for democracy in Hungary in '56, in China in '89, and in Iraq in '91, promising support they knew they had no intention of delivering on. If 'the free world' elite really wanted democracy in Burma, they wouldn't allow trade there even if China did."
-----

I am aware of the CIA's nefarious activities elsewhere. This is what puzzles me about your argument. When has the US ever brought about democracy anywhere? How often has it toppled existing democratic regimes? To my knowledge It has never ever agitated for or instituted democracy anywhere ever but it frequently stages coups against democratic regimes. Actual democracy is anathema to the neocon agenda. The US hates what is happening in South America. Why has it suddenly changed the routine for Burma?

-----
I'm hardly arguing freedom is harmful, just that we should beat the vultures off the people rather than follow their platitudes. This may seem like nit-picking to you but I hope you agree accuracy is important, and I hope you agree it is not a matter of argumentative machismo to prove 'who can piss highest' as has been alleged. I'm not trying to score points, I'm trying to make relevant points and I'm sure you are too. I think how differences are tactical nuances but I think we have to recognise and highlight how the Burmese people are being manipulated by the dishonest state strategems funded by the NED. The reaon I got involved in this argument is YMU seemed to have suggested only targetting China with every other target being irrelevant - YMU has since stated that wasn't their intention. Most actions away from the Chinese embassy have targetted Total, which is fine. My primary concern is to scatter all the vultures you describe however you label them, and not just from Burma and I have no reason to doubt from your words that that is your primary concern too.
----

I agree. Accuracy is important. The CIA does not promote democracy. The pan-Burma opposition hate the paramilitary heroin gangs. The IMF is already interfering in Burma. The Junta are completely corrupt, utterly bribable and have a habit of shooting and imprisoning each other on whim. I can't imagine the US having an interest in promoting a democratic revolution against a regime like this. Unocal, Total, Fina, Elf all already have their feet under the table and might have problems with the democrats if they win as they will know all about PetroCaribe and the adventures of Hugo and friends.

All the serious campaign groups for Burma are focusing on China and the 2008 Olympics, as the campaigners for Darfur started doing months ago.. You haven't made any convincing arguments proving them wrong yet. In my opinion, of course.

doonan


'When has the US ever brought about democracy anywhere?'

04.10.2007 15:07

Oh,how about ... Germany and Japan, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, South Korea ...? Just at a quick estimate.

demosthenes


A comprehensive list of exceptions that prove the rule

04.10.2007 15:28

WII is hardly a US sole achievement and as far as I'm aware they did not oppose the USSR for the sake of the colonies.

Any examples from the ME, South America or Africa? Should I dig out Rogue State and type up all the counter examples?

doonan


since when ...

04.10.2007 17:25

has it been the job of the United States to bring democracy to anyone?

Democracy will come to countries that have a secure justice system, property rights, and a system of universal suffrage.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan didn't.

They might have not got them yet, but not for want of trying.

demosthenes


"When did the CIA ever promote democracy?"

04.10.2007 18:11

It 'promotes' it all the time, even as it is wrecking it. Even the juntas websites promote democracy. Lately the CIA do so under the name the National Endowment for Democracy. The NED solely blames Burma on China, funds many of the Burmese groups you have been promoting, urges activists only to target China, and it's other main issue is the promotion of Darfur. Cos all of this distracts from Iraq and Afghanistan. So, you and the CIA have a lot in common in terms of policy China, Darfur, Laura Bush etc. The CIA/NED don't care about the Burmese one iota and yet they recommend the same strategy as you do. Doesn't that worry you in the slightest ?

When did China ever change it's policies in reaction to western public opinion ? Demonising the official enemies of the US while ignoring US genocides is not dissent, it is compliance.

"All the serious campaign groups for Burma are focusing on China and the 2008 Olympics, as the campaigners for Darfur started doing months ago.. You haven't made any convincing arguments proving them wrong yet."

Really ? So the BurmaCampaign 'Dirty List' should be ignored - they aren't serious enough for you ? The protests against Total should be wound down ?

Danny


Neocon propaganda refers to "democracy", not democracy

04.10.2007 18:46


U.S. Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present

Here is a listing of American interventions into the life of other nations:(For sources see Rogue State and Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II both by William Blum).

China, 1945-51. Iran, 1953. Cambodia, 1955-73. France, 1947.
Guatemala, 1953-1990s. Laos, 1957-73. Marshall Islands, 1946-58. Costa Rica, mid 1950s-1970-71.
Thailand, 1965-73. Italy, 1947-70s. Middle East, 1956-58. Ecuador, 1960-63.
Greece, 1947-49. Indonesia, 1957-58. The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65, 77-78. Philippines, 1945-53.
Haiti, 1959. France/Algeria, 1960s. Korea, 1945-53. Western Europe, 1950s-1960s.
Brazil, 1961-64. Albania, 1949-53. British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64. Peru, 1965.
Eastern Europe, 1948-56 Iraq, 1958-63. Dominican Republic 1963-65. Germany, 1950s.
Soviet Union, 1942-1960s. Indonesia, 1965. Cuba, 1959 to present. Vietnam, 1945-73.
Ghana, 1966. Uruguay, 1969-72. Honduras, 1980s. Panama, 1989.
Chile, 1964-73. Nicaragua, 1978-90. Afghanistan, 1979-92. Greece, 1967-74.
Philippines, 1970s-1990s. El Salvador, 1980-92. South Africa, 1960s-1980s. Seychelles, 1979-81.
Haiti, 1987-94. Bolivia, 1964-75. South Yemen, 1979-84. Bulgaria, 1990-92.
Australia, 1972-75. South Korea, 1980. Albania, 1991-92. Iraq, 1972-75.
Chad, 1981-82. Somalia, 1993. Portugal, 1974-76. Grenada, 1979-83.
Iraq 1990s. East Timor, 1975-99. Suriname, 1982-84. Peru, 1990s-present.
Angola, 1975-1980s. Libya, 1981-89. Mexico, 1990s-present. Jamaica, 1976.
Fiji, 1987. Columbia, 1990s-present. Yugoslavia, 1995-99.

Nicked from:  http://www.callipygia600.com/growingold/essays/rogue.htm


And I'm pretty sure I never said the resistance hasn't called for sanctions and consumer boycott. They are. This is from the indymedia UK feature on Burma:

- the radical resistance, based around the 88-generation and student activists overseas, have issued an ultimatum to China, alongside bitter criticism of the non-interventionist policy of ASEAN and the abuse of the UNSC veto by China and Russia to prevent action by the UN. If the PRC fail to act, they are asking for a global boycott of: Beijing Olympics 2008; Total, Unocal, Petrona, Finas, Elf, Daewoo and all products "made in China" or "made in Russia". The full text of the communique may be found here:  http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/2007/09/ultimatum-to-china-due-oct-2-900am.html.

Notice how the Beijing Olympics is included in there?

doonan


very grateful for the list, doonan

04.10.2007 19:13

and perhaps you'd like to tell us which are democracies these days.

Not China, unfortunately, and not Vietnam or Somalia.

But to pluck one almost at random: 'Portugal, 1974-76'

And as a result of the intervention, has Portugal become a democracy, or has become a dictatorship/one party state?

demosthenes


You make my point for me

04.10.2007 19:32

Are you trying to say that the history of US adventures in proxy colonialism suggests that they're likely to be backing a united pan-Burma democratic opposition against a corrupt neo-liberal regime which is already trading with the West? It'd be a bit of a departure for them, surely?

It's also worth noting that the IMFs neo-liberal adventures really got underway started with the unholy alliance of Reagan and Thatcher and the Reaganomics revolution at the IMF/World Bank in the early 1980s.  http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/Anth234/stiglitz.htm

doonan


Now funny you were saying that ...

04.10.2007 19:58

Calling for sanctions?

 http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-burmaenacted1.htm

and

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7017369.stm

Let's see - if they don't intervene, it's because they support 'a corrupt neo-liberal regime which is already trading with the West'

If they do - well, we all know what you think about the pernicious effects of US intervention.

demosthenes


Burmese Daze

05.10.2007 13:12

We've always been at war with Eastasia.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.

"the radical resistance, based around the 88-generation and student activists overseas, have issued an ultimatum to China, alongside bitter criticism of the non-interventionist policy of ASEAN and the abuse of the UNSC veto by China and Russia to prevent action by the UN. If the PRC fail to act, they are asking for a global boycott of: Beijing Olympics 2008; Total, Unocal, Petrona, Finas, Elf, Daewoo and all products "made in China" or "made in Russia"."

But not products "made in the USA" or "made in India" or "made in Thailand" ? Doesn't the USA buy virtually all the juntas opium ? Doesn't India supply as many arms as China ? Isn't Thailand the biggest trading partner ? I wonder why they aren't criticised. Still, nice to see one US corporation getting a mention, Unocal, albeit under a name no one would recognise - they are Chevron now, or in the UK, Texaco.

"It's also worth noting that the IMFs neo-liberal adventures really got underway started with the unholy alliance of Reagan and Thatcher and the Reaganomics revolution at the IMF/World Bank in the early 1980s."

More specifically the IMF and World Bank were remoulded by Reaganites between 1981 and 1983. Reagan also formed the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983 from CIA elements. Now the NED is funding the same groups that are mainly criticising China. It seems inconsistent of you to criticise one Reaganite organisation and not the other.

By the way, do you know Than Shwe got his career break murdering Karen when Burma was still a democracy ?

"Than Shwe has perfect credentials based on his 1953-1960 work in the army's Psychological Operations Department churning out propaganda. His shoot-to-kill skills, against minority ethnic Karen guerrillas in eastern Burma, earned him a promotion in 1960 to become a captain."  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00506.htm



1984
Midway through the book, the alliance breaks apart and Oceania, newly allied with Eurasia, begins a campaign against Eastasian forces. This happens during "Hate Week" (a week of extreme focus on the evilness of Oceania's enemies, the purpose of which is to stir up patriotic fervor in support of the Party), Oceania and Eastasia are enemies once again. The public is quite abnormally blind to the change, and when a public orator, mid-sentence, changes the name of the enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia (still speaking as if nothing had changed), the people are shocked as they notice all the flags and banners are wrong (they blame Goldstein and the Brotherhood) and tear them down. This is the origin of the idiom, "we've always been at war with Eastasia."

Danny


Strawman

05.10.2007 16:14

"Are you trying to say that the history of US adventures in proxy colonialism suggests that they're likely to be backing a united pan-Burma democratic opposition against a corrupt neo-liberal regime which is already trading with the West? It'd be a bit of a departure for them, surely?"

I think you'll find that it isn't a "neo-liberal regime" at all. There have been limited forays into privatisation, but there has been no wholesale privatisation of state owned companies.

I'd suggest that wholesale privatisation is most likely to happen when the junta has been overthrown by the USA/NED/CIA backed opposition.

imho of course.


"All the serious campaign groups for Burma are focusing on China and the 2008 Olympics"

Which campaigns are these then? What is your criteria for a serious campaign?

ftp


Burma is not (technically) privatised?

05.10.2007 18:50

This is a rather trivial point when the proceeds of the state go straight into the coffers of the Junta and business contracts go to a few dozen of their private business cronies. I'm really not seeing a relevant distinction here.

The calls come from the 8888 resistance groups, as you'd know if you'd been reading any of the non-MSM news channels.  http://burmamyanmargenocide.blogspot.com/2007/09/ultimatum-to-china-due-oct-2-900am.html

doonan


Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
Regions
All Regions
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Nottingham
Scotland
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on indy.im and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Schnews
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
VisionOnTV
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
Topics
All Topics
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
Workfare
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Guantanamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
SOCPA
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech