Why
Burma Is Not Iraq
By Ramzy Baroud
12 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
2003 invasion of Iraq has enabled two important realisations. First,
that imperial powers act only to preserve their interests, and second,
that humanitarian intervention -- i.e. humanitarian imperialism -- is
touted and encouraged by the media and official circles mostly to circumvent
the true self-serving intents of aggression. Granted, many Americans
are still under the impression that Iraq harboured Al-Qaeda, developed
weapons of mass destruction and threatened America's security. But who
can blame them? Compare the relentless campaign of fabrication and half-truths
prior to the invasion -- courtesy of the Bush administration and its
willing allies in the media -- to the dismal follow-ups on whether such
military adventurism actually achieved any of its declared objectives.
Every facet in America's
propaganda machine was in ceaseless motion to make a case for war; aside
from the obvious pretext, Iraq's horrors under Saddam were repeatedly
emphasised. Also showcased were Iraq's exiled elites who "proved"
that the US war was in tune with the desperate pleas of the Iraqi "masses".
Forget the actual masses thereafter butchered with impunity. Compare
again the attention given to Saddam's victims to the subsequent attention
given to victims of the US war (estimated to number more than one million),
who were not even validated as victims but instead presented as grateful
beneficiaries. A few months into the invasion, a leading US neo- conservative
claimed to me in an interview that the Iraq democracy experiment was
so successful that "Iranians are calling me at my office angrily
saying, 'How come you liberated the Iraqis and are yet to liberate us?'"
So why aren't the US and
Britain responding to the situation in Burma with the same determination
that they exhibited for Iraq, and now Iran? Why haven't media pundits
rushed in to make a case for war against the brutal regime of General
Than Shwe who has denied his people not only political freedom but also
the basic requisites of a dignified life? To maintain their extravagant
lifestyles in the midst of crushing poverty, junta generals jacked up
fuel prices by 500 per cent in August. This even provoked Burmese monks
-- legendary symbols of peace and endurance -- to demonstrate en masse,
demanding greater compassion for the poor. The protests, starting in
a rural town 19 August, culminated in massive rallies of hundreds of
thousands and lasted for weeks.
The media correctly drew
parallels between the most recent Safrron Revolution and the 1988 uprising,
when students in Rangoon triggered nationwide demonstrations that were
suppressed brutally by the army, claiming 3,000 lives. General Than
Shwe became the head of the junta in 1992 and continued to rule with
an iron fist. However, his subversion of democracy was not a strong
enough reason to prevent large multinationals from seeking lucrative
contracts in the gas-rich country. He accumulated wealth and his officials
continued to roam the globe with few hindrances, while the Burmese people
continued to suffer. This eventually led to the most recent revolt,
which was once again crushed without remorse. The number of dead this
time remains unknown; estimates range between 200 and 2,000. Thousands
have also been arrested and many monks have reportedly been tortured,
their monasteries ransacked. From a media angle, no revolution could
be as sentimental or appealing. But, of course, it takes more than tens
of thousands of monks leading hundreds of thousands of the country's
poor in mass rallies to make Burma relevant for long.
Western leaders, aware of
the criticism that awaits them, have paid the necessary lip service,
but little else. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown decried the use
of violence against protesters and demanded European sanctions. President
Bush declared that Americans "stand in solidarity with these brave
individuals". Israel, on the other hand, denied its military links
to the junta, despite much contradictory evidence. It justified its
unwillingness to influence the situation on the grounds of nostalgia
-- Burma was the first South Asian country to recognise Israel. The
UN sent its envoy to Burma to meet General Than Shwe and Ibrahim Gambari
was left waiting for days before he was allowed to express the concerns
of the international community. And that's that.
Burma is as important to
China as the Middle East is to the US. China cares more about the political
stability of its neighbours than human rights and democracy; the US
cares about such a nuisance insofar as its ability to serve its own
militaristic and economic interests is affected. China is the world's
fourth largest economy, and will soon be the third; its holds $1.4 trillion
in reserve, mostly in US treasury bonds. Its sway over the global financial
system is undeniable, and under no circumstance will it allow America
a significant role in a country that shares with it a 2,000-kilometre
border. The US, on the other hand, pays lip service to democracy in
Burma, and its continued "support" of opposition leader Aung
San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy is aimed at maintaining
a foothold in Burma for a future role, should the relationship between
the West and China turn sour.
Humanitarian imperialism
has proved more destructive than the injustices it supposedly eradicates.
But expect none of that in the case of Burma, because intervention does
not serve the interests of the influential parties -- not the West's,
or China's, or Russia's. We may see a few sentimental meetings between
Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of the generals, and perhaps a
few gestures of goodwill by the latter, at the behest of China and the
West. But they will bring no sweeping reforms, nor meaningful democracy
or human rights. These can only be achieved by the people of Burma,
their monks, civil society activists, and by ordinary people.
If Iraq has been a lesson
of any worth it is that the Burmese are much better off without American
bombing raids or British napalm in the name of intervention. True reforms
and democracy can only come from within, from the closed fists of the
determined dispossessed. Indeed, Burma is not Iraq, and Thank God for
that.
-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been
published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book
is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle
(Pluto Press, London).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.