[R-G] Why Burma is not Iraq

[Anthony Fenton]

  Why Burma is not Iraq
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Oct 15, 2007, 01:08
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2530.shtml

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  
neoconservative 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 is a Palestinian-American author and editor of  
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous  
newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post,  
Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest  
book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s  
Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website:  
ramzybaroud.net.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor