Global Hypocrisy on Burma
by Satya Sagar
www.zmag.org, October 1, 2007
As the Burmese military brutally cracks
down on a popular uprising of its citizens demanding democracy
the question on many minds is - so what is the world going to
do about it? __
From the trend visible so far the answer
is simple- nothing at all. __
Nothing, that is, beyond the usual condemnations
and pious appeals for 'peaceful dialogue' and the posturing at
international forums in support of the Burmese people. __
Nothing more than sending a lameduck UN
envoy to negotiate with the paranoid Burmese generals. Negotiate
what? Funeral services for their innocent victims mowed down like
rabbits on the streets of Rangoon?__
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. __
Through its current policy the Indian
government has achieved none of its strategic aims in Burma and
instead alienated Burma's pro-democracy movement and its millions
of supporters worldwide. While sections of the Indian population
are apathetic or ignorant about their government's policies towards
Burma, their silence does not imply approval. __
India is not a democracy because of the
benevolence of its elitist politicians, bureaucrats and "defence
analysts" but despite them and because of the strong abhorrence
of dictatorship of any kind among the Indian people. It is high
time that the Indian government respected the sentiments of its
voters and stopped misusing the term "national interests"
to support Burma's military dictators.__As for the Burmese people
themselves what the world's wilful impotence in dealing with their
brutal rulers indicates is that ultimately they will have to achieve
democratic rule in Burma entirely on their own strength. __
The people of the world will of course
support them in whatever way they can but to expect governments
around the globe to help topple the Burmese military regime is
as unrealistic as asking the regime to step down on its own. There
is no option but to keep the struggle going.__
Satya Sagar is a writer, journalist and
videomaker based in New Delhi. He can be reached at sagarnama@gmail.com
Burma watch
Home Page