|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
John Pilger: UK business interests in Burma are more important to (UK) government than justice galway |
anti-capitalism |
other press
 Saturday October 27, 2007 16:00 by Mick - IAWM
 The politics of hypocrisy In today's Guardian, John Pilger flagellates the hypocrisy of the West when it comes to Burma : Condoleezza Rice comes to mind. "The United States," she said, "is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place in Burma." What she is less keen to keep a focus on is that the huge American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma's offshore oilfields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labour and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice-President Cheney was chief executive". Excerpt : And when did a British prime minister call on its ally and client, Israel, to end its long and sinister relationship with the Burmese junta? Or does Israel's immunity and impunity also cover its supply of weapons technology to Burma and its reported training of the junta's most feared internal security thugs? Of course, that is not unusual. The Australian government - so vocal lately in its condemnation of the junta - has not stopped the Australian Federal Police training Burma's internal security forces. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/02/the-juntas-a...ices/
George Monbiot in similar territory last month.
Don't be too influenced by Pilger and Monibat. They are both western self loathers who in any given situation will find a western bogey to blame even if it is manifestly clear as in this case that it is China and India who have the bulk of influence and business links with Burma. It is China above all which has most to fear from a democratic Burma which would be less friendly to them and would beg the awkward question for Chinese people - if Burma can have a democratic revolution why not us? By contrast an independent democratic Burma along the lines its neighbour Thailand would be very much in the interests of the west. Trading contacts with the likes of Total don't change that and don't contradict a western policy favouring political liberalization in Burma. It is doubtful anyway what good full scale western sanctions against the regime would achieve - the Burmese economy is primitive and the regime can get what it wants for its survival from it pals in Beijing.
"They are both western self loathers "
Wow, the self loathing tag. How original.
You speak of a democratic Burma. Would that be one with elections, and not much else different? Or would it involve the ending of forced labour, and listening to the voice of the people, including things like reducing the military budget of the country?
Don't you have any original thoughts to add?
"Don't be too influenced by Pilger and Monibat. They are both western self loathers who in any given situation will find a western bogey to blame"
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. "Western self loathers", that's a new one on me.
"even if it is manifestly clear as in this case that it is China and India who have the bulk of influence and business links with Burma"
Does it matter about China and India really in the context you mean? Either you are concerned with the ALL support for the undemocratic regime in Burma or you are not. If you are, then you must condemn all such support - ESPECIALLY when it comes from Western 'democracies' who cry crocodile tears over military state repression in Burma (and elsewhere - when it suits them). India, by the way, is a capitalist democracy.
"It is China above all which has most to fear from a democratic Burma which would be less friendly to them and would beg the awkward question for Chinese people - if Burma can have a democratic revolution why not us?"
I don't think China has much to fear about a 'democratic' Burma not trading/enjoying political relations with them - China already trade massively with most if not all Western capitalist democracies. Such links with Burma would continue no matter the type of government ruling there. As to the second part of your point - while I agree in essence, I think the Chinese elite have far more to fear from the country's own rich revolutionary tradition - protests on a whole range of issues from workers rights to political freedom have been on the rise dramatically in recent years.
"By contrast an independent democratic Burma along the lines its neighbour Thailand would be very much in the interests of the west."
This would be the same 'democratic' Thailand that experienced a military coup d'etat last year, yes?
dont be too influenced by septic. He is just a neocon apologist, possibly paid, who in any given situation will take the side of imperialists, even when it is manifestly clear, as in this case that the neocons are up to their necks in corruption as pointed out by pilgers article. It is china and Iran most of all that he will try to divert our attention to. This begs awkward questions as to how much he gets paid to continuously try to defend the indefensible.
Gee those stone age burmese would be so much better off with a western democracy with liberalised markets and financial institutions. I mean look at how the attempts to impose this on iraq worked out. how could they not want this?
Btw, regarding what "good" full scale sanctions, achieve, see iraq also.
Haha no commie slant eyed chinese around to help them! eh sceptic.
was it really worth it septic? was madeline albright right?
Please crawl back down the hole you emerged from and get an honest job.