John Pilger: UK business interests in Burma are more important to (UK) government than justice

by Niall Flaherty - Blackletter Sat Oct 27, 2007 17:20

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/02/the-juntas-a...ices/

George Monbiot in similar territory last month.

by Sceptic Sun Oct 28, 2007 00:27

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.

by Jimbob Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:13

"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?

by leftwingmonk Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:27

"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?

by Feudal castrato Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:29

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.