[Reader-list] Satya Sagar : Global Government Hypocrisy on Burma

[Patrice Riemens]

Original to: The Irrawaddy News service: http://www.irrawaddy.org/


Global Government Hypocrisy on Burma [Commentary]
By Satya Sagar
October 2, 2007
(http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=8848)


As the Burmese military brutally cracks down on a popular citizen uprising
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, that is, than dispatching a lame duck UN envoy to negotiate
with the paranoid Burmese generals. Negotiate what? Funeral services for
the 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 replace 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 US-based Chevron, the
Malaysian Petronas, South Korea's Daewoo International Corp or 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 behavior but was mum about UK companies
merrily investing away in Burma. Between 1988 and 2004, companies based
out of British territories invested more than £1.2bn in Burma, making
Britain  the second 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 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 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 and 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
90s when the Burmese generals were really down and out, it was Asean that
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 neighbors, who have
showered the Burmese junta with investments, aid and the sale of
armaments, and the world now expects them 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 China's 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, it is India that has been wagging
its tail all along.

The "pragmatic" phase of Indian foreign policy toward Burma since the
early 90s 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 real
politik gloss, the only beneficiary is the Burmese regime itself.

Take the myth of India countering China which, according to Indian defense
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 defense 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 willful 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 video maker based in New Delhi. He
can be reached at sagarnama at gmail.com