London Wallpaper: why West is unhappy with Myanmar

Why the West Opposes the Myanmar Junta

By Ramtanu Maitra

On Aug.18, the Obama administration issued a statement supporting the
creation of a United Nations Commission to investigate Myanmar
government's alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes. The
statement said such a commission would advance the cause of human
rights in Myanmar by "addressing issues of accountability for
responsible senior members of the Burmese regime." (Note that the
Western countries — the United States and Britain, in particular —
always identify Myanmar as "Burma," its colonial name, which was
changed in 1989.)
Last March, Britain's ambassador to the U.N., Sir Mark Lyall Grant,
told the U.N. Security Council that his country supported a
recommendation by the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in
"Burma" that the Hague-based international court open a war crimes
investigation on the topic. It has also been reported that Britain,
the former colonial ruler of then-Burma, is backing moves to refer
Myanmar's military leaders to the international criminal court for
investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity. According
to The Guardian columnist Simon Tisdall, on March 25, "the move is
part of a heightened campaign to force the junta to embrace genuine
democratic reforms." Following the decision by the Obama
administration, some Washington officials told the media that they
believed a policy of sanctions had, by itself, failed to bring about
improvements in democracy and human rights.
The White House missive was issued five days after Myanmar's military
government announced its plan to hold the first election in two
decades on Nov 7. "Multiparty general elections for the country's
parliament will be held on Sunday Nov 7," according to the brief
announcement from the Myanmar Election Commission carried on state TV
and radio, which also called on political parties to submit their
candidate lists between Aug. 16 and Aug. 30.
Ahead of the polls, the ruling junta has passed numerous laws and
rules. The new laws effectively bar detained opposition leader Aung
Sun Suu Kyi and other political prisoners —estimated at more than
2,000 — from taking part in the elections. Ms. Suu Kyi's National
League for Democracy (NLD) has indicated that it will boycott the
polls. A total of about 40 parties have registered to participate in
the November elections, but it is almost a certainty that the NLD's
absence in the polls will prompt the West to label the elections a
travesty.
The White House statement, which followed the demarche issued by
London, was not really a surprise. Andrew Buncombe, writing for The
Independent on Aug.19, cites U.S. officials who claimed it "represents
a marked rollback of one of President Obama's most controversial
foreign policy initiatives" — a reference to the openings to Myanmar
spearheaded by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., last year.
Sen. Webb, who chairs the Senate foreign relations sub-committee on
East Asia and Pacific affairs, given his public support for a policy
of engagement with Burma's generals, was advocating a break by
Obama from the more punitive approach favoured by Britain and the
European Union. Webb has made clear that he has come to the conclusion
that years of sanctions and condemnation of Myanmar had failed.
Why Myanmar?
Those who are even nominally conversant with Washington's and London's
foreign policies over the decades should have little difficulty in
figuring out why Myanmar's human rights violations have been subjected
to such close scrutiny, even constituting grounds for imposing
sanctions. Briefly put, its suits the Western geopoliticians to go
after Myanmar. It is arbitrary self interest that has nothing to do
with the principle of human rights or concern for the people of
Myanmar.
If that sounds harsh, consider the following. In 1977, Pakistan's
military dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq arrested the duly-elected prime
minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and proclaimed martial law. He
promised an election within 90 days, which he did not carry out. He
canceled elections by decree on March 1, 1978, and banned all
political activity in the country. He then set up a kangaroo court,
"convicted" Bhutto of a murder and, despite international appeal,
hanged him in 1979. Gen. Zia's suppression of the Pakistan People's
Party, which under the leadership of Bhutto claimed to have won the
1977 elections by a huge margin, continued; Bhutto's widow, Nusrat,
and his daughter, Benazir, were placed under house arrest or jailed,
and most of the party leaders also spent time in jail.
Did the West, the undisputed flag carrier of democracy, impose any
sanctions on Gen. Zia ul-Haq and his military regime? No. What? A
true soldier, unburdened by the trappings of democracy, how is it that
Gen. Zia ul-Haq did not draw the wrath of the West but Myanmarese
military junta does? The fact is that Pakistan happened to be an
important ally in the West's monumental battle against the godless
Soviet Union at the time. When the Soviet Army moved into
Afghanistan, the non-democratic Gen. Zia ul-Haq was ready to do
whatever the West wanted him to do, and more. Myanmar's military
leadership is not so inclined.
A Strategic Location
Myanmar is situated between China to the north, Southeast Asia to its
south and the Indian subcontinent and the Andaman Sea and Bay of
Bengal to its west. The Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal, which abutt
India's east coast, is one of the access routes to the Indian Ocean
and the Arabian Sea. The entire maritime trade of China, India,
Southeast Asia and Far East Asia depends heavily on these waterways.
A formidable presence in these waterways is considered by Western
geo-strategists as key to the control of large and growing nations
such as China and India.
Myanmar shares common maritime boundaries with India and Bangladesh in
the Bay of Bengal and with India and Thailand in the Andaman Sea. The
country's 3060-km. coastline has a large number of estuaries and
islands. The coastal zones of Myanmar can be divided into three main
geographical sub-areas: the Rakhine Coast, Irrawaddy Delta and
Taninthayi Coast. Many rivers flow into the coastal zones: the Mayu
and Kaladan rivers in the Rakhine coastal area; two large rivers, the
Irrawaddy and Thanlwin, in the Delta area; and Thanlwin in the Delta
area and Ye and Dawei Rivers in the Taninthayi area. The northern
coastline is shallow and has extensive deltas; the southern part is
more or less rocky.
During the colonial period, Britain — with India and Myanmar (then
Burma) as its colonies —used these waterways to bring wealth back to
England in various forms, including food, from these countries and
areas it ruled along the eastern coast of Africa. The British Navy's
control over these waterways was a key factor in the growth of the
British Empire. Although that colonial empire is gone, the mindset is
not. That is why the anti-Myanmar campaign is orchestrated from
London. From colonial days, Britain's leading political parties have
always been in agreement on a tough course of action against Myanmar.
The Burma Campaign UK (BCUK), established soon after the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in 1991, is a London-based nongovernmental
organization (NGO) that promotes the "restoration of human rights and
democracy in Burma." Consisting of British politicians of all major
political parties, the BCUK plays a critical role in the campaign to
bring down the Myanmar military and usher in democracy. Recently,
responding to questions posed by the Burma Campaign UK, the Labor
Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all declared their support
for targeted sanctions and an arms embargo on the "Burmese" military
junta, and called for an inquiry into crimes against humanity
committed by the "Burmese" regime.
"The policies of all the main political parties in the UK demonstrate
cross-party support for targeted economic sanctions, a global arms
embargo, action on crimes against humanity by the generals, and
maintaining increased aid," said the London-based NGO in a press
release on May 4,2010. "This is a testament to the effective work of
Burma Campaign UK in building consensus on what needs to be done to
help the people of Burma," said Nang Seng, the group's parliamentary
officer. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labor Party said,
"Labor will not support any easing of sanctions in the absence of
tangible progress on the ground." The Conservative Party, led by
Prime Minister David Cameron, emphasized its concern for the human
rights situation, especially in eastern Burma, calling the violations
"appalling." The Liberal Democrats also said that the five election
laws passed by Myanmar's Election Commission this year "will make a
mockery of Burma's first election since 1990."
The real mockery, however, is the empire-servers' and colonialists'
"commitment" to democracy! In 2001, Andrew Selth, a visiting fellow
at the Strategic and Defense Studies Center of Australian National
University, pointed out the importance of a Western presence in
Myanmar in light of the growing military and economic power of China.
In a paper, "Burma: A Strategic Perspective," Selth said Washington's
covert support for the opposition in Myanmar is based on a rapidly
expanding U.S. involvement back into South Asia. Growing U.S.
corporate concern with China's growth and the Pentagon's drive to
implant a new generation of U.S. bases to control the Straits of
Malacca is leading to a renewed U.S. involvement in the region. Some
80 percent of the oil bound for China passes through these straits.
While the sources of covert support remain unidentified, it is known
that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros' Open
Society Institute, Freedom House, the Albert Einstein Institute and
the U.S. State Department have helped in funding, training and
providing material support and communication for a new generation of
opposition to the military rule in Myanmar. NED has reportedly funded
the opposition to the tune of $2.5 million annually since 2003 with
regime change as its focus. The NED admits to funding the key
opposition media such as New Era Journal, Irrawaddy and the Democratic
Voice of Burma radio. The U.S. Consulate General in neighboring
Thailand, now under a royalist dictatorship that is nonetheless
friendly to U.S. interests, has provided key logistical support and
training.
China, India, Indian Ocean …
The significant economic growth in China, which began to show through
in the early 1990s, and in India, which became visible at the turn of
the millennium, has raised concerns among Western geopoliticians.
They have noticed the presence of China's naval power, which has begun
to dominate the South China Sea. Meanwhile, India, now concentrating
on its navy more than ever before, has already consolidated its
control over the Andaman Sea-Bay of Bengal waterway that separates
India's east coast from Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia, and allows the
Indian Navy a presence in the Indian Ocean and near the Straits of
Malacca — the narrow strait through which China brings in the bulk of
its energy supplies from the Gulf states.
No matter what the exact nature of Beijing's naval presence in and
around India's coastal waters is, the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea
will remain the essential supply route for many nations around the
world — the lifeline, in fact — and that includes both China and
India. Therefore, the issue really is how to keep this waterway free
of rivalry, bullying or hostile postures and ensure that world trade
is not interrupted because of power plays between these large nations.
What is equally important is to keep foreign naval powers at a
distance and not allow them any naval base or access to any hot button
in this highly populous and volatile region.
It is relevant to point out what New Delhi and Beijing must keep in
mind at all times: for their own interests, or because of hostility
toward India and/or China, external powers will continue to fish in
the troubled waters should China and India fail to come to a clearer
understanding of the importance of keeping the waterway power-neutral.
Financial conditions in the West will almost surely become more
difficult in the coming years and the planned growth of almost all
nations, China and India in particular, could be gravely jeopardized.
There is no dearth of students of geopolitics in each country, trained
in the British imperialists' school or believers in the Kissingerian
balance-of-power myth. These troublemakers will spare no effort in
revving up one or the other nation, urging the authorities to adopt
negative policies that will lead to a worsening of the overall
bilateral relationship.
The West's Myanmar gambit is to usher in a democratic leader, such as
Aung Sun Suu Kyi, who has strong links in Britain and is expected to
remain indebted to the Western powers for gaining access to power.
Such a leader, with links to London and Washington, will then be put
under pressure to bring in the foreign powers to "protect" Myanmar
from China and India.
In the coming years, of the littoral states of the Indian Ocean,
Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore will be the Western geopolitical
forces' cynosure. Donald Berlin, in his September 2004 Contemporary
South Asia article, "The 'great base race' in the Indian Ocean
littoral: conflict prevention or stimulation?," said that some
military infrastructure development activity by the United States
relevant to the Indian Ocean is underway in Thailand, notably at
Thakhek, as well as in the north and west of Australia — where it will
intensify significantly if a final decision is made to move some of
the 20,000 U.S. Marines currently stationed on Okinawa and reposition
them 'down under.' In addition, of course, China is moving
deliberately to set up berthing facilities on both the Indian Ocean
and the Arabian Sea, which the western observers have characterized
collectively as a "string of pearls" strategy or a "preparation of the
battlefield." .
Singapore, which sits astride the critically important Straits of
Malacca and ostensibly worries about China's growing power, badly
wants to upgrade its already close ties with the United States.
Toward that end, it built the Changi Naval Base in the late 1990s so
that the U.S. Navy could operate an aircraft carrier out of Singapore
if the need arose.
Berlin says the great base race in the Indian Ocean littoral is
engendered by a variety of factors. A key one simply is that some
regional actors (read: China and India) now are gaining the wealth,
power and confidence to concern themselves with their external
security. To this extent, the new bases reflect these states'
perceived need either to erect defenses against one another or, in
some cases, against potential intervention or meddling in the region
by external powers.
Berlin, in his article, India in the Indian Ocean (Naval War College
Review, Spring 2006), points out that India cannot help but be wary of
the growing capability of China's navy and of Beijing's growing
maritime presence. In the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea, especially,
New Delhi is sensitive to a variety of Chinese naval or maritime
activities. For Beijing, this process has entailed achieving the
capability, and thereby the option, to deploy or station naval power
in this region in the future. A key focus in this connection is
Myanmar, where Chinese engineers and military personnel have long been
engaged in airfield, road, railroad, pipeline, and port construction
aimed at better connecting China with the Indian Ocean, both by sea
and directly overland, Berlin concluded.
The Western powers are also interested in laying new emphasis on
military infrastructure in the Indian Ocean littoral states by citing
the region as home to the world's greatest concentration of Muslims,
argues Berlin. Today, many Islamic nations in this region are at odds
with Israel, and its Western backers, over the Palestine issue. How
did the Americans get into Somalia? Or, Afghanistan, for that
matter? The U.S. got into Somalia after the American embassies were
targeted by terrorists in Kenya and Tanzania.
As of now, the Western nations, Britain and the United States in
particular, are keen to contain China's advances in the Indian Ocean.
In the not-so-distant future, a similar containment of India could
also be in their cards. An open conflict, not on the agenda of any
forces in this region, can be prevented, Western geopoliticans
believe, only if the West develops a strong presence on the landmass
that leads to the Indian Ocean. Which country would they then be
looking at? Myanmar, of course.