Re: The tanks and guns vs people power in Myanmar

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:24:18 -0700, Sun Yat Sen <sunjongsan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The people of Myanmar have been living under a totalitarian military
dictatorship for over 4 decades now, and Western Powers haven't budged
an eyelid. Is this because there is no oil in Burma, or is it because
the West depends too much on the heroin that comes from there?


For four decaded the West did not care for they thought Myanmar a
small out of the way country of no importance. Comtemptible enough
to be below consideration. But Myanmar has petroleum, gas, precious
jewels and many other resource materials, in particular the highly
desired Burmese Jadeite that only Myanmar has.

It was not until China invested in Myanmar and, on top of that,
recognized that Myanmar as a strategic portal for China's access to
the Indian Ocean and the rest of the world that the West, in
particular the US, realised that China had once again outflanked her
(US) efforts to contain and confine China. Myanmar provides a
deepwater port to import Middle Eeast and African oil and gas into
western China and bypasses the Straits of Malacca, a maritime
strategic choke point in peacetime or in war time. This same
pipelines will also carry Burmese oil and gas to China and fits neatly
into China's strategic objectives to develop the backward and
underdeveloped western China. This new trade route will of course
also develop the interior of Myanmar a mutual benefit for both
countries. Chinese strategies to invest and cooperate with Myanmar
will enable PLA Navy units to provide protection against unfriendly
powers from interdicting Chinese shipping. By some quirk of geograqphy
Myanmar is a perfect and natural fit for China and doesn't fit nearly
as well for other countries.

I happen to be reading a book on Edgar Snow "Season of High Adventure"
by S. Bernard Thomas that describes Snow's travels to India and Burma
in the 1930s. Snow wrote the only authorative report out of Burma
from that age. The British were still the colonial masters and their
snobbish racial attitudes disgusted Snow. Britain's Indian camp
followers, the money lending caste of Chettyars, had such an
overwhelming power over the poor Burmese that they owned half the best
paddyfields and much of the debt of the remaining farms. In other
words the Burmese were already dispossesed of their own land and were
destitute. In the 1930s China was also being torn apart by
imperialists and, although having a long historical presence in Burma,
were also the underclass exploited peoples there. The Burmese
therefore have much reason to dislike Westerners and Indians, a fact
(on the Indians) that I didn't know about before. Chinese, by a quirk
of history, escaped being identified as their exploiters.

I don't know enough about Burmese donestic politics to comment of
their government. By this time anything Bush says is automatically
suspect and certainly will not be to the interests of the people or
country he is pretending (uninvited) to speak for. By contrast
China's strick policy of non intereference in another country's
domestic affairs comes across as a policy of pure genius. By all
indications China's engagement and development of Myanmar, and ASEAN's
efforts too, will bring prosperity and more freedom to the Burmese.
Bush type pressure and promotion of regime change will bing only more
oppression and disaster to an already suffering people. And worse,
destabilize a region that is already a fine balance of conflicting
forces.

In this mix one must acknowledge that Burma is indeed blessed in
having Aung San Suu Kyi as the concience of her country. As her
president she would have probably failed for she does not have the
political organization and her people do not have the experience or
resources for western type democracy. As their leader in concience
she serves a far more noble and effective role in moderating the
governance of the military rulers until such time when events will by
themselves develop bring peaceful change. Aung San Suu Kyi had
throughout her confinement refused to sanction any violent revolt
under her name and prestige. A Nobel Prize for Peace richly deserved
indeed.

Bush is already a lame duck president who can no longer pull out of
his hat any positive legacy. But he can still destroy it. Let's
hope he won't have the time, resources or political support to do
that. Hillary Clinton will certainly be the next president. She
comes across as one who can reverse the disastrous course Bush and his
neocons had led America down into. But she has learned a very valuable
lesson that she must work within the political system of her country.
This means she must make compromises with her Congresional opponents.
Thus dont't expect any bold foreign policy moves in her first term.
It won't happen at least until into the second year of her second
term. Let us all hope.
.