Beast of the Month - December 2007
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan Dictator
"I yam an anti-Christ... "
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"
Democracy is a funny thing when it comes to American foreign policy: it's really important. It's really important, that is, except when it's not.
Take, for example, the hissy fit the Bush Team and korporate media has had over Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He has long been described as a would-be-dictator by these forces, and a recent public referendum had been widely labeled as an attempted constitutional coup. Never mind that he's won 3 elections as El Presidente and one referendum to stay in power, which means he's won four more elections legitimately than Bush ever has. Never mind that a failed plutocratic coup that tried to oust Chavez in 2002 with the Bush Administration's backing was the greatest threat to democracy in Venezuela since he took office. Never mind the public referendum voted on this month was constitutional and was decided by direct democracy: it involved changes in labor and property laws and executive power, including the big contention, removal of term limits for the office of President. Never mind the "controversial" attempted removal of term limits would hardly put it out of the norm of democracies in the Western world. And never mind that after voters legitimately concerned at the increase in executive power proposed (it also would have allowed Chavez to redraw political maps and appoint some local leaders, given him power over the central bank and allowed him to suspend civil liberties during states of emergency) voted against it 51 to 49 percent, Chavez announced: "I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense." So much for Mr. Dictator. But then again, most honest observers would admit the controversy isn't about democracy but of a Latin American leader with a vision for the future in conflict with the neoliberal agenda - and the petrodollars to fund it.
Compare this to the coverage of Mikheil Saakashvili in the nation of Georgia. When he took over in January 2004 after the Rose Revolution (which preceded Ukraine's Orange Revolution) he was widely admired in his country, winning over 96 percent of the vote. He was even more widely admired in the Western media establishment, being an admitted pro-Western politician. Like in the Ukraine, however, it appears he may have bet on the wrong side, and he has fallen from favor. Demonstrations against the government on charges of corruption, assassination and authoritarianism were met with riot police armed with batons, tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons, as Misha declared a state of emergency. (Boy, that will get rid of those charges of authoritarianism!) Of course, there is more to this story that a Cliff Notes version can do justice (Saakashvili claims, with good justification, that the protests are being financed and promoted by the Kremlin) but it is odd that the disturbing attacks on democratic rights occurring in Georgia right now are not receiving the same outrage in the korporate media as the Chavez referendum. Odd, that is, until one considers Georgia's geographic importance in regards to the Caspian Sea oil reserve.
Or look at Burma. While officially the US government has never been in favor of the dictatorship that has ruled since 1962, opposition has been mild at best. Even after political protests involving Buddhist monks and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, the regime hardly has risen on the pundit outrage-o-meter back in the USA. Perhaps that is because the dictatorship has long been friendly to American korporations, most notably Chevron.
Hmm, that's odd: all these examples have oil involved with them, and the side the US is on is coincidentally the side that the oil money is on. In fact, it appears that "democracy" has no importance in deciding which side the US government is on. Iraq under Saddam and Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: bad. Saudi Arabia: good. Russia under Vlad Putin: bad. Georgia and the Ukraine: good. Venezuela under Hugo Chavez: bad. Burma under General Than Shwe: good.
Perhaps the most naked example of political cynicism in the past month, however, is the case of Pakistan, which is led by General Pervez Musharraf, The Konformist Beast of the Month. This is because there is no question that Pakistan is a dictatorship, and there is no question that the US government supports it despite its lack of democracy.
Pakistan fell into dictatorship in October 1999, which is over eight years ago and back when Britney Spears was still jailbait. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted by the military coup after he tried to remove Musharraf as Army chief. Instead, Sharif and members of his cabinet were arrested, forcing Sharif in exile to Saudi Arabia. Despite this, Pakistan remains a noted ally to Team America and the Bush Administration.
Of course, even before the 2000 election, Bush was on record as being supportive of Musharraf. Soon after the coup in 1999, Bush was asked to name the new leader of Pakistan and three other world leaders: he could only muster up "Lee" for Taiwan (his full name is Lee Teng-hui.) Despite not scoring well on the quiz if the game was Jeopardy, he had some revealing comments about the leader of Pakistan, declaring, "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected – not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the subcontinent." So there you have it: Bush in 1999 declared a military coup in Pakistan was good news.
As far as Bush and his minions are concerned, Musharraf is still good news, especially after 9/11. After all, the US needs a friendly neighbor bordering Afghanistan if it wants Operation Enduring Freedom to be a success (even if, as a success, Enduring Freedom has been marginal at best.) So in the name of Freedom, the USA has been in bed with a dictatorship. This continues even after last month, when Musharraf suspended the Constitution and declared martial law through the country, shutting down all private television stations and jailing dissidents. Among those jailed were members of the Supreme Court, including chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who were about to rule that a sham "election" handing Musharraf the presidency was invalid, which apparently led to the state of emergency declaration. Later a kangaroo Supreme Court appointed by Musharraf dismissed all challenges to the election.
The punch line is, as an ally, Pakistan is certifiably two-faced. While officially they support the "War On Terror", they have been a not-so-secret hiding place for Al Qaeda and the Taliban ever since. It is also widely believed that Osama bin Laden, if still actually alive, is hiding in Pakistan (though considering the supposed videos of "bin Laden" speeches in recent years appear to be unconvincing forgeries, his status among the living is rather dubious.) Apparently, a subtle agreement exists between Musharraf and the Al Qaeda-Taliban members: if we give you sanctuary, you agree not to unleash terrorism against Pakistan. Which is understandable, after all: sometimes diplomacy requires one to do business with those you'd prefer not to. It's a shame the Bush Team can't owe up to this obvious truth, and declare that foreign policy is decided by Mammon instead of morality. But that would open up a can of worms, as it would give official evidence that nearly four thousand American soldiers and billions of dollars have been wasted in Iraq over lies.
In any case, we salute Pervez Musharraf as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Pervez!!!
Showing posts with label General Than Shwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Than Shwe. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, October 19, 2007
Why Burma is not Iraq
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2530.shtml
Why Burma is not Iraq
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 15, 2007
The 2003 invasion of Iraq has enabled two important realisations. First, that imperial powers act only to preserve their interests, and second, that humanitarian intervention -- i.e., humanitarian imperialism -- is touted and encouraged by the media and official circles mostly to circumvent the true self-serving intents of aggression.
Granted, many Americans are still under the impression that Iraq harboured Al-Qaeda, developed weapons of mass destruction and threatened America's security. But who can blame them? Compare the relentless campaign of fabrication and half-truths prior to the invasion -- courtesy of the Bush administration and its willing allies in the media -- to the dismal follow-ups on whether such military adventurism actually achieved any of its declared objectives.
Every facet in America's propaganda machine was in ceaseless motion to make a case for war; aside from the obvious pretext, Iraq's horrors under Saddam were repeatedly emphasised. Also showcased were Iraq's exiled elites who "proved" that the US war was in tune with the desperate pleas of the Iraqi "masses." Forget the actual masses thereafter butchered with impunity. Compare again the attention given to Saddam's victims to the subsequent attention given to victims of the US war (estimated to number more than one million), who were not even validated as victims but instead presented as grateful beneficiaries. A few months into the invasion, a leading US neoconservative claimed to me in an interview that the Iraq democracy experiment was so successful that "Iranians are calling me at my office angrily saying, 'How come you liberated the Iraqis and are yet to liberate us?'"
So why aren't the US and Britain responding to the situation in Burma with the same determination that they exhibited for Iraq, and now Iran? Why haven't media pundits rushed in to make a case for war against the brutal regime of General Than Shwe who has denied his people not only political freedom but also the basic requisites of a dignified life? To maintain their extravagant lifestyles in the midst of crushing poverty, junta generals jacked up fuel prices by 500 per cent in August. This even provoked Burmese monks -- legendary symbols of peace and endurance -- to demonstrate en masse, demanding greater compassion for the poor. The protests, starting in a rural town 19 August, culminated in massive rallies of hundreds of thousands and lasted for weeks.
The media correctly drew parallels between the most recent Safrron Revolution and the 1988 uprising, when students in Rangoon triggered nationwide demonstrations that were suppressed brutally by the army, claiming 3,000 lives. General Than Shwe became the head of the junta in 1992 and continued to rule with an iron fist. However, his subversion of democracy was not a strong enough reason to prevent large multinationals from seeking lucrative contracts in the gas-rich country. He accumulated wealth and his officials continued to roam the globe with few hindrances, while the Burmese people continued to suffer. This eventually led to the most recent revolt, which was once again crushed without remorse. The number of dead this time remains unknown; estimates range between 200 and 2,000. Thousands have also been arrested and many monks have reportedly been tortured, their monasteries ransacked. From a media angle, no revolution could be as sentimental or appealing. But, of course, it takes more than tens of thousands of monks leading hundreds of thousands of the country's poor in mass rallies to make Burma relevant for long.
Western leaders, aware of the criticism that awaits them, have paid the necessary lip service, but little else. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown decried the use of violence against protesters and demanded European sanctions. President Bush declared that Americans "stand in solidarity with these brave individuals." Israel, on the other hand, denied its military links to the junta, despite much contradictory evidence. It justified its unwillingness to influence the situation on the grounds of nostalgia -- Burma was the first South Asian country to recognise Israel. The UN sent its envoy to Burma to meet General Than Shwe and Ibrahim Gambari was left waiting for days before he was allowed to express the concerns of the international community. And that's that.
Burma is as important to China as the Middle East is to the US. China cares more about the political stability of its neighbours than human rights and democracy; the US cares about such a nuisance insofar as its ability to serve its own militaristic and economic interests is affected. China is the world's fourth largest economy, and will soon be the third; its holds $1.4 trillion in reserve, mostly in US treasury bonds. Its sway over the global financial system is undeniable, and under no circumstance will it allow America a significant role in a country that shares with it a 2,000-kilometre border. The US, on the other hand, pays lip service to democracy in Burma, and its continued "support" of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy is aimed at maintaining a foothold in Burma for a future role, should the relationship between the West and China turn sour.
Humanitarian imperialism has proved more destructive than the injustices it supposedly eradicates. But expect none of that in the case of Burma, because intervention does not serve the interests of the influential parties -- not the West's, or China's, or Russia's. We may see a few sentimental meetings between Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of the generals, and perhaps a few gestures of goodwill by the latter, at the behest of China and the West. But they will bring no sweeping reforms, nor meaningful democracy or human rights. These can only be achieved by the people of Burma, their monks, civil society activists, and by ordinary people.
If Iraq has been a lesson of any worth it is that the Burmese are much better off without American bombing raids or British napalm in the name of intervention. True reforms and democracy can only come from within, from the closed fists of the determined dispossessed. Indeed, Burma is not Iraq, and thank God for that.
Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post, Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website: ramzybaroud.net.
Why Burma is not Iraq
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 15, 2007
The 2003 invasion of Iraq has enabled two important realisations. First, that imperial powers act only to preserve their interests, and second, that humanitarian intervention -- i.e., humanitarian imperialism -- is touted and encouraged by the media and official circles mostly to circumvent the true self-serving intents of aggression.
Granted, many Americans are still under the impression that Iraq harboured Al-Qaeda, developed weapons of mass destruction and threatened America's security. But who can blame them? Compare the relentless campaign of fabrication and half-truths prior to the invasion -- courtesy of the Bush administration and its willing allies in the media -- to the dismal follow-ups on whether such military adventurism actually achieved any of its declared objectives.
Every facet in America's propaganda machine was in ceaseless motion to make a case for war; aside from the obvious pretext, Iraq's horrors under Saddam were repeatedly emphasised. Also showcased were Iraq's exiled elites who "proved" that the US war was in tune with the desperate pleas of the Iraqi "masses." Forget the actual masses thereafter butchered with impunity. Compare again the attention given to Saddam's victims to the subsequent attention given to victims of the US war (estimated to number more than one million), who were not even validated as victims but instead presented as grateful beneficiaries. A few months into the invasion, a leading US neoconservative claimed to me in an interview that the Iraq democracy experiment was so successful that "Iranians are calling me at my office angrily saying, 'How come you liberated the Iraqis and are yet to liberate us?'"
So why aren't the US and Britain responding to the situation in Burma with the same determination that they exhibited for Iraq, and now Iran? Why haven't media pundits rushed in to make a case for war against the brutal regime of General Than Shwe who has denied his people not only political freedom but also the basic requisites of a dignified life? To maintain their extravagant lifestyles in the midst of crushing poverty, junta generals jacked up fuel prices by 500 per cent in August. This even provoked Burmese monks -- legendary symbols of peace and endurance -- to demonstrate en masse, demanding greater compassion for the poor. The protests, starting in a rural town 19 August, culminated in massive rallies of hundreds of thousands and lasted for weeks.
The media correctly drew parallels between the most recent Safrron Revolution and the 1988 uprising, when students in Rangoon triggered nationwide demonstrations that were suppressed brutally by the army, claiming 3,000 lives. General Than Shwe became the head of the junta in 1992 and continued to rule with an iron fist. However, his subversion of democracy was not a strong enough reason to prevent large multinationals from seeking lucrative contracts in the gas-rich country. He accumulated wealth and his officials continued to roam the globe with few hindrances, while the Burmese people continued to suffer. This eventually led to the most recent revolt, which was once again crushed without remorse. The number of dead this time remains unknown; estimates range between 200 and 2,000. Thousands have also been arrested and many monks have reportedly been tortured, their monasteries ransacked. From a media angle, no revolution could be as sentimental or appealing. But, of course, it takes more than tens of thousands of monks leading hundreds of thousands of the country's poor in mass rallies to make Burma relevant for long.
Western leaders, aware of the criticism that awaits them, have paid the necessary lip service, but little else. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown decried the use of violence against protesters and demanded European sanctions. President Bush declared that Americans "stand in solidarity with these brave individuals." Israel, on the other hand, denied its military links to the junta, despite much contradictory evidence. It justified its unwillingness to influence the situation on the grounds of nostalgia -- Burma was the first South Asian country to recognise Israel. The UN sent its envoy to Burma to meet General Than Shwe and Ibrahim Gambari was left waiting for days before he was allowed to express the concerns of the international community. And that's that.
Burma is as important to China as the Middle East is to the US. China cares more about the political stability of its neighbours than human rights and democracy; the US cares about such a nuisance insofar as its ability to serve its own militaristic and economic interests is affected. China is the world's fourth largest economy, and will soon be the third; its holds $1.4 trillion in reserve, mostly in US treasury bonds. Its sway over the global financial system is undeniable, and under no circumstance will it allow America a significant role in a country that shares with it a 2,000-kilometre border. The US, on the other hand, pays lip service to democracy in Burma, and its continued "support" of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy is aimed at maintaining a foothold in Burma for a future role, should the relationship between the West and China turn sour.
Humanitarian imperialism has proved more destructive than the injustices it supposedly eradicates. But expect none of that in the case of Burma, because intervention does not serve the interests of the influential parties -- not the West's, or China's, or Russia's. We may see a few sentimental meetings between Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of the generals, and perhaps a few gestures of goodwill by the latter, at the behest of China and the West. But they will bring no sweeping reforms, nor meaningful democracy or human rights. These can only be achieved by the people of Burma, their monks, civil society activists, and by ordinary people.
If Iraq has been a lesson of any worth it is that the Burmese are much better off without American bombing raids or British napalm in the name of intervention. True reforms and democracy can only come from within, from the closed fists of the determined dispossessed. Indeed, Burma is not Iraq, and thank God for that.
Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post, Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website: ramzybaroud.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
