Monday Protests — Burma & Jena

It's been a big protest day in NYC. First, at noon outside the Myanmar mission on 77th Street, just east of Central Park, hundreds of demonstrators held placards, chanted slogans such as "May all beings be free", and sat in prayer and meditation, in solidarity with the Buddhist monks of Burma who galvanized the world last week with their gutsy mass protests.

 

Admittedly, post-colonial politics in Burma are complex and must be approached with some caution. Whenever the US power structure — from the corporate media to the federal government to the Big NGOs — latches onto a foreign political movement in the name of democracy and freedom, it should obviously be understood that the US public is being played and there are likely a number of nefarious hidden agendas in motion. Unfortunately these days too many (US) Americans are, well, suckers. For example, it seems to me that most Americans still haven't figured out the basic fact that (in my view) the Vietnam War was actually about China. To some extent, so is Burma. Nevertheless, I unequivocally support the Buddhist monks' uprising in the face of fuel and rice crises; their demands for sufficient food, clothing, and shelter for all citizens; and their right to dissent and resist. This situation has been brewing since 1988 and I think it's getting to be about that time when something's gonna give. If not this time, maybe next time; when things finally come crashing down, I can only hope that they fall in good directions and that as few people as possible get hurt.

~ ~ ~

An hour later, students from NYU, Columbia, and other regional colleges held a rally for the Jena 6 in Washington Square Park, followed by a march to city hall, as part of a national student walkout. I wasn't able to march today, but here are some pics from the warm-up rally as the crowd gathered.

The last photo shows New York City Council member Charles Barron at the megaphone. Barron drew raucous cheering as he roared that people of color, "not just in Jena, Louisiana, but in Jena, New York", must defend themselves against racism "by any means necessary". He added, "Is it appropriate for an elected politician to be speaking like this? Absolutely. It is not only appropriate, it is our responsibility, it is precisely what we are elected to do."

Comments

[drydock]

My not all that informed impression of Burma and why Bush is talking up human rights there etc. is 1. It's easy propaganda "points" 2. To some degree western business people probably see Burma as a backwards capitalist country that could be better integrated into the global economy instead of the current situation of a parasitical elite that kind of keeps business mostly "in-house". So if the movement in Burma somehow ended up with a relatively democratic government like India or even something more authoritarian like China the US ruling class probably wouldn't be upset either way. Which isn't to downplay the bravery of the burmese protesters that are struggling to get the boot of the burmese state off their necks.

As far as US motives I kind of think perhaps certain hawkish elements want to keep China off balance but the overarching economic interdependence between the two countries trumps a lot of the alleged China/US conflict. In other words the US is probably not interested in Burma like it was in Vietnam 30 something years ago as battleground against China though I'd be happy to read any contrary links that examines that question. :)

[rootlesscosmo]

most Americans still haven't figured out the basic fact that (in my view) the Vietnam War was actually about China.

I'm wary of explanations for historical events that assert without qualification that they were "actually about" one thing. The Vietnam War was about a lot of things; some antiwar activists at the time, looking for a straightforward economic explanation, latched onto a remark by Eisenhower about "tin and tungsten" in the region to argue that it was "actually about" control of mineral resources. (No tin and tungsten gap, as far as I know, followed the US' hasty withdrawal in 1975.) Recently published memoirs by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. suggest LBJ's decision to escalate in 1966-67 was "actually about" his fear that acknowledging the war was un-winnable would hurt the Democrats in the '68 elections. Causes are plural and interacting, and their relative importance shifts over time and depending on perspective; Susan Leigh Star wrote, in a paper on history of science, "There is no such thing, or place, as Underneath It All." Worth remembering, I think.

[Kai]

drydock, yeah I agree with your take on the Myanmar/Burma situation. A "moderate" "pro-Western" "democratic" government (i.e. a US-dependent client state) would certainly be welcome by the US government, since "economic integration" (i.e. imperialism) is more or less the fundamental driving force behind all US foreign policy. As things stand, China is the country benefiting from Burma's natural resources and cheap labor. I agree that this isn't Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos (no invasion or bombing), and that US-China interdependence is a major complicating factor is all China-US affairs. But there's a 21st century "great game" going on right now between the US and China, and every single tiny interaction is an imperial chess move in that game of power.

rootlesscosmo, well obviously causes are plural and interacting. But I think you know what I mean by "actually about": some causes are more fundamental than others. And I'll repeat that my analysis of the causes behind the murderous annihilation of Indochina is my opinion and not an authoritative conclusory consensus. In any case, the point of that sentence within that paragraph is that you can't just swallow the propaganda, there are usually hidden agendas.

Cheers.

[R. Mildred]

2. To some degree western business people probably see Burma as a backwards capitalist country that could be better integrated into the global economy instead of the current situation of a parasitical elite that kind of keeps business mostly "in-house".

Actually myanmar pays a wide variety of western businesses for the privelage of manufacturing their weapons in a way that gets around the various trade embargos the UN has placed on european and israeli businesses. As far as I can make out however, the western response to myanmar has been the same it has been for the past couple of decades - DLC style speeches about how terrible it is, and how they condemn it absolutely, coupled with a DLC style complete lack of action regarding what they condemn absolutely.

However, I think there's this syndrome among loud but effectively powerless rightwingers, which I shall dub "Pournelle Syndrome", after the sci-fi writer of the same name, where various rightwings among the ministries of truth are under the impression they've got to attack china, and set up this whole anti-china thing in the propaganda, because their higher ups (as far as they believe) love that shit - of course, the higher ups are undoubtably aware of who is paying who's debts at the moment, and that america can no more fuck up china in some meaningful way than the people who hold the strings for the war purse could cut off their own arms.

[Vox]

I think the U.S. government wants to look like it's taking a stance without alienating big business. It only said something about this once the monks drew international attention, and what actual actions have been taken?

China is definitely the major beneficiary of trade with Burma, but the U.S. gets quite a lot of trade with the junta as well, "personal sanctions" or not. If you look at the Dirty List there are a lot of U.S. travel companies (unsurprising), but there are also several U.S.-based oil/gas companies or related companies that are doing trade with Burma as well:
- Baker Hughes, a Texas company, supplies much of the equipment for oil drilling and does the rig count
- Chevron has been developing off-shore oil fields (Dirty List says they earn the junta millions)

Australia, South Korea, India, Japan, England and France, among others, also have interests in Burma's oil industry. Gas is Burma's main export, I believe. This might be one other reason (in addition to teak and tourism) that many Western countries and their allies have been reluctant to do anything but talk when it comes to Burma.

[Kai]

R. Mildred, hehe "Pournelle Syndrome" is funny...and apparently widespread!

Vox, thanks for the link and info. Quite a few fingers in that pie, huh?