The catastrophe wrought by Cyclone Nargis on the Burmese people has provoked an extraordinary campaign by the US and allied powers, and in the international media, demanding that the military junta open its borders to aid and aid officials as well as to American military aircraft, troops and warships. Once again an attempt is being made to stampede public opinion with heartrending images of desperate survivors and devastated towns, accompanied by an incessant drumbeat condemning the Burmese regime for its inadequate aid efforts, its insularity, and its failure to accept international, especially American, aid.
One should immediately pause and recall the outcome of similar “humanitarian” exercises. In 1999, the plight of Kosovan refugees was exploited by the US and its allies to wage war against Serbia and transform the province into a NATO protectorate largely “cleansed” of its Serbian minority. In the same year, Australia, with the backing of the US, used the violence of Indonesian-backed militias to justify a military intervention into East Timor to install a regime sympathetic to Canberra’s economic and strategic interests. After nearly a decade the local populations in both countries continue to live in appalling conditions, with none of their fundamental needs having been met.
Read more at the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/burm-m10.shtml
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
As Burma is essentially a socialist state, this concern by the WSWS is intruiging, but I suspect yet again we have the western socialist conspiracy theory of the US MIC behind it all?
No I suspect that it is the sheer embarrassment that a socialist state is incapable of looking after its citizens when disaster strikes.
As the accumulation of capital doesn’t occur in socialist states, there is never any surplus for a rainy day or catastrophe. Socialism is all about capital consumption, not accumulation.
These people are sick!
Then there is the little problem of invading a sovereigh country to deliver aid. If the Burmese military Junta responds militarily, as it probably would, aid distribution would be mightily hampered. Just how big a military exercise would it be to provide adequate protection for those aid workers?
The only way to effectively deliver aid is with the consent of the recipient government, on it’s terms. It’s a tragedy for the Burmese people, many of whom would now be dying unnecessarily.
I would have assumed that the best way to distribute the aid would be via the Burmese military. But apparently the Red Cross, and other NGOs, want to work independently… at least according to our ABC news.
These U.S. hating people’s idealogical bent such as displayed in this WSWS article is beyond me.
Spangeld Drongo, you are right. There are sick minds ready to spew hatred with any twist, using any method or catostrophy to push their bent agenda.
Meanwhile the Burmese Junta are fully aware that not only with the oncoming disaster of 100,000s of deaths due to disease there will also be another foreseen problem to crop up. The Irrawaddy Delta is the food bowl of Burma. There will be no rice supplies in due course due to the production areas having being wiped out as well as the population to sow, grow,reap and produce the rice has been annihilated.
Any donated food supplies will be stored by the regime to prop up their political hold when the coming rice famine becomes evident. This is why the Junta will accept aid but not let any foreigners in to distribute it. The Junta will store the aid supplies for their own benefit down track. The population of the Delta are currently in dire straits. The Junta is not overly concerned about them. When the expected food shortage hits the whole country (because of rice bowl has been destroyed) then the Burmese population would most likely be highly antagonistic towards the regime. Having a food supply donated by outside countries and storing it for this coming food shortage will make the current regime look good.
This disaster has a long way to run yet.
Just another one small point. I lived in Indonesia for 12 years. How the Howard government could let itself get sucked into the Tim Tim debacle is another fine example of western thinking’s lack of understanding of the Asian mentality.
Tim Tim’s Australian agenda is written by the legacy of those five Australian journalists who managed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time more than 30 years ago.
I was borne in Indonesia
Hey, Louis and beano did you attend the Joint Embassy School in Jakarta?
’cause I was there between 67 and 74
“As Burma is essentially a socialist state”
it’s got nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with a military dicatatorship.
Genocide by neglect is the issue. The people who are going to die over the next month are the issue. Political opinions are so removed from the list of priorities here, that the discussion itself is absurd.
I’d smile if it wasn’t so sad. You can’t dare say global warming has anything to do with this disaster, but, hey, say anything you want about socialism, that’s cool.
On the other hand, I remember the skies black with American helicopters after an earthquake in El Salvador in May 1965. The aid was welcome.
My sister, who is two years older than I have been exchanging memories. She recalls the tent cities on the plains of Ilopango. My mother recalls the days after the disaster as the time when she was most proud to be an American.
Here’s a link to information on previous relief efforts: Wings of Hope.
Of course it’s important for the countries giving aid not to use this as an excuse to interfere with the local government. It is nevertheless sad when local governments refuse aid during these sorts of crises.
So in summary from this, in reality human beings do not really care about their species. The Burmese military junta do not care about their people, the US only cares about trying to change the regime, and the aid agencies only care about their own bottom line. Of course you don’t have to go this far to see how short-sighted and selfish we really are. True altruism is the exception rather than the rule amongst our kind, yet we somehow want to put ourselves at the pinnacle of evolution. Further evidence.
Wes in ’72,-’74 I was in Europe.’75-start’77 North Africa/Middle East, Mid 77 on Indonesia. – Consulting.
Jennifer my take on your post.
Military and totalitarian regimes are only interested in the self preservation of the ruling ‘elites’ and ‘iconic’ leaders. The people can go to hell.
The U.S. cares about different countries because in the end they have to pay. First world war. The U.S. ended up paying for the reparation of Europe. 2nd world war, U.S. – Marshall plan. Vietnam war, had to take over from the French, and then paid for it dearly. etc etc etc. Every disaster that occurs on the planet, the U.S. is expected to dip their hand in their pockets and finance the problems away. Even with the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. needed to inject funds there.
The N.G.O.’s are pushing barrows.
The U.K. system of government was set up with their parliamentary system some hundreds of years ago. The U.K. society was rather unique in that there existed within the general population or civilization unwritten laws. The basic premise of these unwritten laws was honesty and trust. A word was a contract. There were in effect very few ‘real’ parliamentary laws – they weren’t needed. The general population was “Free” – i.e. free from governing laws to do what they liked as long as the unwritten laws of civilization were followed.
When governments start enacting more and more laws your freedom is eroded. However this can be because an element of persons creep into society that ignore these unwritten laws.
Socialist,communist and totalitarian societies can never be free because the rulers do not “trust” the population. They have many laws restricting freedom. This in turn makes the general population not trust their rulers. In this state the general population settles into a general malaise with the attitude – every man for himself.
If a tragedy or catostrophy occurs in those societies, nobody gives a stuff – except for themselves and their own well being.
A small point. Public hospitals in large western countries are totally reliant on the large number of volunteer workers who turn up each day to do menial tasks without pay. (Womens auxiliaries etc),
You will never see these volunteer staff in hospitals in any totalitarian country.
I was born in France in 1940, I migrated to Australia when 22 years old, today I am an age pensioner and I am retired in Vietnam(My wife is vietnamese)
I lived in many Countries and saw many situations, I spoke 8 languages & understand the position and the feelings of many people.
I cannot comprehend why the western world is so much driven by $$$$, Lies & covers up for justify everythings make me sick.
John Paul, The worlds economies are now driven by the interest rates on borrowed money. There can never be a finite money supply (gold standard). If the general population or governments stopped borrowing, whole economies would collapse. This means that a consumer demand society is propping up the financial system for the world.
A gold standard or finite money supply could only support subsistence living. The world’s huge population could not be sustained on subsistence living.
Just look at the collapse of the communist regimes as examples. Even China had to radically shift to a market consumerism society to progress.
SJT…. Socialism Lends itself to Authoritarianism. Whether it be a military leader or a Civilian using the military to enforce power.
In Both cases the Policing Authority becomes an instrument for state power rather than to serve and protect the people by enforcing the law…
There are no Burmese detectives looking for the murderer of a street vendor… only the murderer of one of the elite.
All Socialist states become corrupted because Socialism ultimately is a lie. It protects only the elite… Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Ho Chi Min, Mao, etc.
Whilst Civil wars headed by strong ruthless more conservative leaders have tended to revert to, or back to , stable democratic Governance….
Pinochet, Franco, etc.
You could say that without Socialism/Communism. There would be less war and strife.
After all, it is Marxist Leninist theory that Change can only come through armed struggle… Revolution.
So Yes SJT… It does have EVERYTHING to do with Socialism…
Also to add to the mix. Communist China supports Burma’s Authoritarian elites. Whilst the Western Democracies care about Burma’s people instead… Proves Socialism and Communism has got Nothing to with protecting the Proletariat eh?
John Paul Buvet…. Mate! Give up your Australian Pension and tell me next year what yer feelings and situation is…
You Rack off from a war in your own country and come here… Receive the Largess of this society.
Then go and live in a Communist Country that butchered the people whom wanted to live as a free enterprise Democratic people. People Whom Australia sided with and Failed…. And you are subsidised in your treacherous hubris by an Australian pension.
What will you do in that country Jonh? If a Vietnamese speaks out about their Government… Support their right to say it… Or Break the law and stay silent…. Or immediately contact the Communist Authorities…
Or Elitist that you are, consider yourself far removed from the mundane politics of life and dissociate yourself from reality, which it seems, you have done all your life.
“the US only cares about trying to change the regime,”
You can only conclude that if you only see the US send aid to those places where it wants regime change. And that is clearly not the case. It just so happens that the countries that are most unable to take care of their own basic needs and their own emergencies are the same ones that need regime change.
“Then there is the little problem of invading a sovereigh country to deliver aid.”
Could you please give me a definition of “sovereign country” Helen.
For example, let’s say that I put together a pack of mercenaries and took over Somalia. Then let’s say that I hired a bunch of local thugs to collect money and resources from the people, and that I paid these thugs out of that money. Would you then recognize me as a sovereign country and claim that the world must respect my rights as a sovereign country – so that everyone from the outside world must leave me alone to continue my dictatorship for as long as I was able to pull it off.
I decided a long time ago that there was no possiblility of a communist state ever being anything other than a police state. I think that this idea is born out by both reason and experience. Here I will assume that the experiential evidence speaks for itself for anyone who wishes to look at how communism has worked in the real world. I will therefore concentrate on the logic of why the communist state must always end up in being a police state.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. These are magic words; just words; inspirational words. And there must surely be a race of aliens somewhere in the Universe that could apply those words successfuly. But the individuals that believed that these words could be made to work for man were drunk on their own idealism and blind to the reality of the nature of man. Today this attitude of arrogant ultrahumanism still reigns in academic circles and among the sanctimonious pseudo intellectuals who call themselves liberals, leftists, and socialists. In their zeal to accomplish this they feel certain that any means will be justified by such a nobel end. All the failed attempts to bring about this high ideal in the past have only been due to misunderstanding, corruption and the failings of man, they believe. If man could be properly educated and if the right implementation is followed, then the communist utopia is still possible. In fact, not only is it possible, but it is the only acceptable destiny for mankind.
The transparent and even obvious failings of Marx’s ideal never crosses the dogmatically rigid mind of the communists and their little brothers on the left. The full impact of the term “From each” is never inspected to see what it can possibly mean in the real world.
In the early years of any communist revolution the “From each” is not according to his abilities, but rather “From each” according to his wealth. The state appropriates the property of the wealthy and distributes it to the poor. The result is a boon for the poor, but a very shorted sighted and short lived one. Wealth is not a static entity and the wealth that is distributed to the poor will not raise their living standard except for a breif period of time. After the wealth is consumed, whether it be in a year or in twenty years, they will return to being poor. The process of appropriating the property of the wealthy cannot be repeated because the wealthy were made poor by the initial appropriation and they have absolutely no motivation to reaquire wealth. Not only do they have no motiviation, but the communist system will not allow it to happen. So the revolution results in a one time windfall for the poor that can never be repeated. In any case, the appropriation of personal wealth is always the first action of the police state, setting the groundwork for the police state that must always remain there after the appropriation phase.
After the property of the wealthy has been distributed, the “From each” takes on a new meaning. Now the property of every individual must be continously appropriated so that the state can redistribute it according to what it determines to everyone’s needs. Man being man, he does not volunteer his property. In fact he will make every effort to hide as much of it from the state as possible. So now the “From each” requires a huge and repressive police state to insure that those two little words are accomplished. A network of spies must exist in all communities to insure that no one can refuse to give up the fruits of their labor. Since the entire fabric of the political system depends on the state being able to take everyones property, the punishment for having the gall to try to keep your property must be high. Why, then, is it not obvious to the most casual observer of human beings that “From each” of neccessity requires the establishment of a pervasive and intimidating police state. Why is it not obvious that the individual must be forced to give up the product of his labor and therefore must even be forced to do that labor.
Man from birth seems to have a feeling of personal property that is never taught, but is simply innate to the animal. When my 2 year old plays with other 2 year olds she shows jealous ownership of her own toys when playing at her own home. And the other children show jealous ownership of their property when she is playing at their homes. I have never made any effort to teach her this characteristic. Since this feature of mankind is anithetical to the communist ideal, the individual in the communist state must be subjected to a life long regimen of propaganda in order to get him to belive and act in opposition to his natural characteristics. As far as I have been able to determine the propaganda effort is never more than partially convincing. As the Soviet Union has shown, the transition from decades of communist propaganda to a new believe in capitalism took absolutely no propaganda at all.
The natural result of the communist philosophy is that the “From each” requires a repressive police state that is able to extract only a paltry amount of wealth from it’s unwilling participants. And that paltry amount will then become a “to each” that gives all a share of a small appropriation and leaves the entire state in a condition of poverty. The state is capable of making everyone equally poor. But it is not capable of making everyone rich, or even of making everyone middle class.
Quote Tilo “Since this feature of mankind is anithetical to the communist ideal, the individual in the communist state must be subjected to a life long regimen of propaganda in order to get him to belive and act in opposition to his natural characteristics. As far as I have been able to determine the propaganda effort is never more than partially convincing. As the Soviet Union has shown, the transition from decades of communist propaganda to a new believe in capitalism took absolutely no propaganda at all.”
Tilo, In the mid seventies, I spent a short period on assignment in Kiev.
(a) The people I dealt with were desperate for the western style of life and western values.
(b) Your statement about the propaganda issues were correct. Any government communique was treated with disdain or suspicion by the local people. Smuggled in western movies and later on VHS tapes changed the outlook of many of the local people. There is a very good reason that totalitarian regimes keep strict control of the TV stations and control censorship of the media etc.
(c) Even our shadow goons introduced themselves to my little work party towards the end of tenure. They bought every single item of western belongings we possessed, including our suitcases – all with illegal U.S. Dollars.
Wes George
I was in Java from 1947 to 1949. 🙂
Hi Louis,
1949 was the time that the U.S. forced the Netherlands to release control of the East Indies otherwise they wouldn’t be able to receive benefits from the Marshall Plan wasn’t it?.
J.Hansford, Tilo and Beano,
Great posts! We all need reminding regularly.
It’s so easy to forget in good times, but forget and you’re dead!
Propoganda campaign? By the Lefty Media? Who is conning whom?
Beano,
I would have no idea but we were in a civil war then, but National Independence meant we had to go. Maybe the Marhsall Plan might have something to do with it, but it’s the first time I heard of it. Learn something new every day.
🙂
Actually the Dutch financed the US war of Independence, so I suppose it was a bit churlish of them – but then war is war.
From an editorial in Friday’s Wall Street Journal:
“The United Nations this week said the refusal of Burma’s government to allow workers into the country’s devastated agricultural region was unprecedented in the history of humanitarian relief. The human catastrophe produced by Burma’s refusal to permit aid in the wake of Cyclone Nargis has stunned the senses of a world that has watched this spectacle for a week…
…Yesterday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said food relief hasn’t yet reached the region because “regrettably” the junta won’t talk to him.
It’s time to kick Burma out of the United Nations. If the U.N. does not put in motion a process to suspend Burma from its U.N. membership, then, clearly, nothing is forbidden.
Chapter II of the U.N. charter provides for the suspension or expulsion of member states by the Security Council, which can also restore membership.
Some will say that China, the junta’s friend, almost surely would veto any such motion. Then let it do so, on the eve of its torch-besieged Summer Olympics.”
Pretty harsh words.
Interesting reading and listening to all the outpouring of grief and emotion regarding this hurricane in Burma. You can’t pick up a newspaper, turn on a TV or browse the Internet without being assaulted by it all. Saturday’s Alarmist Age was full of advertisements soliciting donations from the public to either line the pockets of the junta and/or re-establish the affected people back on their flood plains so that they get wiped out again by the next hurricane.
In today’s papers, the UN estimate is in the order of 100,000 deaths in Burma. Or – to put this in perspective, it’s roughly the number of people who die every 2-3 weeks of AIDS in Africa. And funnily enough, I can’t remember the last time that the Alarmist Age gave over a large chunk of their Saturday edition to the cause of mounting an international relief mission to AIDS victims in Africa.
I’m not sure if this indicates that some victims are more worthy of support that others, or whether I should listen to the cynic in me that says that if the plight of AIDS victims in Africa could somehow be attributed – in some small way – to ‘Global Warming’, that the Alarmist Age and others would be beating a path to their door.
I have two questions.
1. What was the point that Jennifer was trying to make in posting this article.
2. I see a post from a Jennifer B. Do we have more than one Jennifer here?
Tilo Reder: I think the point of this article is that it falls within the headline banner:
THE POLITICAL AND ENVIRONMENT BLOG
Burma is a perfect example of a corrupt dictatorship riding roughshod over the populace.
My take on the situation is, has there ever there were a bunch of generals and their cronies more deserving of being lined up at dawn than this lot.
But that’s only my opinion!
“THE POLITICAL AND ENVIRONMENT BLOG”
I think there are too many political blogs. An evironmental blog that includes how politics effects the environmental debate may be appropriate, however.
Tilo Reber:
The point is this is “THE POLITICAL AND EVIRONMENT BLOG”
Burma is about as political as things go, attracting even the attention of the ManBearPig (thanks Ian Mott) himself.
Like how dare these poor souls attempt to scratch out a living forever under the benevolent gaze of a dictatorship that cares nothing but their own hides!
My take is these goons can’t lined at dawn soon enough.
oops….can’t be lined up at dawn soon enough.