The United States’ Selfish Solicitude
Burma/Myanmar
by Thierry Meyssan, journalist and writer, president of "Réseau Voltaire"
rv. The following article by Thierry Meyssan (Réseau Voltaire) shows how the media in bondage to America manipulate the sympathy of their readers for the Burmese who try to free themselves from a repressive system and how they promote a campaign for economic sanctions while taking great care, however, not to reveal the true aims of the USA in this story.
The America dependent media manipulate the sympathy of their readers for the Burmese, who try to free themselves from the most repressive system of our time. Playing with our emotions they sell us the idea that economic sanctions are legitimate and can end a dictatorship as a natural consequence. And they prepare us to support the coming regime, no matter what it may be like. We have to watch out, because this sudden enthusiasm conceals other forms of intervention and other ambitions, which they are not willing to reveal.


From the orange revolution to a saffron revolution
The America dependent press enthuses about the “saffron revolution which is shaking Myanmar. Everyone – including ourselves – hopes of course that the military junta, which has been oppressing the Burmese for decades, will finally be thrown over and make room for a prospering democracy. Nevertheless this sudden interest of our "friends" for a country, which they have not known at all so far, as well as the experience of the “multicoloured pseudo revolutions” from Georgia to Lebanon and their painful awakening should sharpen our critical senses. Is this reality what we are served to see and to interpret?
For the Burmese, their freedom is obviously at stake; for the “Westerners” however it is something completely different. The press does not stop repeating that the junta is supported militarily and economically by China; and to a smaller extent even by Russia. Those are the two powers that have opposed Myanmar’s condemnation and the economic sanctions against the country by the Security Council of the UN in January.1


Interference with another country's internal affairs violates international law
China and Russia, however, are by no means the economic and political supporters of the junta, no more than South Africa, which also voted ‘no’ in the UN Security Council. They simply are the states that respect international law. They just wanted to point out that Myanmar does not pose a threat to its neighbours and that therefore the resolution draft exceeded the Charter of the United Nations: “The international community is not entitled to use violence in order to regulate an internal conflict”, how cruel it may be. In contrast to this, the neo-conservatives' revolutionary way of thinking, which has already been spread among the European media, preaches “democratic interference” with all the consequences that we are now observing in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In addition, China and Russia are two regional powers which are interested in keeping good neighbourly relations with Myanmar. The interests China pursues are, however, of quite another kind, which will be shown later.
By far the most important economic support to Myanmar comes from Japan, a satellite state of the US Empire. The European press however does not demand a halt to the trading between Tokyo and Rangoon. In addition, Japan would refuse to comply, just as China and Russia did, because it is a solid component of Asian diplomacy to regard this method as counter productive: It starves the peoples out instead of punishing the leaders, and shuts the door to any possible negotiations.
Note that the European press does not raise the question about the legitimacy of this modern form of antique siege, while the Asian states as a whole condemn the principle of economic sanctions as barbarian. This is the case although most important western philosophers have criticised the idea of starving out the opponent for centuries; and also the Catholic Church has condemned the idea since Thomas of Aquinas. Have the European journalists, inspired by the neoconservative ideology of “democratic interference”, fallen back into barbarian times?
The “saffron revolution” was not launched in order to throw over the dictatorship, but as a reaction to the duplication of the gasoline price and to acts of violence against Buddhist monks, who are scholars of “theocracy”. Their aim is not the establishment of a democracy in the Attic sense. Anyhow the movement was prepared from the background and is being supported by Washington that wants to implement “market democracy”, which means to open the country for the investments of US multinational companies. It is therefore logical that the US dependent press first of all calls for a retreat of the competing investors, whatever the consequences for the living standard of the Burmese population may be.


US State Department subsidizes the “revolution”
Two years ago a politically structured and truly democratic opposition named “generation 88” had developed, which reminds us of the “generation 386” in South Korea and of the fact that its members were involved in the 1988 revolt. The most important personalities of this movement command our admiration for their courage and determination; but how could we overlook the fact that the “generation 88” became the shield behind which Washington’s secret activities were taking place?
Within two years the group was given 2.5 million dollar by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)2 which means by the State Department of the United States, not counting the subsidies by the speculator George Soros3 and by the Norwegian government. Members of this group were involved in several terrorist attacks, covering the country with blood. These attacks, however, are never mentioned in international relations, as the Burmese government has to stay once and for ever on the bad side. At the moment we do not know whether the attacks were initiated by the leaders of the “generation 88”, as the junta claims, or whether it was a job done by certain agents provocateur. If that were the case, would these individuals have worked for the junta in order to discredit the movement or for the USA in order to destabilize the regime? This is a plausible hypothesis, if you think of the series of assassination attempts in Kosovo, financed by the CIA, in order to cause substantial repression by the Milosevic government and to destabilize the whole area leading into a war.
Be that as it may, the political movement, which has already been called “the saffron revolution” by the White House's liaison people, according to the colour of the Buddhist monks’ clothing, reminds us of other “coloured revolutions”. They were organized by the Albert-Einstein-Institute4, a dummy firm of CIA and NATO, whose director of all persons is the former military attaché of the American embassy in Rangoon, Colonel Robert Helvey.


The USA are pursuing the elimination of competitors
Let us have a look at that trial of strength, i.e. China and the United States facing each other in the region and the possible consequences of this revolution, which are the real issues behind this media campaign.
In application of the “Wolfowitz doctrine” of 1992 Washington is preventing the rise of powers, which could be able to challenge the supremacy of the American Empire. If the European Union and Russia are possibly the first competitors whose wings must be clipped, China follows third. Washington has triggered off a “containment strategy”, the core of which is the control of power supplies for the Chinese economy. The most important Chinese contracts for oil involve American joint ventures and are directly monitored by the US State Department. The system works due to the general corruption of the Chinese trade partners: Washington guarantees them reimbursement of counter deals, in return the trade partners have obliged themselves to invest their revenues in US treasury certificates. In the long run, Washington intends to control the pipelines as well as the ship routes, which are used by the oil and gas tankers; this is the reason for the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)5 by John Bolton and also the reason for the expansion of NATO missions in this area.6
The Burmese junta has made itself useful for the Chinese by building a pipeline connecting the gulf of Bengal with Yunnan on the one hand and by furnishing electronic monitoring stations on the other hand; latter supervise ship passages along their coasts. For this reason Peking supplied Rangoon with weapons – not in order to intensify the repression.
All this is monitoring and interception material and not repression material; all in all 1.5 billion dollars for radar and patrols of the Hainan class. It was only since this present agreement that the Americans have been “worrying” about the situation of the Burmese.


The US goals are of a purely economic and strategic nature
Contrary to what NATO propaganda claims, China is not interested in supporting the Burmese dictatorship. However, it tries to protect its strategic interests in Burma which is not identical. China does not like this conflict which may expand at any time. Its diplomacy tries to ease the situation by keeping a door open to the Burmese generals. At the Council meeting about the issue of Myanmar in January, Beijing demanded a permanent special commissioner for this topic from the UN Secretary-General. It also offered its assistance in order to facilitate his work. However, the United States blocked the move and said that this commissioner was no good, if his installation was not accompanied by economic sanctions. In the long run the current crisis led to the appointment of the Nigerian Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari, who already intervened in the past in Burma, as Under-Secretary-General of the UN for political affairs. And the Chinese ambassador in Rangoon met him at the airport in order to support him in his mission, although Gambari is known for his pro-American reflex.
Before our very eyes a people fights for its liberty. The aim of the support granted by the United States and the America dependent media is in no way to help this people succeed in their fight. Washington wants to cut off the Chinese pipeline, diminish the electronic military monitoring bases in order to take over control of the ship passages and to open the market for its multinational companies. They will not be satisfied, if the Burmese bring about the downfall of their generals in order to be free. •


Source: CAPJPO EuroPalestine (www.europalestine.com) of 2 October 2007.
(Translation Current Concerns)


1 The Security Council rejects the draft resolution for Myanmar in consequence of a double No by China and the Russian Federation, UN, reference CS/8939, 12 Jan 2007
2 “The networks of ‘democratic’ interference” by Thierry Meyssan, 22 January 2004, Réseau Voltaire, édition internationale
3 “George Soros, speculator and philanthropist”, 15 January 2004, Réseau Voltaire, édition internationale
4 “The Albert Einstein Institution: non-violence ­according to the CIA” by Thierry Meyssan, 4 January 2005, Réseau Voltaire, édition internationale; note: The website of this organisation contains an open letter to Thierry Meyssan that disclaims the content of this article as a whole.
5 “Le gendarme du monde veut contrôler les océans” Paris (France), 4 December 2003, Réseau Voltaire
6 “The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion - NATO and the broader network of US sponsored military alliances” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Current Concerns 1 November 2007


© 2006, Current Concerns, www.currentconcerns.ch, Phone +41-44-350 65 50, Fax +41-44-350 65 51