Written and Photographed by Nile Bowie
Edited by Eric Pottenger & Jeff Friesen of 'Color Revolutions and Geopolitics'
Contemporary Myanmar is heavily military-centric; the sign reads,
“Never hesitating, always ready to sacrifice blood and
sweat is the Tamadaw”. The Tamadaw is the title
bestowed upon the army founded by General Aung San.
The streets of Yangon have seen red coats, red robes, and red blood. This thriving multi-cultural city once lived under the auspices of the British Crown, while today, tree roots swallow crumbling colonial architecture and turbid sidewalks in disrepair. Timeworn barbed wire barricades line the narrow passages adjacent to vendors cowering beneath tattered plastic tarps in the monsoon rain. Once an expansive and agrarian setting, this space is now permeated by morose avenues of aging vehicles spewing noxious gusts of smoke as they pass. Cold-faced policemen stand in groups of three, patrolling the street corners with prying eyes unchallenged. The fifty-six million people of Myanmar have long lived under a paranoid military dictatorship, which enforces staunch limitations on political expression and personal opinion. The State’s Press Scrutiny Board must approve all publications and media, while large swaths of Internet content is barred from viewing. Although the people of Myanmar appeared calm and orderly during my visit, one cannot help but sense that these people realize they are without the means to reach their full potential, both in their respective trades and as the individuals they seek to be. Unfortunately, there is very little these people can do except to tolerate the circumstances of their own habitat.
The most frequent struggle of contemporary man in the globalised world is one against the state. In this conflict, Myanmar's expansive jungles and colonial cities have been a battle zone where volumes of unaccredited martyrs have searched for genuine autonomy and greater representation. As events continue to unfold, the people of this country must diligently examine the intentions of the foreign organizations supporting their domestic political campaigns under the empty guise of installing democracy. There is no question that today's imperial conquests are sold to the world on a moral platform, exploiting legitimate or fabricated “human rights abuses” for private geopolitical and economic gain. Western politicians and esteemed members of the International Community espouse the innate right to intervene in sovereign countries, ostensibly to “protect” people from suffering at the hands of unjust leaders (just as the early colonial settlers and missionaries justified their imperialism by bringing "civilization" to the savage indigenous inhabitants). The story of Myanmar--or Burma as it was once called--cannot be told without the story of the territorial ambitions of the British Empire.
The British East India Company was an early English joint stock company created to pursue the trading of riches from the East Indies and beyond. As the ancestor of the modern transnational corporation, the organization established the methodology for colonialism under the guise of trade and commerce by running militarily enforced monopolies on cotton, silk, exotic textiles, tea and opium. The regions we presently refer to, as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar were effectively Queen Elizabeth's personal plot of real estate, entitling the British Crown to be the sole recipient of its revenue and wealth. The Colonial Administration sought to instill its language, philosophical outlook, moral principles, legal system and penal code on the natives in an attempt to engineer a class of people "Indian in blood and color, but English in opinion, in taste, in morals and in intellect", generally referring to their new subjects as the 'swine of the Orient'. Before handing all colonial administrative functions to the British Raj when officially dissolving in 1874, the conglomerate oversaw a famine responsible for killing seventy percent of the inhabitants of modern day West Bengal and the hundred-fold depreciation of the Indian Rupee.
By 1885, the entire landmass of Myanmar was swallowed up by the British Empire after nearly a century of calculative annexation and three Anglo-Burmese Wars. A period of selective economic prosperity began, enabling the British to exploit the resources and local labor of the 'natives' while creating an economic climate where local farmers and business owners were forced to take high interest loans to meet demand if they intended to stay in business, mirroring today's IMF lending protocol. The collective British opinion regarded the Burmese population closer to 'creatures' rather than human beings and unsurprisingly public discontent grew in the form of Student-led Nationalist Uprisings around the 1920's. Around the mid 30's, Aung San (the father of today's British-backed and foreign funded democracy icon) was regarded as the chief architect of the Nationalist Movement, founding The Communist Party Of Burma on staunch anti-British sentiments. Seeking greater Burmese autonomy and eventual independence, Aung San and his comrades received arms and military training in Japan which resulted in the successful capturing of Yangon in 1942 by the Japanese Military with assistance from Burmese Nationalist forces.
By 1885 the entire land mass of Myanmar was swallowed up by the expanding British Empire after nearly a century of calculative annexation and three Anglo-Burmese Wars. The British exploited the resources and local labor of the indigenous people while forcing local farmers and business owners to take high interest loans to maintain their trades, mirroring today's IMF lending protocol. The Burmese population was regarded as closer to 'creatures' than to human beings. Unsurprisingly, public discontent grew in the form of student-led Nationalist Uprisings in the 1920's. Aung San (the father of today's British-backed and foreign-funded democracy icon) was regarded as the chief architect of the Nationalist Movement and founder of the staunchly anti-British, Communist Party of Burma. Seeking greater Burmese autonomy and eventual independence, Aung San and his comrades received arms and military training from Japan, resulting in the successful capturing of Yangon in 1942 by Burmese nationalist forces with assistance from the Japanese military.
The region then became a proxy state for the Japanese empire, resulting in a harsher occupation than what had been experienced under British rule. This was not surprising considering the Japanese administration had been conducting mass killings, rape campaigns, forced amputations and bizarre human experimentation on the populations of Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Aung San, (having been duped by promises of sovereignty by the Japanese) then approached the British for military assistance, which, having been given, was then used to force the Japanese into an eventual surrender. British colonial rule was reinstated until 1948 when independence was finally granted. Burma refused to enter the Commonwealth amidst a climate of staunchly anti-British public discourse. Aung Sang never lived to see his country liberated; he and his inner circle were assassinated in 1947 by a group of paramilitary fighters armed by British officers. Later it was discovered that hundreds of guns were missing from a nearby British-run police department. Winston Churchill and other high-ranking British government officials were complicit in his murder, the motive being that Aung San was an irreplaceable leader among the Burmese who could seriously threaten further British interests in the region.
In an attempt to foster breakaway states and to overthrow the post-independence government, agents of British Intelligence armed and funded various ethnic groups--most notably the Karen tribes--through various front groups such as ‘The Friends Of The Burma Hill Peoples’. It is no question that foreign intelligence agencies are presently using identical tactics in an effort to install a regime compliant to their objectives at whatever cost. During the early years of Burmese independence, widespread civil war took place between warring paramilitary factions of covertly funded ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Arakanese Muslims as well as communist factions led by Thakin Than Tun (uncle of foreign funded democracy icon, Aung San Suu Kyi). This climate of foreign funded secessionist movements effectively made the country ungovernable, setting the stage for heavy-handed centralized military rule. In 1962 former General turned Prime Minister Ne Win successfully formed a revolutionary council (with himself as chairman) by means of a military coup d’état. He would be in power until 1988, heading a tactless military regime whilst authoring economic policies of total incompetence: his program was called the Burmese Way To Socialism.
Initially led by well-intentioned efforts to eradicate illiteracy and improve public health, the end result of Burmese Socialism was widespread poverty and gradual economic and intellectual isolation from the world. Although Myanmar is one of Asia’s most prosperous regions containing vast natural resources and mineral riches, the foundations of maladroit and obdurate economic planning laid by Ne Win resulted in the granting of 'least developed nation' status by the UN; Myanmar then having the lowest annual GDP of any country in the greater Mekong sub region. After years of being subject to British colonial administration and suffering from foreign-funded ethnic conflict, Ne Win revamped his economic policies (in hopes for autarkical results), leaving the World Bank and other damnable financial institutions out in the cold. Western Media and NGOs parrot stories of 'totalitarian' governmental 'brutality' having been the primary cause of a mass exodus from Myanmar during the early seventies. What these characterizations fail to explain, however, is that the exodus was caused primarily by economic reasons, such as the priority treatment given to the Barmar ethnic group and the nationalization of industries run by ethnic Chinese and Indians.
In 1988 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) took power, immediately sentencing Ne Win to house arrest in Yangon (where he died in obscurity several years later). Western media now condemns the State Peace and Development Council for its treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi, referring to this body as a “junta” while giving credence to alleged human rights abuses. The most recent elections (which were uniformly viewed by the corporate media as rigged) in 2010 introduced a nominally civilian-run administration led by President Thein Sein of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. The new administration has shown signs of increased openness in an effort to improve its international image, even vowing to work together with Aung San Suu Kyi towards national reconciliation.
The current administration has attempted to alter its international perception by discussing currency reforms with the IMF and by recently releasing hundreds of political prisoners. While this cumulative openness may serve to legitimize the ruling government to the international media, the utmost importance must be given towards analyzing the architects of Myanmar’s domestic democracy campaigns and the corporate interests that stand to profit from them. The incremental liberalisation of foreign trade since the period of Burmese Socialism has provided several transnational oil companies (American UNOCAL and the French TOTAL) with opportunities to construct oil and natural gas pipelines. These deals allegedly resulted in the foreign companies contracting the Myanmarese military to enforce campaigns of forced labor in ethnic villages to assist in the construction of pipeline infrastructure. Cases like this truly leave one to question Western motives and their commitment to human rights, especially if transnational corporations were to be given a greater foothold in the region by a future globalist-backed regime.
DISSECTING FOREIGN FUNDED DEMOCRACY UPRISINGS
“Please use your freedoms to promote ours.”
– Aung San Suu Kyi
– Aung San Suu Kyi
Few opposition leaders have achieved such devout and reverent status as we see being bestowed upon the iconic Aung San Suu Kyi. What most fail to realise, however, is that this democracy icon is a product of Western intelligence agencies, groomed and furnished with a purpose. And so it makes complete sense that she has been given unprecedented credibility from every corporate backed think-tank and institution, as well as numerous foreign Governments. She is being used to implement a new kind of imperialism, one that is shallowly based on moral imperatives but still results in a “money power” coup. It is without a doubt that the public desires change: increased freedom of expression; improved economic conditions; and an improved “civil society”. ‘Democracy for the people,’ however, remains just a cynical slogan designed by Western NGOs and their proxies, and will do nothing to improve the actual living conditions of the population.
The situation in Myanmar now mirrors decades of attempts by the CIA and its front groups to destabilize targeted countries for geopolitical purposes. One institution within this network is the American Society for a Free Asia, an organization that has provided Tibetan dissidents with arms, military training, financial assistance and air support. Tibetan guerrilla fighters are even trained at bases within the United States, the object here being to create widespread Chinese destabilization. Declassified US Intelligence documents reveal that millions of US public funds are being allocated to the Dalai Lama personally, through a prominent CIA front group, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a group tasked with engineering color revolutions through global public relations campaigns: portraying opposition actors in the most saintly and magnanimous light, laying the foundation whereby any criticism or scrutiny amounts to blasphemy. At present the US State Department, financier George Soros, the NED and the CIA’s Freedom House are actively preparing for another color revolution—this time in Tibet--and the same cast of characters (among others) are instrumental in undertaking the same disingenuous campaigns in Myanmar.
|Aung San Suu Kyi|
For decades British Intelligence agents have underhandedly posed as “cultural anthropologists” charged with gathering Intel on local tribal leaders, warring ethnic factions and clan disputes in order to create in-depth profiles to be used later in destabilization schemes. The late Michael Aris (British husband of Aung San Suu Kyi) fits this academic/agent profile, masquerading as an innocuous scholar while in reality helping to foment unrest in Tibet and creating ‘independence movement’ schemes. Aris was in fact, originally recruited by Hugh Richardson, the Dalai Lama’s former British handler. Suu Kyi has recently taken part in the 2011 Reith Lectures, literally speaking alongside with the former MI5 Director General Baroness Manningham-Buller, championing the BBC and speaking to the world about the sad state of being in ‘unfreedom’. Some may find it curious that Suu Kyi is never critical of the countries backing her movement, places where oligarchical corporate lobbying has destroyed any vestige of ‘democracy’.
Suu Kyi's artificial heroism is supported by numerous celebrity testimonials, with her public relations-laden tale being the focus of an upcoming big budget film. Her surrogate British parents, Lord Gore-Booth (post holder in British India colonial administration, the force responsible for her father’s assassination) and his wife allowed for an incredibly privileged upbringing. She earned a Ph.D. from the University of London, and worked as a UN employee in New York City. Suu Kyi’s groomed and advantageous personal cultivation in the West is due to the association with her nationally revered father, making her the perfect person to strike an emotional chord in her destitute domestic followers by deluding them with promises of “democracy”. The sincerity or empathy, which her PR-savvy campaign conjures up, is shamelessly being used for Myanmarese regime change by cynical foreign funders. The objective is to install a proxy government, friendly towards the implementation of domestic privatization strategies and looting schemes for transnational conglomerates.
The Myanmarese ‘opposition’ has been supported by the work of Council on Foreign Relations member, Peter Ackerman, and his constituent Robert Helvey, a former military attaché at the U.S. embassy in Yangon. Through the organizations these men operate (or finance), they have been principal architects in training dissident groups to destabilize foreign governments in the interests of US foreign policy goals through non-violent resistance schemes. Mr. Helvey has stated, “The easiest way to destroy a movement is for the CIA to taint it.” It is for this reason that, though governmental training and funding on the surface seems to be rejected, the end goal (under the illusion of a “progressive” movement) is to use non-violent resistance (NVR) to destabilize foreign governments that operate outside the system of U.S. imperial supremacy; principally those governments that fail to acquiesce to the bidding of International Financial institutions. This is accomplished in part by funding opposition media, the use of mass protest movements, strikes, boycotts and civil disobedience schemes to make the target government seem illegitimate in the eyes of the “international community”.
Tactical assistance to the Myanmarese dissidents has been given by CANVAS (Centre for Applied Non-Violence Action and Strategies), which boasts of training opposition groups in numerous countries how to overthrow their own governments. A CANVAS hero of sorts is Harvard researcher Gene Sharp, a man who has shamelessly positioned himself as the heir to Gandhi. His doctrine makes use of nonviolent resistance as a useful strategic alternative in the overthrowing of foreign governments. To Sharp, “[Nonviolent resistance is] not about making a point, it’s about taking power.” After witnessing repeated failed attempts by armed opposition forces to overthrow the Myanmarese government, Sharp’s alternative has been to undermine the moral authority of the ruling government through sabotage and civil disobedience. By associating their methods with non-violent movements of the past (such as the 1960’s American civil rights movement), the Myanmarese opposition hoped to gain global sympathy by parading monks, woman and children on worldwide television networks. By the Western media's frequent use of the word “dictatorial” to demean the targeted administration--whilst the opposition is unwaveringly marketed as “democratic”--a propaganda war is waged, the ironic result having been to undermine democracy in the target country. Similar tactics have been used in Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Egypt, and around the world.
Like Serbia’s “Democratic Opposition of Serbia” and Zimbabwe’s “Movement for Democratic Change”, the movement centered around Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the “National League of Democracy” has fostered it’s credibility from foreign funders and their strategic guidance. Helvey’s mercenaries created workshops where over three thousand Myanmarese and hundreds of Buddhist monks were trained in “philosophies and strategies of non-violent resistance and community organizing,” an effort which also included providing dissident religious leaders with mobile phones and the organizing of a widespread religious boycott of the government. Monks are seen as the highest moral authority in Burma and so were used effectively in the 2007 Saffron Revolution. The Asia Society recently issued a 68-page report, Current Realities and Future Possibilities in Burma/Myanmar: Options for U.S. Policy, the product of a task force co-chaired by former U.S. General Wesley Clark (NATO commander during the Serbian conflict) and Henrietta Fore, former administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and current CEO of Holsman International Investments. Another notable participant (and financier) of the Asia Society policy proposal was Globalist George Soros, whose Open Society Institute is neck deep in modern day “democracy promotion.” Members of Human Rights Watch also participated. Collectively, these Asia Society members make clear that Myanmar is now targeted by the globalists. The report states,” Democracy should continue to be a focal point of U.S. policy support, and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, will remain an important figure for achieving the dialogue necessary to bring about national reconciliation of the military, democracy groups, and minority nationalities. At the same time, U.S. policy also must place greater emphasis on reaching out to other democratic forces, including civil society groups, and ethnic minorities and ensuring that they benefit from U.S. assistance programs inside Burma.”
The tactic of funding warring ethnic minorities (in actuality insurgency groups who have profited immensely from narcotics trafficking from heroin producing regions of the Golden Triangle) could result in a carving up of the region, much like that which has already happened in the former Yugoslavia. During the 2007 ‘Saffron Revolution’, dissident religious leaders stuck to scripted US foreign policy objectives: “We want national reconciliation, we want dialogue with the military! We want freedom for Aung San Sun Kyi!”. It should be noted that slogans and scripting always accompany the NVR operations of Helvey and his cohorts. The street demonstrations and carefully scripted media sound bites are designed to work in concert, as the whole operation functions as a public relations campaign. What the campaign tries to sell is a “pro-democracy” protest against political oppression. Reality, however, is never so black-and-white. For the Myanmarese people, interest and participation in these marches are primarily reactions to economic policies, a large part of which has been demanded by Western institutions. For example, the Myanmarese Government cut fuel subsidies at the request of the IMF, resulting in unannounced fuel price increases of up to five hundred percent. Prices of goods and transportation then shot up overnight. After similar demonstrations were held in Indonesia (after cutting its fuel subsidies), Western governments congratulated the country for getting in line with “market prices.” Similarly, the Western media portrayed the 8888 uprising of 1988 as exclusively caused by a public outcry for democracy, but unreported was General Ne Win's sudden demonetization of the currency by 75% (turning it into worthless paper), while issuing new bank notes of odd denominations, such as 45 and 90, numerals which were decided upon because of a superstition about the number 9 and it’s ability to bring good fortune.
Amy Kazmin of the Financial Times stated in 2007, “Burmese opposition activists acknowledge receiving technical and financial help for their cause from the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’s Open Society Institute and several European countries. International donors and activists figure Burmese opposition groups received eight to ten million dollars in 2006 and again in 2007 from American and European funders. In 2006 and 2007, the (U.S.) congressionally funded NED spent around three point seven million dollars a year on its Burmese program. These funds were used to support opposition media, including the Democratic Voice of Burma, a radio station and satellite television channel to bolster dissidents’ information technology skills and to help exiles’ training of Buddhist monks and other dissident techniques of peaceful political resistance.” From 1992 to 1998, Helvey personally conducted courses for hundreds of members of the National Council Union of Burma regarding the implementation of Gene Sharp’s techniques of destabilization, while hundreds more have been instructed at Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution. New Republic writer Franklin Foer says it best, “Ackerman’s affection for nonviolence has nothing to do with the tactic’s moral superiority. Movements that make a strategic decision to eschew violence, he argues, have a far better record of success.”
It should be recognized that there is nothing morally superior in the tactics utilized by Sharp, Ackerman and Helvey, for they simply implement imperialism in new ways. This is 21st century warfare: the digital age of Facebook, Twitter, and twenty-four hour news. Peter Ackerman, it should be noted, is the former chairman of Freedom House, and is currently a director at the Council on Foreign Relations. He rubs elbows with former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell; he has served on exclusive policy-making bodies with neo-imperialist war criminals, such as National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA Director (and current U.S. Defense Secretary) Robert Gates. In a New York Times Oped written in 2006, his warning for the leaders of Iran was “watch the streets” (an interesting choice of words, considering the upheaval that took place in Tehran in June, 2009—the so-called Green Revolution). Ackerman claims to believe that the United States “has an awful lot to teach people around the world.” Considering what Peter Ackerman and his friends consider a valuable lesson, the world should prepare for weakened social and economic conditions, with political leadership that allows private investment firms and transnational corporations the ability to reap the benefits of cheap labor.
POLICY AND ECONOMIC SUBVERSION / EFFECTS OF US-LED SANCTIONS
During a recent trip to Yangon, U.S. Senator John McCain, a certified warmonger who also heads the International Republican Institute (an institution devoted solely to assure the prosperity of American imperialism), met with “Opposition Leader” Aung San Suu Kyi and pledged unwavering US Support for her movement, stating that she has been "a personal hero of [his] for decades." McCain has recently been seen lending his support to opposition movements in Egypt and Libya, including touring the recently overthrown country with a horde of despotic corporate representatives from General Electric, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Bechtel and ExxonMobil. John McCain issued mild threats to the Myanmarese Government, “The winds of change are now blowing, and they will not be confined to the Arab world”. It should be unfathomable that American politicians could parade around the world like 21st century slave masters, threatening sovereign countries with war and cultural/economic sabotage to facilitate looting campaigns, but it is not. It makes one curious, however, that if McCain is demanding democratic reforms, why he chose to meet with Suu Kyi, a woman having no control over these issues, and not the ruling Government of the country that does. Suu Kyi has also been the recipient of support from Freedom Now, whose funders include The Lantos Foundation, where current Israeli President Shimon Peres is credited as an adviser, as well as the Charles Bronfman Prize, which fosters the slogan, "Jewish Values. Global Impact."
One might say that democratic reforms have taken place already, as evidenced by the 2010 elections held in Yangon. Sure, the legitimacy of the elections are highly contested by international bodies. But let us not overlook the substance of these claims. For example, there are rules deliberately barring Aung San Suu Kyi from running for office (although she boycotted the elections anyway). The reason for the ban, however, stems from the fact that the Myanmarese Constitution forbids any candidate with a criminal record, foreign identity or foreign financial backing from upholding a position of Governance. Are these restrictions not legitimate? Of course these laws have been primary targets of scrutiny by the Western media, even though they are based on extremely common and coherent legislation (principles protecting basic sovereignty); and even though many of the accusing countries maintain nearly identical laws. The ruling Government has subsequently issued statements saying that the US seeks to install a ‘puppet government’ to utilize the country’s strategic position and to install numerous military bases. Aung San Suu Kyi is unqualified to run because she represents foreign corporate rule over a country which has battled to be it’s own master for over a century.
President Barack Obama regarded Suu Kyi as a “personal hero” while he recently reissued crippling economic sanctions against Myanmar. President Obama backed her call for “democracy” (a sham in reality), the release of alleged political prisoners, and an end to human rights abuses. He then stated the recent elections were “neither free nor fair and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.” This is a man who presides over a country staging five simultaneous theater wars, the largest prison population, the highest incarceration rate, the most police officers; the highest reports of rape, car theft, reports of murder, general crime; and the most foreign military bases; each of these indicators being those that the United States tops every other country in the world! And so this man, the United States president; a man who is at the helm of a dying machine... To make any accusation about the world beyond American borders before first dealing with the severity of dire domestic issues, this is truly beyond words.
Sanctions are an act of warfare in which produce the
same results of destitution opposing countries accuse
target countries of presiding over. They have increased
unemployment, child labor and sex trade. A failure on all fronts.
In 2008, Cyclone Nargis gave Myanmar the worst natural disaster in its history, causing over one hundred and thirty-eight thousand fatalities. EU and American officials, looking to exploit any event in order to gain a military foothold in Myanmar, literally threatened to “impose” aid if the Myanmarese Government refused to cooperate. The imposed aid would include demands for full military access to Myanmar to deliver emergency supplies. Forcing your way into a country under the auspices of “humanitarian aid” rather than stopping genocide is an interesting new twist on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. Interestingly, then-president George W. Bush renewed sanctions and a ban on Myanmarese imports a week prior to the cyclone hitting shore, with the pledge that “Our message is: the United States believes in democracy and freedom”. With an extensive system of weather satellites, Washington was totally aware of what it was doing. US-led sanctions made direct U.S. and international donations of emergency funds and aid almost impossible, thus contributing to the astounding death toll. The new sanctions prevented U.S. humanitarian organisations and individuals from donating money directly to legitimate humanitarian causes within the disaster zone. Bush’s executive order expanded sanctions within days of his official expression of “deep concern” for the devastated population. Corporate media then issued reports on the shortcomings of the Myanmarese government to adequately treat the disaster, totally neglecting the impact of the new sanctions imposed immediately before the storm hit, while predictably ignoring America’s own appalling track record in treating its own natural disasters.
Crippling US led sanctions have closed factories and
destroyed local industries in Myanmar, leading to a
desperate economic climate where children
must voluntarily labor in order to survive.
Sanctions are an act of warfare, which targets the most vulnerable members of society. In Myanmar, however, sanctions have completely failed from a strategic point-of-view; they have hampered US geopolitical goals by creating a climate of Myanmarese dependency on China and neighboring countries and today they are an equal cause of poverty, lack of technology, poor medical conditions and labor inequality. Such sanctions have crippled local industries, such as garment, textile and fisheries, which are export reliant and closed factories causing increased levels of economic refugees in neighboring countries. These sanctions have also caused exorbitant inflation and subsequently raised unemployment levels. Desperately poor parents inevitably leads to an increase of child labor and finally, a massive increase of sex workers. In Yangon sanctions hit garment factories, extinguishing eighty five thousand jobs held by women aged 18 -35 (of which half are HIV positive). The virtuous “democracy” hero Aung San Suu Kyi has recently called for the continuation of imposing sanctions against Myanmar, preposterously claiming the embargo only affects the military regime and not the broader population. Based on my recent fact-finding trip to Myanmar, it is evident that nothing could be farther from the truth.
Cases of HIV/AIDS are extremely high in Myanmar,
especially along former trade routes of the Golden Triangle.
This man pleads to passerbies for donation money to
purchase anti-retroviral drugs, increasingly
expensive due to US economic blockades.
The treatment of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and cancer have been seriously undermined by the blocking of trade from countries which supply various medicines; creating devastating conditions which were evident in the two hospitals in central Myanmar I had the opportunity to visit and photograph. Sanctions block a large majority of medical aid--Myanmar now being the lowest recipient of such aid in the region (development aid equates to four USD per person, while countries with higher gross national income such as Cambodia and Laos receive thirty eight and fifty USD of aid per person respectively)--leaving the population without resources to adequately confront this issue. As an example, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria was forced to withdraw its ninety-eight million dollar treatment grant, making the ability to treat HIV/AIDS patients increasingly difficult in that government allocations are ill-funded and cannot handle the situation alone. If only this example was an isolated instance to stack against of the entire legacy of international sanctions. It is not. The US State Department, ever the standard-bearer of humanitarian concern, deemed the adverse impact of sanctions as being “unfortunate.” A response like this might bring to mind former Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s famous reply (addressing criticisms of sanction use in Iraq, which took the lives of five hundred and sixty-seven thousand children under the age of five), when she said “We think the price is worth it.” Both cases offer quintessential examples of America's duplicitous stance on “human rights,” since clearly it has no remorse for it's colossal trail of blood left by it's own geopolitical adventures.
Myanmar is the lowest recipient of international aid in the
region; more aid is given to neighboring countries with
significantly developed economies. A young man is
treated for an aggressive case of resistant tuberculosis.
Furthermore, why has the US Government Accountability Office claimed that the Myanmarese Government has interfered with the dispersal of UN backed foreign health and medical aid? Is it because the US utilizes “aid” programs as a means to infiltrate states and impose foreign control over sectors of their Government? The policy report released by the Asia Society (previously referred to in this article) even openly calls for the unregistered funding of opposition parties; one of the many weapons in the US foreign policy arsenal to undermine foreign sovereignty. The report states: “In pursuing pragmatic engagement with Burma, the United States must continue to develop, and even ramp up, means of reaching the Burmese population directly through assistance programs. Assistance to NGOs that have no connections to the military and are not officially registered with authorities should be expanded.” Of course the Myanmarese Government is rightfully suspicious of aid being used as a means of foreign subversion, which is why the task force report calls for heightened transparency (so as to seemingly fall in line with the legal demands of the Myanmarese constitution, which prohibits those who receive foreign aid from running for office).
It must be excruciating for the people of Myanmar to swallow the “globalization pill,” one that will irreparably inflict upon their nation irreversible social and cultural damage. Western backed PR campaigns are seen as shallow and cynical, indeed, compared to the noble efforts of this country in their decades-long resistance to political and economic control from abroad. The Asia Society and Soros’s Open Society Institute advocate: “Educational exchange under the Fulbright and Humphrey Scholar programs and cultural outreach activities should be expanded. These programs produce powerful agents for community development in Burma and can significantly expand the prospects for improved governance. Although the military government is highly averse to foreign cultural influence in the country, the U.S. Embassy’s American Center has long served as a cultural focal point for many Burmese living in the Rangoon area. If the election produces a transfer of power to a less xenophobic leadership, the United States should support the extension of American Center programs through the Internet and the deployment of visiting speakers to other cities, and other forms of cultural outreach. If political transition produces real change, marked by full participation of opposition of non-Burman ethnic representatives in elected government, U.S. scholarship and visitor programs should be expanded to include Burmese government officials.” In Myanmar there is a “temple of cultural imperialism” which disguises itself as the US Embassy’s ‘American Center’. Its intention is to indoctrinate the youth-centric population that “the west is best”.
U.S. policymakers, whose own economy is in shambles, would love it if the Myanmarese government would take the “advice” of the IMF, World Bank and Asia Development Bank. These institutions now speak through the Asia Society Task Force proposal, where they suggest for Myanmar: “reform-oriented economic activity” and “[foreign] assistance in economic institution building.” Let's translate: accept vampire crony-capitalism, or Soros’s Open Society Institute (among others) will actively promote crippling your economy with increased business and banking sanctions. Right now investment opportunities are only available to firms that partner with the state. This means that larger transnational piranhas are currently left out in the cold. John McCain and his friends at Halliburton and Coca-Cola would love to see “market opening policies, including the removal of remaining restrictions on private enterprise, openness to foreign trade and investment”. The “highbrow” Council on Foreign Relations is the central author of US foreign policy. They believe that shaping public opinion of countries resistant to foreign subversion is a baseline geopolitical strategy and Republicans or Democrats will tow the line.
Sanitation workers maneuver in appalling work conditions,
many women like this were formerly employed in bustling
export-reliant garment factories until they were forced
to close due to dismal US led sanctions,
eighty five thousand jobs were lost.
The Myanmarese government has pledged it’s support to creative and sustainable economic projects, which may one day result in fruits far sweeter than any international financial institutions are trying to push. Last year, for example, Myanmar approved plans for an ambitious economic zone and a business partnership with Italian-Thai in rural Dawei. This means new infrastructure and seaport construction in the region, as well as huge concentrations of factories, refineries and power plants. Similar Chinese-style economic zones, like that in the province of Shenzhen, will benefit economically regardless of negative social and environmental effects. In contrast to crony capitalism contracting schemes which masquerade themselves as part of the “free market”, low-cost housing and satellite commercial complexes are centrally planned. One such Myanmarese industrial cooperative has produced rice husk consuming generators that generate electric power.
The manifesto of Aung San Suu Kyi’s proxy party the “National League for Democracy” states: “Various enterprises of economic sector must completely base itself on the market economy. Special encouragement shall be made for a quick development of private enterprises. The present various types of revenue system shall be revised and amended to benefit the private enterprises”. This document is solely dedicated to crony-capitalism free market policies and is a cookbook for conditions in which other “emerging” countries have found themselves: debt-ridden and bankrupted by foreign lending institutions. The implied strategy of economic development advanced by this document is founded upon establishing a private market system so that transnational corporations can reign freely to do their bidding. Unhindered, they can then buy off entire areas of the country, completely negating the benefits of state planned economies. Once again the manifesto: “The nationalized economic enterprises that are included in all the above sectors of economy, shall be given back to their original owners respectively and for those enterprises whose original owners can no longer take responsibility for them, the state shall try and get the economic expertise and financial investment to continue to run the business. The business enterprises will not be nationalized.”
However morally admirable and well intentioned Suu Kyi may be, her parties manifesto is a doctrine essentially calling for transnational corporations and globalists to manage her countries resources. Again the manifesto: “With the exception of some enterprises, if immediately abandoned, could cause devastation to domestic economy and increase unemployment shall be retained, the remaining nationalized enterprises shall be abolished and privatized.” One might think that John McCain himself wrote, “(we should) allow foreign investment that will benefit the development of the country’s economy, according to the principles of a market economy.” According to Webster Tarpley the Myanmarese people will be far worse off under a Suu Kyi-led globalist proxy government than they would be under the current government.
REGIONAL DESTABLIZATION / BALKINZATION, RESOURCES AND NARCOTICS
|The String Of Pearls|
Is Myanmar just a chess piece in the Anglo-American-led plan for global hegemony? Is this nothing but the top of the food chain trying to consume everything below it? More specifically to the case of Myanmar, which capital cities now place Islamabad and Tehran under their nations' collective umbrella? Certainly not Yangon or Bangkok. Rather it is Beijing and Moscow that fit this description, both of whom are members of the Shanghai Cooperative. It is these nations' regional politics that clout Anglo-American destabilization efforts, even while targeting countries like Myanmar and Thailand as proxy. Just as the ‘Arab Spring’ is sold to the world as “spontaneous uprisings,” in reality leading to the installation of proxy governments in Egypt and Tunisia; or the bombing campaigns and illegal raids in Syria, are actually trained, funded and engineered by seditious schemes of 21st Century Blue Chip Imperialism. These ‘spontaneous uprisings’ are in fact pure criminality and collective insanity at work. As many journalists and researchers document, the campaign to covertly install a collective unit of compliant proxy governments in the region is an effort to work towards a strategic agenda to militarily encircle China.
Although the Myanmarese Government has warned Suu Kyi of her illegal status on the political stage she has recently been seen on a heavily publicized tour of Myanmar. Myanmarese Generals fear any attempt at Aung San Suu Kyi’s life, even as NDL’s secretary Win Tin there is in existence “a state of mind to assassinate her”. It should be noted that any attempt on her life would be exploited by the Western Governments to give immediate priority to enact harsher sanctions or potentially the implementation of a no fly zone. The Muslim ethnic minorities may even be demonized as mercenaries, or for having connections to Al Qaeda, as emphasized by Osama Bin Laden during his last known interview (in 2001). In response to a question regarding emerging Al Qaeda fronts, he replied “There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir.“
One of the main reasons Myanmar has been targeted for regime change is for its strategic position as an alternative shipping and trading route for China--one that bypasses the Strait of Malacca. Although the Strait of Malacca has become an essential Chinese shipping-lane, providing a necessary go-between for largely petroleum resources from Central Asia and Africa, the Chinese government has long-planned to diversify and expand upon their commercial options in the region, if for no other reason than to enhance energy security. Currently there are three oil pipelines and one gas pipeline under construction that would link western Myanmar with the Chinese provinces of Kunming and Nanning. These pipelines would yield a significant annual influx of twelve million tons of crude oil and twelve billion cubic meters of gas. And so, not only would a US-controlled Myanmar impede a large amount of Chinese trade. It would cut off a resource supply route with potentially significant strategic advantages.
Perhaps it's noteworthy here to point out that the U.S. is pursuing a similar strategy in Southern Pakistan, where the George Soros-backed Center for International Policy has called for utilizing a phony independence campaign in Baluchistan province, the object being to dismantle a logistic corridor blocking the Chinese seaport of Gwadar. Officials in Beijing have tentatively released a statement saying, "Any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”. In this instance (and many others in the region), the center of gravity from the U.S. perspective is Beijing. It appears that Myanmar has placed its loyalty with China, and has therefore been extremely resistant to any plans from the Pentagon to build foreign military bases on its soil. If given a foothold, the United States could set up missiles around China’s borders. Myanmar's reluctance now makes them a target.
Providing a tranquil pathway for foreign-funded balkanization schemes in Myanmar would allow the US to utilize the same strategies implemented in Pakistan, both of these operations utilizized to disrupt any joint-infrastructural pipeline plans between the targeted country and China. The funding of ethnic minority groups (actually drug warlords/anti-government paramilitaries) proven by reports released by the Asia Society and other George Soros associated rags facilitate a scheme detrimental to the countries in the region, which rely on Myanmar’s extensive chest of natural resources (including petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, marble, limestone, gems, and natural gas). China’s intercontinental ballistic missiles can target both Europe and the United States and Beijing has clearly begun to take notice at the creeping steps by the US. Chinese Foreign Minister Hong Lei has stated, "We advise the US side to reflect on its own human rights issues and not to position itself as a preacher of human rights. The US should stop using the issue of human rights reports to interfere in other countries' internal affairs."
The Myanmarese Government has tried to end the extraction of opium in areas which belonged to the “golden triangle”, a region between Myanmar, Thailand and Laos, which was formerly the production epicenter for the world’s supply of heroin until the US invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now the world’s highest supplier, which is currently yielding sixty-five billion USD annually due in no small part to the CIA funding drug kingpins such as Ahmed Wali Karzai. At present the “golden triangle” is only responsible for producing five percent of the world’s heroin, which runs counter to the greedy drug-intelligence proxy groups that heavily depend on illicit cash flow to fund their activities. The reduction of output by the Golden Triangle has been due to large-scale eradication campaigns conducted by the Chinese, Myanmarese, and Laotian Governments. The Myanmarese “opposition” will allow foreign interests to exercise their true motives: to exploit Myanmar on multiple fronts if it suits their objectives in the encirclement of China.
At a local hospital in central Myanmar, this monk’s
expression speaks for the Myanmarese people. He has
been diagnosed with hypertension and lung disease.
In this 21st century struggle between man and the state, parasitic corporate bodies (at least those which author US foreign policy) wield their incredible powers, effectively allowing them to create contrived political movements or seize indigenous movements for their own strategic benefit. Under the guise of concern for human rights these forces would be happy to see activists they’ve trained martyr themselves for TV. These expert corporate profiteers will use people’s sincere empathy, compassion, and dedication in a twisted cover story to involve the ‘International Community’ in a regime change agenda of their choosing. The people on the ground are viewed as mere bloodbags, at best. In the case of Myanmar, a heavy-handed Government with harsh limits on expression is the product of over a century of foreign intervention. Starting with the British Raj, which viewed the indigenous people as lower than humans, up until today, where the indigenous Myanmarese government is now the monster—existing perhaps only as the by-product of totalitarian foreign systems of slavery, but existing as an oppressive monster nonetheless—especially over regular Myanmarese as they struggle to assert themselves. They’ve have become a force which mirrors the abuse given to them by their colonial masters just as pigs walk on hind legs.
|Myanmarese President Thein Sein |
& Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
“This desert inaccessible. Under the shade of melancholy boughs.”
– George Orwell, Burmese Days 1934
– George Orwell, Burmese Days 1934