Question from a 6th class student.. Iraq v Burma

Trotter

One student of mine asked me last week.. Why is it that America sent its army to get rid of the bad people in Iraq, and yet they dont help all the monks in Burma?

I thought it was quite a perceptive question for an 11 year old, but, without giving her my synical views as an answer, I can honestly say, I wasnt really able to explain why to her.

My answer is Burma has nothing that the USA, or the UN bigwigs want.. like oil.. but that'd be synicism right? (right??).

Or.. how if that happened we could see WW3 between the USA and China.. but try explaining that to 6th class.

What would you have said? Bearing in mind its important (to me anyway) not to give your own political views as an answer to a child's question like that.

Is an Iraqi person's life worth more than a Burmese person's? It seems to be in this girls eyes.. and I cant really blame her for coming to that conclusion.

Botany Bay

Tell the truth. Wars, at least major international wars are fought for reasons of self interest. Wars are fought for economic and strategic reasons. WWI, Falklands, Vietnam, even WWII, leaving aside the expansionist ideals of the Nazis, was fought with economic and greater long term strategic aims in mind. Only the most gullible and obtuse(unfortunately most of the worlds population) beleive wars and conflict are fought for reasons of freedom and democracy, humanitarianism and any semblance of compassion and greater good. It may knock the air of romanticism and naivety out of your student, but in the long run, it may knock some realism and critical thought into her. Its good that she's at least questioning things. Most people are completely apathetic.

jonny72

Its very very complex. The US has had a pretty bad record since world war 2 of actually helping a situation by using force. I do think that people in the administration are genuinely pulling a few strings to keep the media spotlight on Burma for as long as possible, but thats about all the "West' can do. The Chinese hold a lot more sway down there, but they generally want the military Junta in power for political reasons.

The situation is a hundred times worse in Darfur by the way, the media however haven't really managed to latch onto that story, it just comes out in dribs and drabs.

Orion

jonny72 wrote:

Its very very complex. The US has had a pretty bad record since world war 2 of actually helping a situation by using force. I do think that people in the administration are genuinely pulling a few strings to keep the media spotlight on Burma for as long as possible, but thats about all the "West' can do. The Chinese hold a lot more sway down there, but they generally want the military Junta in power for political reasons.

That's why the US are talking about it and implementing sanctions against the junta. It's a way of getting at China without actually doing anything to China.

I don't necessarily agree that it's all they West can do. But it's all that will be done as the UN is a dead duck in this situation with China being a veto power and NATO won't act without the US sanctioning it.

jonny72 wrote:

The situation is a hundred times worse in Darfur by the way, the media however haven't really managed to latch onto that story, it just comes out in dribs and drabs.

See above. There is no vested interest for the US in interfering. China and Russia don't care about Darfur so they can't get any digs in. I do agree that it is a lot worse ofc but the only way to keep track of it is through alternative media like Amnesty and Indymedia.

Moriarty

Trotter wrote:

My answer is Burma has nothing that the USA, or the UN bigwigs want.. like oil.. but that'd be synicism right? (right??).

It would also be wrong. Burma/Myanmar has large natural gas reserves as well as a fair amount of oil.

Manic Moran

The two immediate answers are that America doesn't have the troops to spare to go gallavanting around in Burma right now, most of them are already otherwise occupied, and that as Burma is in China's sphere of influence, it would be rather bad form.

NTM

Akrasia

Trotter wrote:

Is an Iraqi person's life worth more than a Burmese person's? It seems to be in this girls eyes.. and I cant really blame her for coming to that conclusion.

I think it's backwards. An Iraqi persons life is totally worthless to the U.S. just like the Vietnamese people had zero worth in the 70's.

The U.S. is pursuing its own interests. The Burmese don't fit into their plan and so the U.S. is never going to intervene in that region. Its a cartel. The U.S. russia and China have a "gentlemans agreement" to carve up the globe and not interfere too much in each others affairs. American belligerence towards Iran is a potential flashpoint with China, but there is no way in hell America will piss off the chinese for anything other than long term strategic interests (complete control over the middle east)

Mick86

Trotter wrote:

My answer is Burma has nothing that the USA, or the UN bigwigs want.. like oil.. but that'd be synicism right? (right??).

It might be Cynical and the Truth at the same time. Don't you think she deserves an honest answer from you?

You could also point out that the Bush administration has learned from Iraq that changing regimes isn't as easy as they thought in 2003.

Trotter

Mick86 wrote:

It might be Cynical and the Truth at the same time. Don't you think she deserves an honest answer from you?

You could also point out that the Bush administration has learned from Iraq that changing regimes isn't as easy as they thought in 2003.

Oh she got an honest answer alright.. we spoke about it as a class for a good half an hour. I like to let the children ramble on about these things and its amazing how clear and sensible they can be. I told them all about the influencial countries in each area (i.e. Iraq and Burma) but I have to be careful in that they are very young children and its important not to confuse them or they'll lose that interest in the situation.

Its a much better learning experience when they figure things out as a group with guidance from me to keep on the topic than me just bellowing facts and opinions at them.

It was nice to see the expression of interest by the class though. It showed they were interesting in learning about a situation.. so we kept it simple and I left them to consider their thoughts.

A successful operation methinks!

6th class for president

aidan24326

Trotter wrote:

One student of mine asked me last week.. Why is it that America sent its army to get rid of the bad people in Iraq, and yet they dont help all the monks in Burma?

I thought it was quite a perceptive question for an 11 year old, but, without giving her my synical views as an answer, I can honestly say, I wasnt really able to explain why to her.

My answer is Burma has nothing that the USA, or the UN bigwigs want.. like oil.. but that'd be synicism right? (right??).

Or.. how if that happened we could see WW3 between the USA and China.. but try explaining that to 6th class.

What would you have said? Bearing in mind its important (to me anyway) not to give your own political views as an answer to a child's question like that.

Is an Iraqi person's life worth more than a Burmese person's? It seems to be in this girls eyes.. and I cant really blame her for coming to that conclusion.

I told them all about the influencial countries in each area (i.e. Iraq and Burma)

A teacher who can't spell. Tut tut! :rolleyes:

When the kids ask you questions like that, tell them the truth. Kids can be perceptive enough alright.

Trotter

aidan24326 wrote:

A teacher who can't spell. Tut tut! :rolleyes:

Yes.. Spelling is the most important part of everything I wrote. Thanks for your hugely accurate display of spelling. I wish I was as prefect as you.. DOH.. did it again.

Jesus theres always one isnt there.

Case closed anyways, we've moved onto deciding whether 11 year olds should vote. Quite interesting stuff actually!

FYI

Everyone has been fairly quiet about Western support for the Burmese regime. It isn't that long since the London Chamber of Commerce said the 'good news is that economic growth is picking up' there. It is this economic growth that has sustained the military junta for so long (and Western corporations still operate there - UNOCAL). Obviously, there are many other hands in the pie, but it would be foolish to think our system can manufacture concern for the 'monks' all by itself, when for so long it was not a consideration. Only public pressure can do this.



"In landmark lawsuits, Burmese villagers sued the US oil and gas company UNOCAL (now Chevron) and France’s Total for complicity in gross human rights abuses committed by the Burmese military. The lawsuits centered on charges that the companies knew about and benefited from the Burmese army’s use of torture, rape, and unlawful land seizures to remove villagers from areas slated for development, and also the military’s use of forced labor to facilitate the pipeline construction. The lawsuits were settled after the companies agreed to make large payments.

“There is a track record in Burma of major abuses accompanying large-scale natural gas projects,” said Ganesan. “Foreign energy investors and buyers should know that when they do business with the SPDC they risk being partners in the military’s abuses.”

Western companies have long been under public pressure to avoid investment in Burma, which is also under comprehensive US sanctions and more limited EU restrictions. As a result, new investors are increasingly from within Asia. This has sparked the formation of civil society campaigns in several countries opposed to investment projects that fuel human rights abuses in Burma."

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/24/burma15557.htm

"In 1988, when the government needed more bullets, Singapore sorted them out and maybe saved their skin. Two years later, during further unrest, it was British company BMARC's ammo via Singapore that was delivered. This common practice was acknowledged by entrepreneur Pat James in 1995. "Right now a lot of the British company funding is actually coming through companies from Singapore and Thailand. Projects you see are British and American, but other countries will be receiving credit on the ledger sheet'.

Gerald James, former chairman of Astra of which BMARC was a subsidiary, claims that British Intelligence were running a 'secret book' for arms deliveries to Burma through BMARC. He found a Burma order in a box of papers returned by Astra's receivers in 1995.

In 1993, Richard Needham, Britain's then Trade minister, told Parliament, 'The government's policy is to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma in view of the current political and economic situation there'. Then in written parliamentary replies the government admitted that it had appointed four new trade promotion staff at the Rangoon embassy and was organising British trade missions and helping to fund them.

In 1995, the veil had been dropped. The British Department of Trade and the London Chamber of Commerce funded a seminar in London called 'An introduction to Burma - the latest Tiger Cub'. The organiser Peter Godwin told the seminar that the 'good news is that economic growth is picking up'. No reference was made to the massacre of 1988, the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi or the continuing lack of progress towards democracy.

In 1996, the shadow Foreign office minister Derek Fatchett, set out the labour party's policy on sanctions. 'The government has argued that such measures ultimately hurt the ordinary Burmese citizen more than the ruling elite'. This argument was wrong when used to justify continued trade with the apartheid regime in South Africa, and it is still wrong today in regard to Burma."

A year later and now in power and elevated to the Foreign Office Fatchett said that the government will 'continue to provide British companies with routine advice about doing business in Burma'. This advice would 'wherever possible?draw to bussinessmen's attention statements by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi discouraging trade and investment in Burma'. No mention of sanctions. Britain remains sufficiently preoccupied with relations with the SLORC's allies as well as its trade to consider implementing Labour's pledges.

In 1996, the United States imposed a ban on 'new' investments in Burma. They however chose to exempted the Unocal/Total pipeline whose construction was surrounded in doubts about forced labour see Death railway. The exemption undermined any stance on human rights as well any attempt to apply economic pressure on the SLORC. The pipeline alone provides the generals with revenue for life.

The same year, William Brown, former US ambassador to Thailand, was dispatched to Burma to see what the score was. Brown announced that after conferring with the SLORC, 'contrary to what we read in the media, we found large areas of consensus in Burma. The issue of forced labour has diminished.' Ironically, two days earlier the International Labour Organisation had reported that forced labour had 'increased markedly' and was now imposed 'on a massive scale and under the cruellest of conditions'.

Australia too made the rights noises in the 1990s about meeting human rights standards. Gareth Evans, on behalf of the Australian Labor Government told the Burmese foreign minister that, Australia 'had an extreme concern about the continuing human rights situation,' and that it also had 'a desire to find ways of moving the situation productively forward'. Investing in Burma seemed like a good start. In 1995 the number of Australian business delegations to Rangoon doubled.

It is difficult to estimate the true level of Western investment in Burma, since a lot of this investment is routed through third countries, especially Singapore and Hong Kong. It is not difficult to see that countries who have made proud proclamations of support for democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi, have continued to allow their companies to trade freely with the military government."

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=111

fly_agaric

FYI wrote:

Everyone has been fairly quiet about Western support for the Burmese regime.

Yeah, it wouldn't be a bona-fide boards politics thread without somebody reminding us how everything bad which happens in any country on earth is somehow or other "the West's" fault now would it?

Thanks!:)

moe_sizlak

Akrasia wrote:

I think it's backwards. An Iraqi persons life is totally worthless to the U.S. just like the Vietnamese people had zero worth in the 70's.

The U.S. is pursuing its own interests. The Burmese don't fit into their plan and so the U.S. is never going to intervene in that region. Its a cartel. The U.S. russia and China have a "gentlemans agreement" to carve up the globe and not interfere too much in each others affairs. American belligerence towards Iran is a potential flashpoint with China, but there is no way in hell America will piss off the chinese for anything other than long term strategic interests (complete control over the middle east)

very well put about about the usa , russia and china having a gentlemens agreement , your right iran may be a flashpoint and the reason the usa are focusing on iran is because the israelis are jumping up and down at them to do something , pat buchannan a well known old style republican who is no fan of israel has said that he believes there is no way the israelis will let the neo cons leave office without having done something on iran

as regards darfur being much worse than burma , its most likely much worse than iraq too but china are the ones who have the leverage there , they do more business with sudan than any other country but when have human rights abuses ever concerned china
in 100 yrs when china is top dog , we may look back and see the usa as quite a benign empire

FYI

fly_agaric wrote:

Yeah, it wouldn't be a bona-fide boards politics thread without somebody reminding us how everything bad which happens in any country on earth is somehow or other "the West's" fault now would it?

Thanks!:)

Well how in the name of god do you expect people to discuss the probability of Western intervention in Burma without dealing with the inevitable contradictions in its economic and ethical positions, the first over-riding the second and possibly circumscribing the possibility of benevolent intervention.

You can alternatively keep your head in the sand and continue whining about why we are not doing anything.

FYI

For those that have an interest in doing something, George Monbiot has a simple, yet possibly effective suggestion:

"If, like me, you have been shaking your head over the crushing of the protests, wondering what on earth you can do, I suggest you get on the phone to these companies, demanding, politely, that they cut their ties. I sense that it wouldn’t take much more pressure to persuade them to pull out. By itself, this won’t bring down the regime. But it will cut its sources of income, and allow us to focus on confronting the reality of Chinese investment, rather than the excuse."

The rest of the article is also well worth reading...

http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_junta_039_s_accomplices

sovtek

moe_sizlak wrote:

as regards darfur being much worse than burma , its most likely much worse than iraq too but china are the ones who have the leverage there ,

I don't see how it could be worse than Iraq. A million Iraqis have been killed so far and people are being "disappeared" on a far larger scale. What is the "West" doing about that?

moe_sizlak

sovtek wrote:

I don't see how it could be worse than Iraq. A million Iraqis have been killed so far and people are being "disappeared" on a far larger scale. What is the "West" doing about that?

did you just pick a huge number and double it there because i havent seen or heard any reports that suggest a million people have died
ive heard that 2 million iraqis have fled the country alright
i dont agree with the war and acknowledge its a complete disaster but i think its important not to throw out numbers willy nilly

sovtek

moe_sizlak wrote:

did you just pick a huge number and double it there because i havent seen or heard any reports that suggest a million people have died
ive heard that 2 million iraqis have fled the country alright
i dont agree with the war and acknowledge its a complete disaster but i think its important not to throw out numbers willy nilly

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

JimiTime

moe_sizlak wrote:

i think its important not to throw out numbers willy nilly

What? Is that not how our public representitives get elected;)

lostexpectation

cos it will make things worse like it did in iraq

what did you tell her/him?

fly_agaric

FYI wrote:

Well how in the name of god do you expect people to discuss the probability of Western intervention in Burma without dealing with the inevitable contradictions in its economic and ethical positions, the first over-riding the second and possibly circumscribing the possibility of benevolent intervention.

It's very simple really. You implied that "the West" (including me and my ma, or Bertie Ahern perhaps?) is somehow responsible for what is happening in Burma because some greed-blinded "Western" people/companies or even governments invest/invested money in it.

So presumably any "Western" government or organisation or person that now tries to do anything is just a hypocrite and should shut up. Your original post said nothing about Western "intervention" in Burma [do you mean military or something??].

It's also ironic that you seem to miss the point that the "manufacturing of concern" among those with the ability to do something by application of "public pressure" is something which I hope is built into "the system" in most "Western" countries. It is not some outside virus.

I have posted about this before, but I just get so tired of the whole "Evil West" logic - everybody from Indymedia types to Osama Bin Laden seem to buy into it (or peddle it).

Many of the former who use it all the time would never, ever attack any other big diverse group for fear of applying nasty generalisation to those who do not deserve it.

CptSternn

The US only gets involved in conflicts where it can make a buck. Most people don't realise that at any given time, there are on average at *least* 14 armed conflicts happening somewhere in the world.

That being said the US doesn't get involved in *any* that they can make a buck on (look at the congo right now).