Select: AB99-10 (r)

[dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Well said.  Recall please that Tony Albrecht, an occasional contributor
to various Burma lists, an employee of the US-ASEAN Business Council, has
made exactly this "humanitarian" argument several times.  I have responded
by asking him to define the nature of the crisis, i.e. explain what he
percieves to be the cause of "the crisis."  He has not responded.

We need to be vigilant.  When this argument arises, using bland and
general terms, we must demand, demand, demand some detail.  What is the
crisis?  What is the cause?  What is the proposed remedy?  The UN Special
Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma concludes that the crisis is caused by
decisions made at the highest levels of the junta, "entailing legal and
moral responsibility."  Very specific.  As ever, our campaign is to fight
general slogans "Engagement is good" with the true implications of such
slogans in Burma.

LD

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe wrote:

> RELAYED BY ZTZ.INTERCHANGE.CA
> ******************************
> 
> No.99-10                                       Analytica Birmanie
> THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN BURMA: INTERVENTION ON THE HORIZON 
>  
> "One thing is that any kind of turbulence in the Balkans is what's
> called in technical terms a crisis, that means it can harm the
> interests of rich and powerful people. So if people are slaughtering
> each other in Sierra Leone, Colombia, Turkey or wherever, that doesn't 
> effect rich and powerful people very much, therefore they are glad either 
> to just watch it, or even contribute to it, massively as in the case of 
> Turkey or Colombia.  But in the Balkans it's different, it can effect 
> European interests and therefore US interest, so it becomes a crisis."  
>       -- Noam Chomsky, Interview,  CBC RADIO April 16, 1999. 
> 
> Professor Chomsky strikes again, and hits the beast right between the 
> eyes. Yes, the humanitarian crisis in Burma is being discovered by the 
> international community, specifically by the United Nations, and 
> incidentally -- or more importantly???-- by investors who are so very 
> inconvienced and frustrated by electricity failures: chronic brown outs 
> and black outs in Rangoon. 
> 
> The humanitarian crisis in Burma was discovered a few months ago by, 
> among other, American Congressman Tony Hall. Or perhaps, he was just a 
> point man, chosen because he possesses a credible humanitarian face. His 
> thesis is that the "world" must intervene in Burma -- not with "smart" 
> bombs (as happened a few months later in Yugoslavia and Kosovo), but with 
> a bombardment of "humanitarian aid" dollars, to induce the military junta 
> to behave in a more civilized manner. 
> 
> Incredibly, although a reputed "angel", Congressman Hall jumped with much 
> aplomb onto a path where angels fear to tread: He firmly stated that 
> democracy and human rights, good governance, rule of law, and lawful 
> governments are irrelevant, given the magnitude of the crisis in Burma. 
> 
> The good Congressman even argued that although dollars earmarked for 
> humanitarian aid would certainly have to pass through channels approved 
> and controlled by the repressive and illegitimate junta, the country and 
> the people would nevertheless benefit from the dollars bombardment -- on 
> the long run, that is. (NOTE: "On the long run" is the favorite argument, 
> and effective too, to justify jumping into unholy matrimony with despots, 
> dictators, and rulers warring against their own people).    
> 
> What is wrong, very wrong, with Burma's "humanitarian crisis" scenario is 
> that it became urgent only when investments in posh hotels, gleaming 
> malls, glass office-towers, karaoke bars, restaurants, and so on, began 
> to look more and more like lost causes. 
> 
> The hard fact is that there has been a real humanitarian crisis in Burma 
> since 1962 when the military usurped power, not in 1998.  Anyone who is 
> familiar with Burma's history knows this for a fact -- especially the 
> Burmese themselves. They were, and still are, the victims of military 
> misrule, mismanagement, state terror, and atrocities, which includes the 
> use of rape as a weapon of war in ethnic areas. But did the international 
> community, the U.N., and the jet-setting investors care? Certainly not. 
> 
> What is really sad about the sudden concern with the "humanitarian 
> crisis" in Burma is the gleam in the eyes of professional humanitarians, 
> both within the UN system and outside, at the prospect of being allowed 
> to "save" the Burmese from the newly discovered "crisis" -- being allowed 
> by none other than the those who were and are responsible for the crisis: 
> military rulers who hate and fear the people and are also thoroughly 
> hated by them.  
> 
> Although the crisis in Kosovo has somewhat put a stop to the plan to 
> "save Burma" from the "humanitarian crisis", newly discovered by would-be 
> rescuers and anxious investors, it is likely that there will soon be 
> voices raised for intervention with dollars in Burma. It is also likely 
> -- given the moral bankruptcy of the high and mighty of the world, the 
> talking heads, and spin doctors -- that these voices will be greeted with 
> nods of approval, even by the general public, more as a reaction against 
> intervention by air strikes and smart bombs in Kosovo than anything else. 
> 
> There is also logic in this. The logic being that the bombardment of 
> dollars will most certainly save investments already made. If the influx 
> of "humanitarian aid" dollars benefits the repressive junta as well, and 
> strengthens it, and if there is more repression and misery in Burma -- 
> who cares? 
> 
> As Professor Chomsky reminds us, real crisis "doesn't effect the rich and 
> powerful people very much"; they are glad either to just watch it, or to 
> "contribute to it, massively...." 
> 
> 
> ANALYTICA BIRMANIE
> April 23, 1999. 
> ------------------------------
> 
> 
>