Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Rivoluzione popolare, non interventi internazionali

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3889/
Burma needs democratic revolution, not intervention
International power games between the West and China threaten to take
the Burmese people's fate out of their own hands.
Why have US president George W Bush, UK foreign secretary David
Miliband and the leaders of the European Union suddenly developed such
an intense interest in democracy in Burma? After all, Western
governments of all stripes have not seemed particularly bothered that
Burma (renamed Myanmar by the governing generals) has effectively been
under military dictatorship for more than 40 years. Call me an old
cynic, but the upsurge of concern seems likely to have less to do with
the rising protests among the Burmese people than with the rising
power of China.
advertisement
Mobile Search:
advertise on spiked
At the time of writing on Wednesday, the outcome of the clashes
between pro-democracy protesters and the military junta in Burma
remains uncertain. But one thing should be clear enough to those, like
us at spiked, who support democracy in Burma and want to see the
overthrow of the dictatorship. The more the fate of the country
becomes entangled with wider diplomatic manoeuvres between the West
and China, the less control the people of Burma will have over their
own future.
The protests began over fuel price rises, but soon took on a wider
significance. They have turned into the largest pro-democracy protests
in Burma since 1988, when the military regime cracked down on militant
students and massacred an estimated 3,000 people. By contrast with
that crisis, however, the recent events have, at least until now,
looked more like a standoff. The Buddhist monks leading many of the
protests have been asking only for the government to apologise for its
rough treatment of opponents, reduce fuel prices, and start a
dialogue. Reports in the past few days suggested that the size of
their marches had been seriously reduced by the threat of tougher
government action. For its part, the military junta has puzzled
seasoned observers by initially showing uncharacteristic restraint in
dealing with the protests, even allowing one demonstration to pass the
place where world-famous opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi - who won
the last election held in Burma in 1990 - is held under house arrest.
Recent reports of troops firing warning shots and even beating monks -
almost unheard of in staunchly Buddhist Burma - indicate the potential
for matters to escalate, but until now there has been little sign of
the repeat of the 1988 massacre that many observers feared.
Meanwhile, the pressure from outside Burma has been cranked up
considerably, with the US and European governments threatening new
sanctions against the junta and issuing demands for democratisation
that go some way beyond those of the moderate Burmese protest leaders.
During his big speech to the United Nations this week, President Bush
broke off from his expected theme to issue a fierce denunciation, not
of the Iranian government, but the Burmese regime. He declared that
Americans were 'outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military
junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear'. At the same time, new UK
foreign secretary David Miliband used his first set-piece speech to
the Labour Party conference to ask (sounding as well as looking like a
school prefect): 'Wasn't it brilliant to see Aung San Suu Kyi alive
and well outside her house last week? It will be a hundred times
better when she takes her rightful place as the elected leader of a
free and democratic Burma.'
Yet the 'outrage' of America and the West at the situation in Burma,
and their apparent devotion to the cause of democracy there, has
rarely been evident during those long years of dictatorship. Despite
being largely under military rule since 1962, Burma has been more or
less off the international radar for years, notwithstanding the
occasional imposition of empty sanctions and issuing of ritual
criticisms. While Suu Kyi has been turned into a pin-up by Western
peace activists and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, the
question of democracy in Burma has never been seen as a pressing issue
and the military regime has been left to its own devices. While other
dictatorships in the developing world have come under pressure to
concede power and reform in the years since the end of the Cold War,
Burma has continued as one of the military states apparently caught in
a political time warp.
The sudden change of mood in Western capitals appears to reflect their
concerns with international power relations more than events in Burma
itself. As has been discussed extensively elsewhere on spiked, Western
governments are becoming increasingly worried about the rise of China,
first as an economic powerhouse and now a political power. They want
to put pressure on the Chinese authorities to toe the 'international
community' line, and to become a more pliant part of the Western-
dominated global set-up. To that end, the Americans and Europeans are
keen to get the Chinese to play the role of a sort of third-rate
regional policeman, sorting out problems in relation to states such as
North Korea and now Burma. When Bush, Brown, Miliband or some EU
spokesman calls for UN action on Burma, that is code for demanding
that China (which vetoed the last UN resolution criticising the
regime) should get its act together.
So Burma has become the latest issue - after global warming,
pollution, human rights and the rest - which Western governments can
use to get on their moral high horses and lecture the Chinese about
their supposed international responsibilities. For its part, however,
China has its own agenda and interests for intervening in its
impoverished neighbour state. China wants access to Burma's raw
materials and ports (just as the British colonial power did in the
past), and is building an important pipeline across Burmese soil. The
strong economic and military ties with China have certainly helped the
isolated Burmese regime to ignore token Western sanctions and retain
its hold on power, while its people suffer poverty and repression.
Today, however, whilst the Chinese authorities do not want the
protests to destabilise Burma, they do not want to see their military
allies committing massacres on their doorstep either - especially with
the global spectacle of the Beijing Olympics just around the corner.
Thus regional observers believe that the Chinese have been pressing
the junta, not to make serious concessions, but to show some
restraint. This is not 1988, even in Burma.
The upshot of all this diplomatic posturing and skulduggery is that
the Burmese people's protests against the junta are increasingly
caught up in an international tug of war between the West and China.
If this continues, their destiny will be taken out of their own hands.
Yet the demand seems always to be for more and more international
intervention. International supporters of the Burmese opposition call
for more sanctions, UN motions, or even boycotts of the Beijing
Olympics in protest at China's role. Within Burma, the orientation of
the opposition movement has long been more towards the international
community than the masses at home, with Suu Kyi promoted as a global
figurehead. The monks' main concern this time around has sometimes
seemed to be getting pictures of their protests onto the Internet, for
worldwide consumption.
The corollary of this is the opposition movement's attempt to restrain
the Burmese masses themselves, to keep the protests as moderate as
possible. As Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy told The Times
(London), 'There should be no agitation to topple the military
regime.' It is, of course, understandable that people should be wary
of provoking another full-scale military crackdown. However, the
history of anti-authoritarian protests suggests that moderation and
prayer offer no guarantee of avoiding state repression. Indeed, shows
of passivity often invite the iron fist. In the end, some more
forceful opposition is likely to be needed to bring about the
democratic revolution that the Burmese masses deserve.
In any case, if they are to avoid another defeat or the imposition of
some shabby compromise, the important thing now is for the Burmese
people to take control of the protests and raise their unequivocal
demands for an end to dictatorship and the creation of democracy -
something for which the recent protests have shown the potential.
That, however, is the last thing that many of their newfound friends
in high places in the West appear to want, now urging 'restraint' on
both sides as if they are morally equivalent.
Many in the West love the images of peace-loving monks making polite
demands for reform and appealing for the world to save Burma. That is
their idea of a nice, civilised 'revolution'. The enthusiasm of Bush
or Miliband for these protests stands in stark contrast to the West's
far cooler attitude towards the more militant protests for democracy
and the overthrow of the monarchy in Nepal over the past couple of
years (see Now that's what I call democratisation, by Brendan
O'Neill). The Western authorities prefer their Asian rebels to be meek
and mild and know their place.
In the same speech where he spoke about bringing democracy to Burma,
the UK foreign secretary talked about the need to 'move on' from Iraq-
style militarism and learn the lesson that other types of
international intervention can be more effective for Britain and the
West. By the same token, the critics of Western governments should try
to learn the lesson that diplomatic, political, and economic
intervention in the affairs of a country such as Burma can be just as
damaging to the interests of those on the receiving end.
Mick Hume is spiked's editor-at-large.

 Cioe' tu auspichi che non si faccia niente? Facce capi', fesso...
fino ad oggi tu che hai fatto, servetto dei neonazisti?


Siccome non e' contro il belzebu a stelle e strisce, a sergino non fotte 
nulla. E' come il darfur: da quando gli usa hanno detto che la comunita' 
internazionale non puo' fregarsene, di colpo i nostri antimperialisti hanno 
socperto il piacere di vedere popolazioni civili massacrate da bande di 
scalmanati al soldo del governo.
andrea