2009 Matt Kennard interview:
I’m not optimistic, because there’s no real pressure. I mean the US makes a fuss about it at the UN, but it’s just showboating. If they meant anything they would say they are going to sanction India for cooperating with the Burmese junta.
As long as India and China support the junta there’s no reason for the generals to back off. If they back off they are just going to be killed, they are not going to survive if there is a popular uprising, so you can’t expect them to give up peacefully.
The history of the US and the Burmese junta is an ugly one which is not being talked about. In the 1950s – the period of decolonization – Burma kicked the British out, like they were everywhere, they were moving towards a functioning parliamentary democracy, with some major international statesmen like Rhutan, who was Secretary-General of the UN and a decent person, I met him.In 1958 the Eisenhower administration was involved in serious clandestine operations all over the region – they were trying to overthrow the government of Indonesia, they were sponsoring an insurrection in Cambodia, Vietnam we know about – but they were also trying to harass China, and one of the ways they were doing this was by bringing Chinese nationalist forces and exporting them to northern Burma so that they could carry out terrorist attacks from China. The Chinese nationalist generals had different ideas.
Instead of moving into China and getting killed by the Red Army, they decided to organise tribesmen in the hill areas and start narcotics production and enrich themselves, and in fact that’s one of the main sources of the famous Gold Triangle. It became one of the major centers of opium production worldwide. The Burmese tried to repress it, but they were unable to. The military were upset about it and eventually staged a coup which overthrew the parliamentary government. The junta is still there now.
The US is vocal about Burma now because it's cheap. They can say they are terribly upset about something we can’t do anything about. Why were they upset about Pol Pot? It was horrible, did they have a suggestion? You take a look back, there was not one suggestion about what we should do about it. So it’s a cheap way to pontificate and look righteous.
What I think might really make sense is diplomatic efforts that would involve primarily India, where the US has plenty of influence. It doesn’t have that much influence on China but India is different. To pressure India, Thailand and China also, to make moves towards some kind of rapprochement. Sanctions are probably meaningless and harmful. But diplomatic steps could be made – some way to ease the Burmese junta out without committing suicide, you’ve got to give them some options otherwise they won’t let go. As long as they have the complete loyalty of the army which apparently they do have, no uprising is going to take place, people are going to get slaughtered in the streets.
Burma had one of the few elected governments in the region in the 1950s, and was intent on pursuing a neutralist course. The Eisenhower administration was carrying out vigorous efforts to enlist the governments in the region into its Cold War crusades. As part of this broad campaign of subversion and violence, Washington installed thousands of heavily armed Chinese Nationalist troops in northern Burma to carry out cross-border operations into China. Burma vigorously objected, but in vain. The China forces began arming and supporting insurgent minorities in that turbulent region. In reaction, power within Burma began to shift to the military, leading finally to the 1962 coup. The matter is discussed by Audrey and George Kahin, Subversion as Foreign Policy. George Kahin was one of the leading Southeast Asian scholars, virtually the founder of the academic discipline in the US. The consequences of the US-UK-Israeli operations you describe (enormous UK investment in Burma, earlier US weapons sales, recent Israeli weapons sales to the junta, Chevron Oil's continued supply of millions and millions of dollars in oil money) are, of course, to strengthen the military junta. These matters are unreported and unknown in the US, apart from specialists and activists, because they interfere too dramatically with the doctrine that "we are good" and "they are evil", the foundation of virtually every state propaganda system.
I suspect that any popular uprising right now would result in a slaughter. On the other hand, the military leaders are aging, and there may be popular forces developing that can erode their power from within.
The rulers have a good thing going for themselves, nothing to gain by yielding power and no major risks in using it violently. So that's what they'll probably do, until the military erodes from within. Mass non-violent protest is predicated on the humanity of the oppressor. Quite often it doesn't work. Sometimes it does, in unexpected ways. But judgments about that would have to be based on intimate knowledge of the society and its various strands.
I think it's appropriate for people to rise up, but it's not for me to tell people to risk mass murder. As for assassinating leaders, the question is very much like asking whether it is appropriate to kill murderers. They should be apprehended by non-violent means, if possible. If they pull a gun and start shooting, it's legitimate to kill them in self-defence, if there is no lesser option.
The US can have and occasionally does have benign influences on many things. Now exactly how to deal with the Burmese junta is a question that has to be raised. Burma has a rotten, horrible government and surely, someone should try to help the Burmese people to free themselves from it, but the question of exactly how to do it is not simple. Sanctions often backfire - you really have to think of the right means of doing it. Sometimes, engagement is more effective. You really have to think this through, you cannot just have formulas.
No comments:
Post a Comment