Share this article with

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Newsvine
• Facebook
• Kwoff

More information…

Discuss this article

To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

dazza 09/05/08 12:05PM

I am a bit beyond volunteering to to fight wars, but I appreciate the thought here. Trouble is, what do you reckon China, and possibly Russia, who are backing Burma all the way, in insisting on non-intervention by Western forces (and after Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly Iran, I guess I can understand this to a certain extent) are going to be doing when the US Air Force starts the bombing runs?
Just from here, it appears that China and Russia are supporting all the most horrendous regimes in the world, including Mianma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, just to spite the USA! And this does include in the Security Council of the United Nations, so any chance of getting any resolution to take action against Burma has to be ZERO!
Now the USA is talking about doing bombing runs of food drops into Burma. Very dangerous talk, if understandable in a humanity guise. Trouble is, the whole world is now utterly suspicious of ANY action by the United States of America. Even we ‘know’ that their Aid Agencies are packed with CIA agents. They have by their own actions totally destroyed their own credibility.
Really, the only chance to save a few of the people left alive after the disaster, partly caused by the Military Junta of Burma, is if China goes in there in a really big way and does what has to be done, and fast! But, as one Burmese expatriate said on ABC Radio this morning, in reality, the Junta is quite happy for hundreds of thousands of the Delta people to be killed, as they see them as The Enemy! NOT Junta supporters! And I do not believe that the Junta will see spending money on saving their own people is one of their first priorities. I see they want all Western Aid to be directed through them! Of course they do, that would be a propaganda coup, and besides, they would skim off most of it for themselves.
We all know that in a few weeks, if not days, just like the Sudan, just like Zimbabwe, the media attention will move on to the next disaster, and all this will be forgotten, and people will die, by the thousands, as they always do, and Australians, just as we always do, will ‘move on’, and go back to thinking of our pockets and our sex.
Cynical? Yes!
Sorry, but I just do not see this thing having any happy ending. Thousands more people are going to die, as rotting bodies send diseases into the water and air. Lack of food is going to cause rioting, which will take up all the energies and time of the Junta Military forces. The West will sit outside, filling pages of Media, crying out for access, which will continue to be denied. It does seem that all the Junta is interested in at the moment is the Referendum which is to cement their power for ever-more. Nothing much else!
Dazza.

dcelermajer 09/05/08 1:05PM

I have resolved not to write electronic responses in an irate state, but on this occasion I am over-riding my own rule. This trite, thoughtless and ignorant article displays exactly the type of misunderstanding of international relations that gets in the way of Australians usefully contributing to the very difficult task of establishing an effective international community.
First, a couple of facts.
1. UN agencies, including UNICEF, UNHCR and WHO have been working 24/7 coordinating a comprehensive response that will draw on the capacities of the most suitable agencies.
2. The relevant agencies, under the overall coordination of the UN have been applying for entry permission to the Burmese authorities.
3. The Burmese authorities have so far given ambiguous responses, but permission is beginning to emerge.
Burma is perhaps the worlds most closed regime and has not allowed for the type of international intervention that is generally the pattern in natural disasters. In the Tsunami for example, many international aid efforts were not able to enter Burma.

It is understandable to feel frustration that what may now be 100,000 people are dying, while many could be saved by aid organisations. But a mature and thoughtful response is to look at what is stopping the aid getting to them. To blame the UN is to blame the international organisation most poised to intervene effectively. In a world where national sovereignty, even in Burma, is still the effective order, the UN is the closest we have to a transnational agent dedicated to peace, security and human rights. If we care about people in Burma, we can use our democratic identity as Australian citizens to lobby our government to strengthen the international order.

Invasion might sound like a good, worthy and even justifiable one off hit, but we live in a world that goes on past the initial high of self righteousness. No state is prepared to threaten the principle of sovereign right, unless, as we saw in Iraq, it wishes to use high minded justifications like human rights to mask blatant self interest. Genuine concern for the people of other nations requires a slightly more sophisticate response.

Tom McLoughlin 09/05/08 1:44PM

Come on, settle down. Start thinking. That’s the only way to help those afflicted stranded people.

The real politik is not going to change for the sake of a million lives.

A terrible thing to say. A terrible truth.

China is the force of political influence in that region. No doubt about it. Beijing desires the PR flattery for the Olympics not least the torch on everest and the weather looked severe from the footage I saw, those poor poor climbers on patriotic script.

But they couldn’t predict a tsunami in Burma to blow that PR away.

So here is my proposal, no postures or grandstanding or cynicism east to west or west to east, to save as many victims as possible:

1. Every aid organisation or worker accept a Chinese govt partner in their endeavours. Burma will accept Big Brother China’s involvement and they will guard Burma’s interests as far as China goes.

2. Burma cannot refuse China’s involvement in a handshake with western charities because of their influence.

3. China will look good and active in providing a solution in the lead up to Beijing Olympics, and will earn that kudos too if it really expidites matters.

4. The western charities will get to help those according to their apolitical purpose.

5. Burma ‘govt’ will have reassurance their interests are being monitored at least to the extent that China props them up anyway.

Otherwise Burma cyclone can only further distract from the Chinese promotion of the Olympic Games. It’s yet another dimension to being accepted into the world community with the status that central Beijing Govt feels they have earned and desire.

australiana 09/05/08 2:19PM

It is easy, although unattractive, to mock-heroically volunteer for something that would never happen and to which you would definitely not be invited if it did. Dcelermajor is correct in pointing out some of the nonsense in this article. NewMatilda does itself no favours by publishing the grandstanding views of foolish loudmouths.

Tony Ryan 09/05/08 2:39PM

It is always irksome when the hitherto silent fail to empathise.

Of course I considered the options raised; and a lot more besides. But as every writer acknowledges, brevity is the primary virtue.

Dazza

You make excellent points.

However, may I respectfully observe that the Burmese generals, like their colleagues from Bangladesh to the Philippines, are exclusively interested in power and wealth. If it becomes necessary, they have their Swiss accounts to turn to, and will decamp. Ego and principle are like uniforms and can be shed.

Secondly, astute diplomats should already be requesting that Hugo Chavez support a non-US and exclusively UN intervention, on humanitarian grounds. It is unlikely that Russia will adopt a position in opposition to Venezuela.

Dcelermajer

As an apologist for a failed system you have said nothing I can respond to.

Tom McLoughlin

I believe you have misread the power dynamic. To preserve its investment in the Olympics, China is captive to world opinion; not vice versa. But I most certainly support your suggestion that we ask China to take the initiative. How can China refuse.

But this should not be a unilateral exercise and China should lead the UN intervention. To allow China carte blanche will terrify every south east Asian nation; who are fearful of Sino-expansionism. So too should we be.

In the meantime, let’s hear more suggestions; which is the point of this exercise.

Stephen Pickells 09/05/08 3:47PM

I’m really hoping this article was a joke, but considering the carnage that has already been visited on Myanmar, I’m kinda hoping it isn’t. Military intervention is rarely a good idea. Okay, it was necessary to reign in the Nazi war machine in the 40s. But how many wars since then could one say were justified? Does anyone remember Vietnam? How many years did that one go for? How many millions of lives were lost? And what about all the consequences? Believe me, I want the best for the people of Myanmar, but I don’t think a full on invasion is the way to go.

Tony Ryan 09/05/08 4:36PM

Pickells

Vietnam was an aggressive and imperial invasion and had nothing to do with humanitarian objectives; and it was illegal.

I agree that military solutions are the last possible option; but are you asserting that Rwandan genocide would have happened if the UN had sent in troops as requested?

Either offer a better solution or refrain from imposing your incapacity to act.

Australiana

You accuse… ‘to mock-heroically volunteer’. As it happens, I have done basic military training; I am formally Community Development trained; I was the only welfare officer stationed in Darwin’s Northern Suburbs in the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Tracey; I have a range of practical skills ranging from mechanical, welding, carpentry and all-land transport; a capacity to quickly accommodate foreign languages and cultures; and a few decade’s experience in grappling with political realities, including in south Asia.

In your lofty wisdom, just how many skills do you consider I require before I am entitled to express an opinion on this crisis. I meant what I said.

Stephen Pickells 09/05/08 5:54PM

Hey Tom, Vietnam was Jack Kennedy’s attempt to save face after the debacle that happened in Cuba. If that little incident had been handled more professionally, then all the subsequent horrors in South East Asia could well have been avoided.
I don’t know about Rwanda, but I’m pretty certain that if an imperialist UN led mission (which - let’s be frank - means a US mission) were to invade Myanmar, then China would be onto it like a shot. Fuck the Olympics.

dmcarthur 09/05/08 6:32PM

Seems like a lot of grandstanding about the big picture here, but not much informed comment about Burma. Which is a pity, because the challenges are huge and deserving of more serious debate in Australia and internationally.

Burmese opposition groups are not calling for an invasion but rather for genuine dialogue between the junta, pro-democracy forces and the ethnic minorities for national reconciliation. However the past 15 years of constitution-drafting has been controlled by the junta’s hand picked delegates, which is one of the reasons the opposition is calling for citizens to vote "no" in the constitutional referendum tomorrow, May 10. No one pretends that the climate is conducive to a free, fair and credible referendum, but neither does the opposition want to deny voters their first opportunity to vote since their overwhelming voice in the 1990 elections was ignored by the junta. The international community’s challenge is to hold the junta to account.

The junta’s prioritisation of its constitional referendum while refusing to repeal restrictions on multilateral aid to cyclone and flood victims is no surprise. During decades of armed conflict in eastern Burma, the junta’s counter-insurgency efforts have targeted civilians to undermine the resistance, and restricted humanitarian agencies from accessing the most vulnerable communities in conflict affected areas.

This week, restrictions on visa applications for aid workers, customs procedures for relief goods, access and movements, and the distribution of relief goods are inhibiting the efforts of multilateral and independent aid groups. (Thailand and India provided bilateral relief with much fanfare, but who knows how the junta used those goods once they were received at Rangoon airport). Dcelermajor is correct in defending the UN from unfair criticism in this regard, as the quickest and highest level protests to the SPDC have been facilitated by the UN rather than individual governments.

Given the junta’s lack of capacity and political will to assist and protect its own citizens, there is a strong case for the international community’s "responsibility to protect" to be invoked in the case of Burma. Indonesia, China and India apparently tried to block this from being tabled at the UN Security Council earlier this week. Tony suggests military invasion but relief drops from air or sea, targeted financial sanctions and a global arms embargo are more realistic objectives.

Tony Ryan 10/05/08 8:58AM

dmcarthur

Your position is entirely reliant on the integrity of the UN. Most of us have grown beyond that level of naivete.

Secondly, built into your obviously knowledgeable presentation (which is appreciated) is the second presumption that voices heard in Burma represent the people. They do not, any more than Bob Brown, John Howard or Kevin Rudd represent the voice of the Australian people. My surveys reveal quite the opposite; that, depending upon specific issue, between 74% and 94% disagree with our so-called representatives. This experience is universal. Representationalism is not democracy, as Abe Lincoln pointed out.

The third factor you ignore is that this is our money we are talking about, and 54% of Australians have incomes below $15,000, so this is a very raw nerve you are poking. I am not aware of any survey on this, but anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that Australians are fed up with their aid money being hijacked by bloated agency executives, or by corrupt governments to further oppress their own people.

So I return to my original position, that we contribute nothing to Burma; OR if we do, it is in circumstances that guarantee legitimate assistance.

The only acceptable way this can happen is through the UN, but with our aid monitored by reliable Australians. Most certainly, the question remains floating, do the Burmese victims want such intervention? There is only one way this can be answered, dmcarthur, and that is to ask yourself, if you are holding your dying child in your arms, what would be your answer?

dazza 10/05/08 11:46AM

We learn that 39 tonnes of aid has been ‘hi-jacked’ by the Burmese Military. One can guess that most if not all of this will never get anywhere near the people most in need. One can also guess that any aid that is not directly taken by aid agencies to the people in need will also end up in Military hands. The Junta are insisting that ALL aid be distributed by their Military, or with the ‘guidance’ of the Military.
We also learn that aid is being made conditional on the receptors putting a Yes vote to the Referendum in the Ballot box, undoubtedly placed in front of them. Hear also that Ballot papers with YES already printed on them are being distributed, and people being forced to place them in the boxes.
The Burmese Junta have no thought whatsoever for the people affected by the disaster. After all, they have spent many years exterminating large numbers of those same people, as well as others.
I hear ‘Stockings’ Downer raving on (and you have to say that it was incoherent, listening to it) about how the Rudd Government should behave, and intimating that the Libs would have done things differently. How any Radio Station, even the down market ABC, can still air this blathering garbage is beyond me.
I say again, unless China, and perhaps India, get themselves into gear and act immediately to provide the aid, or work with the UN, NOT against it, there is no hope for the millions of people affected.
They will die, and continue to die, while the world watches and cries tears of frustration, but will NOT act, because of politics!
Shame on the whole DAMNED lot of them.
But Military action, particularly by the US, and it’s puppet, the UN, is just NOT ON. Already, that US battle group out there in the seas off Burma and Thailand, ostensibly for Humanitarian purposes, must be sending shivers up the spines of millions of people, knowing the tendencies of Bush and Co. to act unilaterally, and rashly. A War in Burma is the last thing we want right now. What we do need is people talking to China’s (and India’s) leaders about sensible action, working WITH the UN and other aid bodies.
Dazza.

Rockjaw 10/05/08 12:31PM

This is not the first time the world has faced a humanitarian crisis complicated by military control over the victims.

One such prior occasion occured soon after the last World War when many desperate and starving West Berlin residents were blockaded by the Russian military but who were saved by Allied bombers which flew essential supplies into the area cut off by the Russians.

Tony, the "Western World" has changed since then. The Cold War is over, not because we "won", but because "we" have become more like "them".

There is no "Free West" vs "Eastern Soviet Bloc" anymore because there is no "free" anymore. Even free countries like Switzerland and Liechtenstein were "blacklisted" by our own Australian government for observing the rights of their citizens to greater financial and personal freedoms than those which our own Australian government has left us with in laws passed under duress from such international organisations as the OECD, CFR, UN, etc.

Tony, you also mention that "this is our money we are talking about". Well, no, you are wrong. It is not "our money" at all. Legislation pertaining to our RBA and our Australian dollar specifies that neither the Commonwealth nor any Australian State may coin or print money. Furthermore, the RBA, for all intents and purposes, belongs to the "Crown" and not to the "Commonwealth of Australia". So it is not "our money".

When Australia finds the courage quotient to print it’s own currency maybe then we will be able to call the "Australian dollar" "our money".

The plastic paper with "Australian dollars" printed on it is anything BUT Australian. They all belong to the bankers and financiers which you mention in your article.

There is nobody left in the "West" who believes in freedom, liberty or the right of the individual human being to self determination.

The world will witness the bombing of an Al-Qods camp in Iran and the ignition of yet another genocide in yet another middle east nation before the world will come to the aid of Burma in an act of mercy which once typified the actions of what were once "Free" and "Western" nations.

One of those "free nations" was the old Australia, a free nation of free people which our parents and grandparents once knew.

Our civilisation is in decline because we have lost our love of freedom. We have become the world’s oppressors and aggressors and our "Western Superpowers", England and USA, have become the modern day "Pax Barboricum" responsible for the genocide of many millions of innocent people, from the concentration camps of the Boer War where more than 50% of an entire nation’s women and children were murdered by us to the genocide of millions in Vietnam, in modern day Iraq and, of course, the worst genocide of the 20th Century, the ongoing attempt to eliminate an entire nation of people in the Palestines.

Before we can help the Burmese we need to do some soul searching and ask ourselves who we are and who we have become because it is my belief that it is in fact we who are in desperate need of liberation and salvation before we can "liberate" or "save" anyone else.

George Vickers

Tony Ryan 10/05/08 1:21PM

Dazza and George Vickers

Every word both of you say is true; and yes, the US must be told to back off.

But if we are not decisive, and act now; men, women and children will die by the hundreds of thousands; and with disease looming on the horizon, perhaps millions.

All because we were frozen in indecision.

Have we now become the Licky Country? Should we change the configuration of our footy guernsies and have the green on the front only?

australiana 10/05/08 3:48PM

The more Tony Ryan goes on the more daffy the whole thing becomes. A UN military intervention led by Hugo Chavez? Russia automatically supporting because "It is unlikely that Russia will adopt a position in opposition to Venezuela."?
These are just a couple of Mr Ryan’s transparently loopy proposals.
I don’t doubt that his heart is in the right place but, frankly, his head is not.

rmg1859 11/05/08 2:02PM

Tony,

‘54% of Australians have incomes below $15,000’ ? I don’t think so.

Burma is a Chinese protectorate: any talk of invasion would have the PLA transferring half of its four million troops towards the Burmese border quick-smart.

The US would lead a UN-sponsored invasion ? And open up a third front ? They’re already losing on the other two, in Iraq and Afghhanistan, and if a single American soldier set foot on the place, or a single bomber flew overhead, China would be into Taiwan like a rat up a rope.

Joe

Tony Ryan 11/05/08 6:15PM

Could whoever reads to Joe and Australiana, please read the posts back very slowly.

No one suggested that Chavez play an active role; merely support UN intervention in Burma, to preempt Russian opposition. And if you don’t understand the Russian/Venezuelan alliance you should get mummy to read big person’s books to you.

But we can now see where Alexander Downer’s fans have drifted off to; to clog up Internet discussion sites.

Joe, the last thing any sensible person would want is a US-led UN Invasion. Apart from being an oxymoron, once again, nobody on my side of the fence suggested such a thing. But elsewhere, some writers have suggested that the announced intention alone might produce fruitful results. I am OK with that; whatever works.

And Aussie incomes? Instead of sucking away on your Murdoch formula, how about doing your own survey in the suburbs and let us know your findings. So far, one nationally renowned economist has challenged our figures and when he made some enquiries, suddenly took us very seriously; or so he said. He promised some collaboration and hasn’t been heard from since.

In my experience, that is the way of you elitists. You deride and vilify and misrepresent, but you don’t have the integrity or guts to get out in the real world and produce real evidence. Consistent with your lack of substance, you also hide behind nom de plumes.

Now back to Burma; unless a miracle occurs, it is UN intervention or the people die. Now, spineless ones, offer your solution and use your real names.

dmcarthur 11/05/08 6:49PM

This discussion doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. From my perspective on the Thai-Burma border, it seems ill-informed so I suggest a few websites for people to check out instead :

www.australiaburmanetwork.org
www.altsean.org
www.burmalibrary.org
www.irrawaddy.org
http://yangon.unic.org/
www.tbbc.org

rmg1859 11/05/08 8:23PM

Tony,

My point was that the US would be very unlikely to take the lead in a UN invasion, given its present troubles. But when you go on about Rockefeller owning the land that the UN headquarters are built on, etc., etc., it does seem that this is what you are hinting at, a UN beholden to the US and ready to act as its puppet in relation to invasions. I’m not sure if it’s worked all that well so far.

And of course Chavez would, if anything, be friendly to the fascist regime in Burma, through his links to Russia and China.

According to the latest Census, the average income of all Australians over 15 years old is about $ 25,000-26,000 p.a. Check it out. I don’t know what the colonialist reactionary fascist Murdoch press and its lickspittles say about this.

Elitists ? What on earth does that have to do with anything ? Deriding whom and what ? What’s up your arse ?

My name is Joe Lane. I was born in Sydney and I live in Adelaide. What is your real name, ‘Tony’ ?

Solutions:

* put pressure on China, either through its craving to make a good impression with ‘its’ Olympics, or in trade - getting strict about standards of imports, or dragging our feet about export pricing;

* get behind World Vision etc. and go door to door raising funds for Burma;

* support Burmese refugees however we can;

* be much more prepared to give support to specific emergencies like this cyclone and its terrible aftermath;

* gove general support, through funding, demonstrations, doorknock campaigns, to human rights and autonomy movements around the world.

Joe Lane, Adelaide: rmg1859@yahoo.co.au

australiana 11/05/08 8:39PM

If you believe that Russia takes its foreign policy direction from Hugo Chavez then you have taken a sharp left into fairyland, never to be seen again.

I was amused by the claim that I am Alexander Downer fan. I have never worn stockings and garters in my life and I have no intention of starting now.

It is pointless to continue arguing with fools, no matter how well meaning, and so I am happy to let Tony Ryan have the last word and for readers to make up their own minds. As I stated in my last post the more he writes the more he reveals himself to be deeply deluded and incapable of presenting feasible proposals.

rmg1859 11/05/08 10:44PM

I’m getting very intrigued by the either/or way of thinking of so many people, binary, oppositional, whatever you might call it: i.e. if you don’t support A then you must support B. But people in the real world operate according to many dynamics, many different issues, positionns, preferences, angles, perceptions. Any two people will have points of agreement, and any two people will have points of disagreement. That’s how we are.

Some issues are far more clear-cut than others, of course. But take this issue of Burma and its appalling human rights record: to criticise the Burmese fascist junta does not that mean one supports, say, the US, or the UN - one may reasonably have a position of ‘a pox on all their houses’. To oppose China in its drive towards fascism does not mean that one hates Chinese people or Chinese art or culture, or does not have admiration for Chinese history and scientific achievement, only that one is dusgusted with China’s human rights record or militaristic stance or whatever. To criticise China is not to be totally uncritical of India, or the US, or Japan, or Taiwan - the world is multipolar, not bipolar, i suppose that is what i am trying to get at.

So when one of us criticises somebody’s pet project, or point of view, it does not necessarily mean that we are the rabid followers of some alternative - there are always many alternatives. I was going door t odoor back in about 1970 in Auckland, asking people whether the US should be in vietnam - most said no, and I usually left it there, but one Maori woman added ’ Yeah, they should send in the Maori battalion, they’ll clean up the bastards.’ Not quite what I was after: opposition to the US presencve there ,but not asi expected. That’s how the world works, many points of view, some clustering around one’s own, some quite independent, some clustering around those of one’s opponents. The world is usually not either/or.

So it is a wastye of time accusing one’s enemies of being Murdoch suck-holes, or US running dogs, or Chinese pawns, etc. We each stand on our own bit of space, and think our own thoughts, more like islands in an archipelago than dumb lumps of a continental mass. As such, we should respect each other’s honestly-held opinions without slagging each other. Not that I don’t enjoy doing exactly that, when it is obviously called for.

Joe

Tony Ryan 12/05/08 10:39AM

Joe

So now you defame Hugo Chavez.

Chavez leads one of the few governments in the world to dramatically increase investment into health and education for the people; particularly the poor. He kicked out the UN’s World Bank and the IMF, accurately labeling them as creators of poverty. With correct compensation, he nationalised oil resources and production, to ensure his people benefited, and not simply the US Oil Companies, banks and supportive elite, as in the earlier scenario.

Chavez has banned the water corporations, Bechtel and Vivendi, who took over Bolivia’s water supplies; which forced the poor to pay up to one third of their incomes for their own water. Only a revolution restored a semblance of resource justice, a leader of which is now the president of Bolivia, indigene Evo Morales; whom Chavez supports.

Chavez has also led with the establishment of a pan South American Development Bank, specifically to finance autonomy and egalitarian equal opportunity in Central and South America.

These actions provoked US evangelists to demand that Bush have Chavez assassinated. Nice company you are in, Joe. These are the real fascists.

Meanwhile the course that you recommend to ameliorate the plight of Burmese, is the same as that of the Australian Government; maintain the status quo. Ironically, this government policy you support has its genesis in an ALP that has invited Bechtel and Vivendi into Australia, embraced Halliburton, is currently trying to privatise NSW electricty in spite of 7 to 1 opposition; and privatised 70% of state education funding; taxpayer’s money. It is about to introduce a budget that will further reduce public expenditure.

The Australian Government is headed in the exact opposite direction to that adopted by Chavez; as are almost all other governments.

I cannot see into Vladimir Putin’s soul, but his political astuteness is legend. He has publicly supported Chavez, and is the only leader in the world to have a vast and spontaneous youth following, the NASHI. In a context of Putin’s pro-consensus democracy speeches, my presumption that he will continue to support Chavez is a reasonable one.

These are the real parameters of your politics today, Joe. I acknowledge your contributions of the past, but your words evidence that the subject of aid and global events has not dominated your reading of late.

Australiana

Instead of offering counter solutions you merely indulge in effete negativism and cheap derision. You have said nothing I can or should respond to.

I reiterate, the entire purpose of the orginal post was to identify a brief rationale, and consequential position on aid to Burma; and challenge other readers to improve on this. In other words, give me a better idea and I will go with that like a shot.

rmg1859 12/05/08 10:57AM

I actually support most of what Chavez is doing for the people of Venezuela. But I didn’t support his bid to be Life President. I certainly support his setting up of twenty thousand community councils giving ordinary people voice for the first time.

But we would have to admit that Chavez would either keep quiet about the fascist regime in Burma (perhaps we could check that out on Google News? Type in ‘Burma’ and ‘Chavez’) and that he would give his tacit support to the governments in Iran, Sudan, China, Russia, perhaps even Serbia. That’s his political reality, his modus vivendi in a hostile world. I can appreciate his position and so I wouldn’t be too hard on him for that.

And thanks, ‘Tony’, for proving my point about people having an either/or view of the world - ‘if you are not totally for me, you must be totally against me.’ Fascinating proof of an idle supposition !

Joe Lane, Adelaide, rmg1859@yahoo.com.au

Search

Topics

• Australian Politics
• Business & Consumerism
• Civil Society
• Editorial
• Global Footprint
• International Affairs
• Media and Culture
• Satire
• All Articles

Your Preferences

Sign-in or register to access further site preferences